Did Bob Foster Have Harder One Shot Power Than Archie Moore?

[billeau2]

Irrelevant we are discussing and comparing one shot power not where either were ranked.

And you do not think performance moving up is relevant? Really? Its easier to compare that process than to pontificate that a fighter lost a certain percentage of power as compared to another fighter... Just saying grand poo pa.

[billeau2]

Foster fought 29 men above the lhvy limit ie classified as heavyweights he stopped 26 of them.So the statement that he was never competitive with heavies is total BS.
Five of his losses came to ranked heavyweights, 3 were title holders.
I am in no way entrenched on this question, all I'm am trying to do is provoke debate, which BTW seems to be heartily discouraged here.
My own view is that Moore was the superior Lhvy and Hvy and the superior puncher , but that Foster had superior one shot power.It's debatable imo, which is rather the point of the thread!
Certainly Moore beat better heavies but the idea Foster could not hurt the bigger men is crap! He floored Whitehurst and stopped Besmanoff.Foster's problem,imo was his frame could not take the bigger men's punches.Moore was built along much sturdier lines.
NB you need to be able to deliver power and ,if your reflexes /legs are not compliant you cannot do so .Power is the last thing to go is a lazy oft repeated statement that should include several riders.If George Foreman, at his current age had a stationary target in front of him he could probably still deck him,if that guy was mobile chances are he couldn't deliver his power to the target.
This was emphatically demonstrated when George fought Morrison in 93 and Savarese and Briggs in 97.
Fighters age at different rates ,Louis was through at 37, Tom Sharkey at 29.Walcott was still a fine fighter at 38 but ,imo not the guy who had taken Louis so close six years earlier.Louis said he knew he didn't have it against Charles,but that pre war he thought he would have stopped him inside 7rds.With ring rounds Louis managed to get some of his timing back after Charles trounced but his Brown Bomber power never returned and anyone who says different should take up watching wrestling. Not just my ,"average fans," opinion ,but that of all the major sports writers of his time.

The bolded I agree with. I actually think Foster gets misjudged on why he lost to Frazier... people assume it was an issue of size. I agree with you about the argument about Foster and bigger men as well. Touche.

[billeau2]

Wilder is widely considered to be among the top ten power punchers at heavyweight.Some proclaim him the top heavyweight ****er of all time..
Anyone ever made either of those claims for Moore?

No but captain you do know that Moore's KO percentage was like the best for years? May still be? And Wilder has not fought the breadth of opposition where one coulld compare the two, not a hard point to grasp. Not really arguing anyone's punching prowess here. Just want to compare apples to apples, so to speak.

[Ivich]

No but captain you do know that Moore's KO percentage was like the best for years? May still be? And Wilder has not fought the breadth of opposition where one coulld compare the two, not a hard point to grasp. Not really arguing anyone's punching prowess here. Just want to compare apples to apples, so to speak.

Thirty five percent of Moore's ko's are over dross a lot of them being mismatches.He was a very astute punch picker who knew how to create opportunities,but I doubt he hit as a hard with a single punch as, not only Foster but guys like Satterfield,Durelle,or more recent men like Beterbiev and Stevenson,he was just more efficient at landing his artillery

[billeau2]

Thirty five percent of Moore's ko's are over dross a lot of them being mismatches.He was very astute punch picker who knew how to create opportunities,but I doubt he hit as a hard with a single punch as not only Foster but guys like Satterfield,Durelle,or more recent men like Beterbiev and Stevenson,he was just more efficient at landing his artillery

Probably so. Looking at Moore in his younger days we see a fantastic mover who really understood angles at a time when there were technical aspects in the game from preclassical as well as classical days. My point being: I don't opine that Moore's punch was the best aspect of his game, far from it.

Im not sure how we can measure this aspect of punch power... but I wouldn't disagree.

[Ivich]

And you do not think performance moving up is relevant? Really? Its easier to compare that process than to pontificate that a fighter lost a certain percentage of power as compared to another fighter... Just saying grand poo pa.

I never compared Louis' power with Moore's ,what I said was Louis could no longer deliver his power with any degree of regularity on his comeback.Marciano walked through his shots with no outward effect I don't think he would have done that against the Brown Bomber.I also said and that Moore did not have an extended lay off as Louis did .Anyone who believes Louis was the same force power wise from Charles onward really doesnt know ****,.he was getting by with a fair left hook and the remnants of his jab.Neither could he take the shots he had absorbed when prime, that's why ,apart from Rocky , he didn't face punchers in his comeback.
Louis said his last great fight,the last one where he felt like his old self ,was against Mauriello,that was way back in1946!

[billeau2]

I never compared Louis' power with Moore's ,what I said was Louis could no longer deliver his power with any degree of regularity on his comeback.Marciano walked through his shots with no outward effect I don't think he would have done that against the Brown Bomber.I also said and that Moore did not have an extended lay off as Louis did .Anyone who believes Louis was the same force power wise from Charles onward really doesnt know ****,.he was getting by with a fair left hook and the remnants of his jab.Neither could he take the shots he had absorbed when prime, that's why ,apart from Rocky , he didn't face punchers in his comeback.
Louis said his last great fight,the last one where he felt like his old self ,was against Mauriello,that was way back in1946!

Ok I get it and again, i am not disagreeing with you. The point is all fighters experience such losses to one degree, or another. This would even include Moore who had gifts but was not prime either. How do we quantify the relative loss? compare it, so to speak so we know how much age affects each fight relatively?

[The Old LefHook]

Irrelevant we are discussing and comparing one shot power not where either were ranked.

He is always going to contribute only idiocy, because he is one, with his U a 4th grader crap The forum would be so much better without him..

[Ivich]

- - Oh, deary, I gotta tuck in a presumably growed man's Bib and cut up his steak for him.

Already stated the Sheriff had the one hitter quitter at LH, but was never ranked at heavy, and now, gasp, pay attention! He was never ranked at heavy because he failed miserably.

Archie power carried to heavy where he could KO heavies.

Now squall fer U minder to unbib U and take away U fork befer U injure U.

Failing at heavyweight is irrelevant to whether he was a harder one shot ****er than Moore at Lhvy.Foster did not have the physicality to compete favourably with the class big boys.Don't you ever get tried of being a complete prick?

[Willie Pep 229]

Unscientific as hell but . . .

Ali mocked Foster when Foster landed his right hand clean . . .

Did Clay feel the same indifference to Moore's punch?