PDA

View Full Version : Bert Sugar's Top Ten Heavyweights...



HEGrant
11-24-2005, 04:44 PM
Interesting on Classic Sports today .. Bert mankes some interesting decisions including Charles and Tunney....however, I realize more than ever it's so hard to place them in order since some beat others but lose to others ...so much dictated by style...

DEEAGLE
11-24-2005, 08:33 PM
Post it so we can analyse & crucify it. :)

Roberto Aqui
11-24-2005, 11:03 PM
For his 100 greatest athletes, Sugar chose Ali 15th, Dempsey 60th, Louis 72nd, John L 99th.

HEGrant
11-25-2005, 12:07 AM
Ali
Louis
Dempsey
Johnson
Tunney
Marciano
Charles
Foreman
Frazier
Holmes

DEEAGLE
11-25-2005, 12:13 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ali
Louis
Dempsey
Johnson
Tunney
Marciano
Charles
Foreman
Frazier
Holmes

I like mine better.

1-Ali
2-Louis
3-Holmes
4-Foreman
5-Holyfield
6-Dempsey
7-Liston
8-Tyson
9-Johnson
10-Marciano-Frazier

And as much as I hate to say this I might have to think about getting Lennox in there. Possibly at 9 or 10.

HEGrant
11-25-2005, 02:18 AM
My mistake...Sugar picked Louis one and Ali two....Holmes and Chavalo who were part of the show strongly disagreed with him saying Ali was too fast and too strong for Joe to catch...interesting to see Sugar almost react like a little baby, trying to overshout them with his argument, changing to who was the greatest in their time instead of straight up...like a spoiled primadonna....

Holmes, to his credit, comes across very likeable ob this entire spread....

Note to Columbo (DeLisa)...maybe it's time to send the doc back to Classic to review...let's talk when you return from your journeys....

mike21
11-25-2005, 02:23 AM
in order, sugars top three heavys will be dempsey, louis, ali or johnson. it will be out in december.

greek1237
11-25-2005, 02:59 AM
I have not catch it,

How much did they show of Dempsey Tunney 1?? if they aired it.

mike21
11-25-2005, 08:45 PM
did sugar give his p4p top 10 or 20- oh yeah, he did pick luois and ali top ywo, at least in that forum.

mike21
11-26-2005, 12:44 AM
well, to bad for sugar getting lambasted by chuvalo and holmes; they should have got foreman in there who agrees with sugar about loius. maybe he should of stuck with dempsey; the other guys probably know less about dempsey than louis. at any rate, doodle, you can have your revisionist ,superficial opinion of ali, ill take the opininons of most, nearly all who saw the both of them, and take louis over the great but probrably overrated ali.just my modest opinion as well as the 29 to 5 who saw louis and ali and picked louis with as well reasoned arguements as possible in such mythical confrontations.

DEEAGLE
11-26-2005, 03:35 AM
Sugars top 5 list sees 4 hwts from before 1950, he rates Tunney,Johnson,Dempsey & Louis in the top 5. Now I love Louis & Dempsey & in fact have them in my top 10, but lets get real here, Sugar IGNORES LISTON & TYSON in his top 10,? he puts Ezzard Charles in his list as a top 10 hwt. Now let me UNDERSTAND this??? Charles a great top 10 hwt? Was this man on CRACK when he made that list? How does Charles even REMOTELY become a top 10 hwt, & how does Burt not include Liston or Tyson, both of whom would break every bone in Johnsons & Tunneys,& Charles' body, & I might add probably beat Dempsey up, not to mention Tyson would BRUTALISE Joe Louis. Not saying Tyson should be rated higher then Louis, but if they fought Tyson SERIOUSLY hurts Joe Louis. And how in any top 10 ratings made fairly does he put Larry Holmes at #10? I personally think his memories are more romaticized then the actual facts in front of him. Listen I love Dempsey as a fighter, & I think he was the beginning of the new order in hwts, but I cannot even begin to imagine how badly a Tyson or a Liston would beat Jack. As for Burts list, it's time for Sugar to RETIRE. The whole night he would'nt even listen to Chuvalo or Holmes, & both men were considerate of Burt.

PeteLeo
11-26-2005, 06:49 AM
Yeah, Liston and Tyson would probably beat the stuffing out of Dempsey and Louis . . . if Jack and Joe decided not to punch back.
Maybe Sugar just drew the line at including guys who laid down and waited out the count when the going got a little tough? What a silly man he is. PeteLeo.

Steve McV
11-26-2005, 09:33 AM
Hey, Tyson owned the division for five years... but stylistically, he's got exactly the wrong fighting attitude to go against Joe Louis. Tyson came straight at you, and he'd be walking into the firepower of the greatest counterpuncher the heavyweights have ever seen.

More, Louis hit as hard as Tyson, had greater boxing skill, both men had good but not great chins, and Louis never quit, not even when he was over the hill and getting battered by Marciano. Louis had courage; Tyson did not.

The young Tyson (pre-Douglas) would give a young Louis a fight. The older Tyson would have been down and out in four.

