Who would do better against the 200lb + Heavyweights post 1960 R Marciano or A Moore

Stylistically, yeah, you could certainly make a case for Archie Moore being better suited to fight them.

 

Valdes 209lbs.


Bottom line Moore was past his best, which was at 175lbs.
Bottomline.Moore was at least 38years old, his mother swore he was 2 years older.

Bottom line Marciano was a great heavyweight, Moore was not.

Marciano does not do well against a lot of modern heavyweights because of his style of fighting which was almost the opposite of Moore's.

Bottom line Marciano would be in jeopardy against big skilled YOUNG heavyweights because of his:



1.Porous defence .
2. Lack of stature .
3.Lack of speed of hand.
4.Lack of foot speed
5.His propensity to cut.

Is that the response you wanted?

 

Both fare badly, Moore less so because he had some defence and some proven wins over large rated boxers . I won't say especially skilled but rated in their era.
Whatever the consensus arrived at here it is meaningless.

Ali is given life and death by Frazier, and Norton , both are blown away by Foreman ,so Foreman destroys Ali?

The end result blows the point of this thread clean out of the water.:-(

 

No, but he was a couple of inches taller at least, with substantially longer arms and was much faster on his feet.

 

If you're under sized, the equalizer is power, stamina, and durability.

Smaller fighter in terms of stature and reach often have difficult outboxing larger men with skills.

Marciano would be my pick.

 

Moore was certainly more proven against bigger heavyweights, but this does not mean that he would have done better.

Marciano's lack of fights against bigger opponents is not an argument that he would have fared badly against them, it merely means that we are uncertain one way or another.

 

Moore had a huge punch as a LIGHTHEAVY , I don't class him in the elite as a heavyweight puncher.

BTW This thread is about Moore and Marciano and since you made it you should know that, and focus on them, it has zero to do with Jack Dempsey,and if you think in your childish way you will get my goat by tearing down Dempsey because he is my favourite you are mistaken.
The reason for this is you no longer have any credibility with me ,you are relegated to the ranks of the juvenile fan boys. Enjoy your time there.:hi:

 

Moore went 21-0. Of that 21 4 were lightheavies and 1 was a middle weight



Now name the 19 over 200lbs men he ko'd



If you could actually read a post without misinterpreting it because of your blind Marciano bias you would note that I stated Marciano never defeated large skilled heavyweights, but that did not mean he couldn't ,just that he didn't.

Oh and Baker scaled 209lbs for the Moore fight not 215lbs.

 

This.

 

About the same. Every undisputed, and even some disputed, H.W. champion since Liston COMFORTABLY beats both of them, with the bigger punchers knocking them out. Yes you saw it here first, EVEN knocking out the supposedly indestructible Marciano.

 

Who was the best all-time heavyweight Archie Moore beat?

Nino Valdes by decision? Bob Baker by late tko?

How did Moore do against guys who held the heavyweight title?

Moore is 0-6. Ezzard Charles knocked out Moore and decisioned him twice. Rocky Marciano knocked out Moore. Floyd Patterson knocked out Moore. Muhammad Ali knocked out Moore.

Who was the best all-time heavyweight Rocky Marciano beat?

Joe Louis by KO.

How did Rocky Marciano do against guys who held the heavyweight title?

Rocky is 5-0. He knocked out Joe Louis. He knocked out Jersey Joe Walcott twice. He outpointed and he knocked out Ezzard Charles.

How would Rocky do against the "bigger" heavyweights of the 1960s (who weren't much bigger than the 50s heavyweights) compared to Moore?

Well, he couldn't do worse than Moore's NO wins against the best heavyweights.

Rocky Marciano would do better.

 

Marciano would do better

His endurance and inside game would serve him well