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

[borikua]

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.

Natas,

You know that Pascal isn't 1/3 of the fighter that Moorer was.

[ИATAS]

Natas,

You know that Pascal isn't 1/3 of the fighter that Moorer was.

he accomplished more but he also had kind of a glass jaw.

Like I said Foreman was bailed out by his power. That was the only way he could have won was by a big KO shot. Hopkins had to do the opposite, he had to out work, out hustle and out smart a young fighter. That's a lot more difficult to do over 12 rounds then just landing one big shot

[Steak]

not true. Foreman didnt just get bailed out by power, he set that right hand up methodically and with timing. its not as dominating a win as Hopkins of course, but its still without a shadow of a doubt a full credit legitimate win.

and Moorers chin is no worse than Pascals. Moorer was hurt and stopped by huge punchers. Pascal was wobbled and hurt against ****ty ass Omar Pittman.


Moorer's win over Holyfield already makes him 3 times the fighter Pascal ever was.

[borikua]

he accomplished more but he also had kind of a glass jaw.

Like I said Foreman was bailed out by his power. That was the only way he could have won was by a big KO shot. Hopkins had to do the opposite, he had to out work, out hustle and out smart a young fighter. That's a lot more difficult to do over 12 rounds then just landing one big shot

Point taken. I just feel that Pascal's skill level gives the edge to Foreman.

[ИATAS]

not true. Foreman didnt just get bailed out by power, he set that right hand up methodically and with timing. its not as dominating a win as Hopkins of course, but its still without a shadow of a doubt a full credit legitimate win.

I never said it wasn't a legitimate win it was a fantastic win for Foreman but when comparing the too I stated my opinion of why I view one a little higher than the other.

and Moorers chin is no worse than Pascals. Moorer was hurt and stopped by huge punchers. Pascal was wobbled and hurt against ****ty ass Omar Pittman.

So Pascal being wobbled is the same as being KTFO several times and knocked down about 10 times or more in his career? Come on, son. Was Everett Martin a big puncher? He floored Moorer. And of course Holyfield knocked him down 6 times at least, Tua KO'd him in about 1.4 seconds, he was knocked down 2-3 times against Cooper, etc.

Moorer's win over Holyfield already makes him 3 times the fighter Pascal ever was.

I'm not arguing that Moorer has a greater legacy than Pascal, that is obvious. What I'm saying is I was more impressed with Hopkins performance than I was with Foremans.

[Barry Halls]

b-hops was more impressive but Foremans was way more shocking and unexpected.

[TheFairPole]

The constant headbutting, nad punches, kidney shots, holding and thumb to the eye really were BS but it didn't really matter because Pascal was already mind ****d by Hopkins before the fight ever started. If Pascal would have stayed on the attack he would have won both fights but Bernard mentally destroyed him and for that you have to give B-hop credit. Good job B-hop but Foreman's win was better just because of the shock and the excitement of it. Both fights were great accomplishments by Bernard just for being in either fight at 46. I hope there is a 3rd fight but unless his trainers can change Pascal's mentality, it will be more of the same.

[Pugilistic™]

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.

I agree with this.

Moorer was a better fighter than Pascal is but stylistically Moorer was better suited for Foreman than Pascal was for Hopkins because of his poor chin and the fact that Foreman had great power.

Hopkins doesn't have great power like Foreman and Pascal has got a good chin so Hopkins had to rely on outworking and out landing a much younger fighter.

What natas wrote pretty much says what i would of said.

[Steak]

I never said it wasn't a legitimate win it was a fantastic win for Foreman but when comparing the too I stated my opinion of why I view one a little higher than the other.



So Pascal being wobbled is the same as being KTFO several times and knocked down about 10 times or more in his career? Come on, son. Was Everett Martin a big puncher? He floored Moorer. And of course Holyfield knocked him down 6 times at least, Tua KO'd him in about 1.4 seconds, he was knocked down 2-3 times against Cooper, etc.



I'm not arguing that Moorer has a greater legacy than Pascal, that is obvious. What I'm saying is I was more impressed with Hopkins performance than I was with Foremans.

Moorer didnt have a good chin. but Pascal's is subpar too. he gets rocked by a 46 year old man who could even really hurt a shot Roy Jones and was hurt by a bum in Omar Pittman. There is no shame in getting dropped by guys like Holyfield and Tua, if Pascal had faced p4p punchers like that his head would have popped off.

and were not discussing who you were more impressed with. Were discussing what was the better win(or at least thats what Im arguing about). and that clearly was Foreman over Moorer, since Moorer is multiple times a better fighter than Pascal ever was and ever will be.

[Steak]

I agree with this.

Moorer was a better fighter than Pascal is but stylistically Moorer was better suited for Foreman than Pascal was for Hopkins because of his poor chin and the fact that Foreman had great power.

Hopkins doesn't have great power like Foreman and Pascal has got a good chin so Hopkins had to rely on outworking and out landing a much younger fighter.

What natas wrote pretty much says what i would of said.

The only thing Foreman had going for him against Moorer was that Moorer had a bad chin. Otherwise it was a terrible style matchup for him. Southpaw, fast, good offensively...Pascal was one of the best ever style matchups for Hopkins. Hes a guy that swings wide, is not a consistant puncher and always flurries and runs, and gasses out after 4 rounds. That plays exactly into Hopkins strengths....