As for Liston, a hell of a match up, two of the greatest sluggers boxing has ever seen, both with great jabs, both with at least some skill and not the worst defensive fighters ever... but the equalizing ends when we come to courage. When the chips are down, Louis wins.

DEEAGLE
11-26-2005, 11:30 AM
Maybe the memories of fighters long gone are greater then the actual fighters themselves. And maybe "THIS DREAM" of guys weighing 185-195lbs & punching as hard as guys weighing 215-250lbs will continue on this site but ANYONE who has ever put on the gloves will tell you weight does matter. If weight did NOT MATTER we would have 1 division from 105lbs on. Now I don't know to many fighters weighing 185lbs that had the kind of power that a TYSON, LISTON, FOREMAN possessed. You can tell me all the stats how many guys Marciano,Louis,Dempsey K.O'd,- & all those stats are CORRECT. But you put 4oz,6oz gloves on Tyson,Liston or Foreman & I can ASSURE you the MORGUE would be busy after each of their fights. Now if those 185-195lb guys fought & weighed 215-250lbs like the better modern fighters I think you would have a good idea who would be SUPERIOR in a 12-15-25 round fight. How ANYONE who has seen boxing for an extended time REALLY believes Louis or Marciano hit as hard as a Tyson or Foreman is beyond me? I question the objectivity of the posters. I'm 55 years of age,been watching the game since I was a pup, went to fights since i was 4 years old, & NEVER in all the fights that I've seen with any of the greats, have I seen guys BANG like a Tyson, like a LISTON, like a FOREMAN. Yeah Joe Louis had the best short hard shots I've seen, but Joe Louis fought when that division was OVER RUN by guys that were better off working as BEER GUZZLERS for the local bar (2 ton Tony Galento). And I might add this slob hurt Louis, not to mention Billy Conn out boxed & hurt Louis, as well as Schmelling stopping Joe. So Prime TYSON would have NO CHANCE against Joe? LMFAO. Now Sugar DECIDED that Tunney was the best BOXER so he put him at #5? Another question comes to mind? Was Tunney a better boxer then Holmes? Holyfield? Patterson? for that matter was Tunney a better boxer then Tyson? Some here are saying Tyson did'nt know how to box? I find that INCREDIBLE that knowledgable boxing men would say that, Tyson in the beginning used his BOB & WEAVE style very well to get in on opponents & CONCUSSED them into tommorrow. How the hell does this Sugar load up the top 5 with everyone from before 1950, almost as a concession, he puts in ALI at #2, I'd like to see that CHEAP WEASEL put a MAJOR BET on ANYONE against a PRIME ALI? And leaving off Tyson in a top 10 as well as Liston & putting in Charles is BEYOND a joke? Charles at hwt did EXACTLY WHAT??? Beat a Louis who was LOOOONG past his prime & beat & lost to Joe Walcott, BIG F#CKING DEAL. He Got killed by the Rock & never was a force for contention again, so Sugar puts in Charles at 7, not TYSON, LISTON or Evander but a Charles at #7? Burt Sugar would SH#T every color of the rainbow if he had to put down a serious bet on Charles against Tyson,Liston or Evander.His entire list is SUSPECT & lined with guys that he WISHES were still the prototypes for hwts. Putting Holmes at 10, behind Charles, Tunney,Johnson,Marciano made me think Sugar had never seen Larry Holmes ever fight.

jyoungfan2
11-26-2005, 02:15 PM
You should never have a top ten list in boxing. The only way to do it would be to call it the top fighter in an era. How can bert sit across from larry holmes and rank him #10 while dempsey was #3. Bert tried to say the fighters in larrys era weren't as high a quality as the fighters in dempseys era. One on one, larry destroys jack dempsey. I'm not an expert, but the way dempsey held his hands low, larry could jab him all night. As for quality of opponents, larry fought everyone around.

Roberto Aqui
11-26-2005, 02:37 PM
[[[[As for quality of opponents, larry fought everyone around.]]]]
====================

Only Jack Johnson defended his title against a weaker cast than did Holmes. Holmes never faced Foreman, Joe Frazier, Page, Tubbs, Thomas, Coetzee, Tate, or Dokes, who are several classes above the Beys, Franks, Marvis Fraziers, Ledouxs, Rodriguezs, Zanons, and Evangelistas that Holmes padded his record with.

Another way to look at it is that Holmes was 2-4 in "HOF" bouts. I give Holmes a lot of credit for style, heart, consistency and longevity, but stepping up to the best of his era was not his strong suit.

DEEAGLE
11-26-2005, 03:16 PM
It's nice that you don't mention, Norton, Whiterspoon,Cooney,Snipes, Shavers. Talk about weak division, Joe Louis could very well surpass that of Johnson by far. The great 2 TON GALENTO, Mauriello, Pastor,Mann,170lb Conn,Buddy Baer, Abe Simon, Braddock the list goes on & on. Had Ali had the stiffs Louis had, Ali would've been champion 35 years & had 130 title defenses. BTW when Sugar was telling HOLMES that he's #10 on his list I'm surprised Larry did'nt ask Burt who he would bet on in a fight between Holmes-Charles? Holmes-Tunney? Holmes-Marciano or Holmes-Johnson? Sugar would'nt bet if he had 20 to 1 odds because he knows damn well with Larrys jab alone he's make all those guys look SAD!!!! Charles over Larry Holmes at HWT? A CHILD could'nt make a more ridiculous statement!!!

