Yes, I agree. And Moore and Walcott were really good at getting it across, doing good direct work. I mean it's not reaosnable to suggest that Walcott landed a Charles KO style punch every time he fought (and possibly even twice!) but he had that kind of gear in his locker. It was timing, sharps, skill and angles that made Walcott and Moore dangerous. Not power. Though i'm not suggesting they were powderpuffs, of course.
These tiers, I'm not seeing it at all. If someone wanted to say Ruddock could hit as hard as Liston, or was a better one-punch hitter than Bruno, I'd accept that, for an example. If someone said Lennox Lewis hit as hard as anyone, that's reasonable. I'd say Witherspoon is sometimes, based on several of his performances, not regarded as a killer puncher. On the other hand, he was a murderous puncher I can throw doubt on Shavers, because he hardly knocked anyone decent out. Norton and Ellis ... but people tell me Norton was a bit chinny, Ellis was a small guy. Foreman, Liston could clubbed guys around, I rarely seen them knock a guy cold with one big shot. etc.
Well, then it all comes down to definitions. What being a "hard puncher" means. Whatever "power" means.
Yeah, you could definitely shuffle those guys around, and there's an enormous amount of discussion to be had about 1,2,3 etc etc. The point is, Moore doesn't belong.
Well those definitions are very clear in my mind, but it wouldn't matter if they weren't for the purposes of this discussion, frankly. I can't think of a reasonable definition from anyone that would include Moore at or near the very top of the list.
Well, for a start, he knocked out loads of fighters. I think he holds the record. When Walcott's been discussed here, his relatively low KO numbers were cited against him. The hard evidence for, say, Earnie Shavers, seems to be KO numbers.
Moore holds absolutely no records for knocking out heavyweights. He did KO a lot of heavyweights - fewer than Muhammad Ali though, I bet.
Everything is subjective. The opinion that Italians are genetically inferior is subjective. But it is not beyond criticism because reasoned thinking indicates it is untrue, and anyone believing it is deluded. Anyone who believes Archie Moore is one of the most dangerous heavyweight punchers, or that fighting him represents one of the most dangerous tests for a heavyweight vis-a-vis punching is also deluded.
The problem here is Marciano's hero-worshippers cannot produce a top tier puncher that he faced. They have Moore or Walcott, neither top tier, or even second tier ,and in their efforts to inflate the aforementioned power of these men they come out with the most circuitous logic that you are likely to ever experience.
I don't know. How many out-of-shape light-heavies, glass chinned tomato cans and hapless taxi drivers did GEORGE FOREMAN knock out ? Who's counting ? How many of EARNIE SHAVERS' 68 KO victims would go the distance with Archie Moore? All valid questions, we don't know the answers to.
Walcott and Moore were respected and described as punchers in their day. By writers, fellow fighters and trainers. That's how reputation starts in almost every historical case. This "top tier" stuff is highly contentious, imo. How many tiers are there ? How many guys in your top tier?
:good exactly its all down to definition and interpretation. Myself I feel that a severe puncher must be someone who lands severe punches and knocks out world class fighters. I understand the other view that the "first tier" punchers hurt more With less and require less leverage and sharpness to get the job done but alternately might not be any more deadly than the sharp shooter all in all. It is subjective. Anticipation has a lot to do with it too.