Which was better: Foreman's KO of Moorer or Hopkins decision over Pascal?

[Rome-By-Ko]

I think both were equal..But put a gun to my head,Ill go with B-Hop..He took Pascal to school and took risk while he did it..IMO he beat Pascal mentally and Physically..

[Picazo]

The Foreman win but in all fairness B-hop hasnt finished his journey yet

[borikua]

"Miguelito, I love your juice."

lol I still have that pic in my computer.

[daggum]

i thought hopkins was dirty with all the headbutting, holding, and low blows but against pascal he sunk to a new low by using an anti-gravity machine to throw pascal's balance off and make his gloves touch the canvas after getting hit. cheating scum.

[borikua]

C'mon, Moorer was a much better fighter than Pascal. Pascal fights like a damn amateur.

[madsweeney]

C'mon, Moorer was a much better fighter than Pascal. Pascal fights like a damn amateur.

2nd that statement. Moorer >>>>>>> Pascal.

Moorer may have been beating Foreman on the cards, but Foreman's style isn't about winning rounds, its about getting that shot in that ends things...and that's exactly what he did. Hopkin's gameplan, rough up Pascal by any means necessary.

[FIDELINA]

lol I still have that pic in my computer.

......

[Steak]

Moorer is a very clearly better fighter than Pascal, and although Hopkins was more dominant in his win, Moorer is such a better fighter than Pascal it doesnt really matter.

Hopkins overall has the much better post 40 resume however.


side note: Who cares if Pascal has never been knocked down? thats such a misleading statement. The guy was rocked against Omar ****ing Pittman(more than once), his chin is far from legendary. that being said, Hopkins not KOing Pascal does not matter to me.

and there was nothing 'lucky' about the punch Foreman KOed Moorer with. yes, he was behind. but all you have to do is watch the last few founds to tell he was setting that right hand up.

[ИATAS]

Hopkins. Not only was he older than Foreman but he beat pascal without knock out power, outworking, out-landing and out-thinking the young lion.

Foreman lost about every round and was getting badly beaten until he landed a knockout blow. His power bailed him out of the loss. Hopkins didn't have that kind of advantage, he had to do it purely on skill and his ring IQ.

Hopkins also had to travel into hostile territory not once but twice.

[Main Source]

In terms of shock-effect, I'll go with Foreman's KO of Moorer (which wasn't a one-punch KO Dummy-Tunney). Nobody believed Foreman would win that fight and Moorer only did it for money. He didn't need to take that fight.
Foreman literally lost EVERY single round until the KO occurred. He was lucky.

Hopkins dominated and beat a young, hungry champion with an 18 year old age advantage in his home town.

Hopkins gets my vote.

You sure sound sore and bitter. Get over it. Hopkins has the record now and was already in the history books a decade ago.