BoxRec

with?

I don't have an axe to grind with this question. I'm just curious as to your impressions.

For instance, it was surely not in the class of punch that Marciano used to knock out Jersey Joe Walcott in their first fight, right?

Maybe in the class of the right that Liston used on Westphal?

Would it have put most world class heavies down, even if not for the 10-count? Or was it a sure enough devastating knockout punch?

Just wondering.

Its hard to gauge a punch unless your at the receiving end of it.
After all the effectiveness of a punch has always been a physical
thing and not purely a visual.

I will say this, it won George 2.0 the fight that he was losing and
it was enough to put down a top leve boxer.

Robinson wrote:Its hard to gauge a punch unless your at the receiving end of it.
After all the effectiveness of a punch has always been a physical
thing and not purely a visual.

I will say this, it won George 2.0 the fight that he was losing and
it was enough to put down a top leve boxer.

Agree with everything you say.

The timing of the punch was excellent.

Still, I wonder.

Its because it didnt look cool or epic.

If Foreman had a Rocky like facial expression and
over extended his body with maximum exertion then
it would look all the more dramatic.

Instead Foreman hit him and he looked more like he
was ordering extra frys.

It looked like a great punch to me.

One that would have put better guys than Moorer in trouble.

It looked like a great punch to me too. Foreman "blinded" Moorer with the jab, then hit him on the chin with a right he didn't see coming. That one would have been tough for anyone to deal with.

It was great enough to win a championship . . .

How much greater does it have to be?

raylawpc wrote:It was great enough to win a championship . . .

How much greater does it have to be?

That's a good way of putting it.

I see Yancey's point viewing it, though. It doesn't look as tremendous as a befitting punch for the scope of its feat would be expected to be. However, consider Moorer rising five times from the canvas against Holyfield, in a fight he had lost all hope in (because he had absolutely everything to get up for when Foreman knocked him down). Consider him getting up so valiantly twice against Cooper.

Moorer had heart, & that shouldn't be in dispute. He couldn't rise from the punch. I think that acquits the blow pretty decisively.

Moorer was bleeding from the mouth when he was on the canvas,so you know Foreman hit something solid.

I didn't think it looked like much when it happened but when I watched the replay I saw that the timing and accuracy of the punch was perfect. I think it would have troubled most any fighter and knocked out quite a few, even at the highest level.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:It was great enough to win a championship . . .

How much greater does it have to be?

That's a good way of putting it.

I see Yancey's point viewing it, though. It doesn't look as tremendous as a befitting punch for the scope of its feat would be expected to be. However, consider Moorer rising five times from the canvas against Holyfield, in a fight he had lost all hope in (because he had absolutely everything to get up for when Foreman knocked him down). Consider him getting up so valiantly twice against Cooper.

Moorer had heart, & that shouldn't be in dispute. He couldn't rise from the punch. I think that acquits the blow pretty decisively.

Fair enough. You guys have convinced me it was a knockout punch.

As mentioned, the timing of the punch was excellent.

As an analogy, I used to play quite a bit of golf and the best, most solid drives I hit were all about the timing.

it was a punch that was thrown with perfect timing,the punchfollowed a couple of other punches that seemed to have already had moorer in a staggered position,which allowed the well timed punch to dismantle moores senses and send him to the canvas for the count out

yancey wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:It was great enough to win a championship . . .

How much greater does it have to be?

That's a good way of putting it.

I see Yancey's point viewing it, though. It doesn't look as tremendous as a befitting punch for the scope of its feat would be expected to be. However, consider Moorer rising five times from the canvas against Holyfield, in a fight he had lost all hope in (because he had absolutely everything to get up for when Foreman knocked him down). Consider him getting up so valiantly twice against Cooper.

Moorer had heart, & that shouldn't be in dispute. He couldn't rise from the punch. I think that acquits the blow pretty decisively.

Fair enough. You guys have convinced me it was a knockout punch.

As mentioned, the timing of the punch was excellent.

As an analogy, I used to play quite a bit of golf and the best, most solid drives I hit were all about the timing.

That's a comparison Corrie Sanders once made.

Brutu wrote:Moorer was bleeding from the mouth when he was on the canvas,so you know Foreman hit something solid.

He had something like 38 stitches inside his mouth after that. Imagine how uncomfortable that would be!

Robinson wrote:Its because it didnt look cool or epic.

If Foreman had a Rocky like facial expression and
over extended his body with maximum exertion then
it would look all the more dramatic.

Instead Foreman hit him and he looked more like he
was ordering extra frys.

That was a part of why it was so effective as well, it was a perfectly straight punch thrown with perfect technique and balance and put Moorer's lights out after he was already staggered from a previous one-two. It didn't look like much, but it adds to the aura of Foreman's power that even with relatively light blows by his standards he could KO a guy like Moorer who had a pretty solid chin.

yancey wrote:with?

I don't have an axe to grind with this question. I'm just curious as to your impressions.

For instance, it was surely not in the class of punch that Marciano used to knock out Jersey Joe Walcott in their first fight, right?

Maybe in the class of the right that Liston used on Westphal?

Would it have put most world class heavies down, even if not for the 10-count? Or was it a sure enough devastating knockout punch?

Just wondering.

Many punches dont look anywhere as devastating on camera or at least certain camera angles as they are in reality. Often it has to do with who is throwing them. The left hook to the chin that Tyson floored Berbick with three times didnt look that "devastating" in fact it required Tyson to lean on Berbick to get him over.

By the same token the right hander that Hearns smashed SRL with in the 3rd round of the rematch didnt look that hard.

Ditto Foreman-Moorer.

The common ingrediant all three punchers were murderous punchers.

Moorer I think didnt have the aptitude to get up. He wasnt out. He had just had enough.

In answer I think it was a harder punch than it looked but the kayo had a lot to do with Moorers appetite for further battle that night.

Moorer when he was a LH seemed a violent lean bodied young man who liked to fight. The same when he fought Stewart in 1991.

By 1994 and the 2000's when Tua kayoed him he seemingly was now a pudgy sober individual who didnt want to get his hands wet.At least thats how it looked to me.

To be fair, Tua laid him out on the bottom rope and his eyes looked like they were made of glass (as they did in the Foreman KO).

Foreman had the type of power that would knock you across a ring but not flat dead. Unless you stood way too close like lazy Michael did. Probably like gettin hit with a bowling ball doing 90mph.