who was the hardest hitting light heavey?

[soul_survivor]

Michael Moorer was a good puncher at LHW. Only thing is, he didn't beat anyone.

The obvious answer is Bob Foster.

I know ,his level of opposition was hardly news worthy but he still did away with them pretty easily, which showed his power could be carried to a higher level. Heck it carried to HW and he was hurting guys up there too.

[billeau2]

Moorer was a very good fighter and he has a respectable resume at heavyweight. But I was speaking strictly about power and it is more than the weight gain (Moorer starved himself to make 175) that showed his power was average at best for a top heavyweight. If he had fought decent competition at 175 his power wouldn't be mentioned with Foster, Spinks, Moore, etc.

I see your point. I am of the camp that believes if a guy can punch and walks around at just south of 200 he should at least challenge for the heavyweight title. I think it was Joseph who was saying Tunney was really a light heavy, and I actually agree with this to a point. Ray's point about the heavyweight division being open is imo the other part of this situation. In other words historically speaking I have no problem putting Tunney in this list in of great light heavies, in essence saying this was his best weight.

BUT this judgement should not preclude challenging for the heavyweight crown. NOW regarding Moorer and what you are saying its probably true that in his case, unlike Tunney, Foster and Spinks his best weight was heavyweight and not light heavy. When you look at Moorer he has the size of a heavyweight, so that would minimize his power stats because he is in essence fighting down as a light heavy if I read your point here. I would agree with this.

[LacedUp]

I see your point. I am of the camp that believes if a guy can punch and walks around at just south of 200 he should at least challenge for the heavyweight title. I think it was Joseph who was saying Tunney was really a light heavy, and I actually agree with this to a point. Ray's point about the heavyweight division being open is imo the other part of this situation. In other words historically speaking I have no problem putting Tunney in this list in of great light heavies, in essence saying this was his best weight.

BUT this judgement should not preclude challenging for the heavyweight crown. NOW regarding Moorer and what you are saying its probably true that in his case, unlike Tunney, Foster and Spinks his best weight was heavyweight and not light heavy. When you look at Moorer he has the size of a heavyweight, so that would minimize his power stats because he is in essence fighting down as a light heavy if I read your point here. I would agree with this.

I think Moorer is mostly remembered as a heavyweight, and rightfully so. Tunney is a career lightheavy and did his best work as a light heavyweight and should rightfully be thought of as an ATG in that division.

[billeau2]

Michael Moorer was a good puncher at LHW. Only thing is, he didn't beat anyone.

The obvious answer is Bob Foster.

Moorer probably fought [I]down[I] as opposed to up. When we look at light heavies a lot is in a name: these are not really even cruisers, they are lighter heavy weights. To me this means they should challenge for the heavyweight crown and let history decide where they belong with respect to what division they were best at. Imo Michael Spinks had the perfect competition, and body size to be considered a great light heavyweight division fighter, as in this was his best weight. The same could probably be said for foster with the caveat not every light heavyweight challenging for the heavyweight title runs a cropper of Muhammed Ali and Frazier! And we know foster could tango with the likes of Jerry Quarry who was no slouch! The qestion with Foster becomes, was he best as a Lighter heavyweight? or as a heavyweight? and it seems obvious that while he fought great comp at heavyweight he was better at light heavy.

I would put Tunney on this list as well. he beat Dempsey and he fought as a heavyweight but I think his best weight was as a light heavyweight, not so much as a lighter heavyweight so to speak. one can imagine a tourney with Tunney, Spinks and Foster....To determine the best light heavyweight. it just so happens that Tunney was so good that he was also a heavyweight champ! But his one loss (to no slouch Grebb) was at a lighter fighting weight. The point is that economically and otherwise it makes sense to fight as a heavyweight and become champion. but while Tunney might just break the best ten or so in a heavyweight list for the best of all time, if we put him on a list of best light heavy weights, he might be the best...him, Foster or Spinks. Its not just his weight, marciano weighed less than Tunney. It is his size as a whole, his bone structure, fighting weight, experience etc.

Now Moore probably was best as a heavyweight. He could make weight as a light heavy but was more of a natural heavyweight than a lighter heavyweight. His victory over Holyfield should establish that fact to a degree...that and his personal choices which made it hard to evaluate his actual ability as a fighter.

[billeau2]

I think Moorer is mostly remembered as a heavyweight, and rightfully so. Tunney is a career lightheavy and did his best work as a light heavyweight and should rightfully be thought of as an ATG in that division.

Ha! I posted before I saw this...agreed 100%

[Anthony342]

Speaking of Michael Moorer, how come he only won the WBO Light heavyweight belt and didn't win the other 3? WBO wasn't even a major title belt back then. Did he even try to win the other title belts and not get a shot or did he avoid those champions and stick with the new, at the time, WBO belt?

[rightsideup]

Speaking of Michael Moorer, how come he only won the WBO Light heavyweight belt and didn't win the other 3? WBO wasn't even a major title belt back then. Did he even try to win the other title belts and not get a shot or did he avoid those champions and stick with the new, at the time, WBO belt?

I think he was growing out of the division

[Anthony342]

Maybe, but he stuck around long enough to defend the title 9 times before moving up to heavyweight. In those 2 years, you'd think he might try and face the other 3 champions, which were the only major belts at the time.

[billeau2]

Maybe, but he stuck around long enough to defend the title 9 times before moving up to heavyweight. In those 2 years, you'd think he might try and face the other 3 champions, which were the only major belts at the time.

Thats a good point.

[sonnyboyx2]

Maybe, but he stuck around long enough to defend the title 9 times before moving up to heavyweight. In those 2 years, you'd think he might try and face the other 3 champions, which were the only major belts at the time.

Michael Moorer has one of the most padded records of all times..