Roberto Aqui
11-26-2005, 04:54 PM
[[[I'm surprised Larry did'nt ask Burt who he would bet on in a fight between Holmes-Charles? Holmes-Tunney? Holmes-Marciano or Holmes-Johnson? ]]]]]
=============================

What does a hypothetical match up of fighters of different eras have to do with career greatness. Fact is I indentified over a high dozen extremely high quality heavies that Holmes failed to meet when Larry was in his physical prime and or held the belt. If Larry had confidence in his prowess he would have fought at least a few of those guys. Larry was only 2-4 in HOF fights.

Joe Louis on the other hand did fight everyone possible and nobody but weak washerwomen can come up with a list of fighters Joe failed to meet. Joe was 9-3 in HOF fights, and it ain't no coincidence those were his only three losses.

Ali was 11-3 in HOF fights, but had well over a half dozen controversial fights in his career and was beat up by Leon Spinks, a fight which effectively highlighted just how controversial Ali, his career, and his style had become.

DEEAGLE
11-26-2005, 05:03 PM
Roberto said:What a hypothetical match up of fighters of different eras have to do with career greatness. Fact is I indentified over a high dozen extremely high quality heavies that Holmes failed to meet when Larry was in his physical prime and or held the belt. If Larry had confidence in his prowess he would have fought at least a few of those guys. Larry was only 2-4 in HOF fights.

Those HIGH QUALITY heavies that you mentioned (Foreman & Frazier were not around at the time Holmes ruled, FACTS have a funny way of biting you in the AZZ when you just throw out something that has no basis. I'm beginning to see a pattern with you. Make a statement with no basis in fact, sort of like Burt Sugar. Holmes never fought Thomas or Dokes or Tate, BIG DEAL what were those guys all of a sudden the WRECKING CREW?? How come you don't mention that maybe they decided to side step Holmes? Or mention that Holmes went 48-0 BEFORE he was RIPPED by the boxing establishment, why let him break the ROCKS record? Anyone with any kind of boxing sense knows that Larry was on his way to breaking Marcianos record. Now you mention what doeshypothectical matches of different fighters from different eras have to do with greatness, Interesting that you mention this, because most guys always talk about a Tyson-Ali matchup or a Louis- Dempsey fight or so & so & so against another. I guess this never entered your mind? Very strange,you've watched boxing all your life & never thought how Louis would do against Ali? You must have a very different outlook about this game. please tell EVERYONE exactly which GREAT HOF's Louis beat? And were any of those GREAT HOF's better then Liston? Frazier? Foreman? Patterson ? matter of fact were they better then Chuvalo,Cooper or Terrell or lets go FURTHER how would these GREAT HOF's do against Shavers, Lyle or Foley? FACE IT, if ALI is over rated then Joe Louis needs to be looked at like he faced his NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS. And yes ALI beats Louis EVERDAY of the week & 3 times on Sunday & if Louis hit ALI FLUSH with his best shots he would'nt move a hair on ALIS BALLS!!! He did'nt have the kind of power that a Foreman or a Liston did & they could'nt move Ali, how was SLOW JOE going to even hit a PRIME ALI??

greek1237
11-26-2005, 05:04 PM
I thougt Spinks won fight 1 fair and Square.

And even though Holmes should have won fight 2, Spinks's arkward style still keep it fairly close imo.

Mr E
11-26-2005, 08:38 PM
Hmmm. You guys sure you got that right?

In the December 1991 issue of "Boxing Illustrated," at pages 69-89, Bert wrote a lengthy piece on his 10 greatest heavyweights. The ranking was as follows:

1-Jack Dempsey&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
2-Joe Louis&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
3-Muhammad Ali&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
4-Jack Johnson
5-Gene Tunney&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
6-Rocky Marciano&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
7-Joe Frazier&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
8-Larry Holmes&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
9-Sonny Liston&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
10-Mike Tyson&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

In his "100 Greatest Fighters of All-Time" (1985 ed.), he rated Dempsey #4, Louis #6, and Ali #10.

Also, I interviewed him for the CBZ a few years ago, at which time he went out of his way to tell me he always thought Dempsey was the best ever.

Consequently, I'd be very surprised to learn he's changed his mind of late.

kikibalt
11-26-2005, 09:19 PM
Everybody here is making to much of Bert Sugar's top ten list, it's just a one man's opinion, his opinion is not worth anymore then your's or mine

Frank B.

brutu
11-26-2005, 10:19 PM
It was disappointing to hear Burt Sugar and Brian Kenny continue to perpetuate and
keep repeating the malarky that
Jack Johnson threw the fight with Willard in Havana(could they have found more sloppy looking,missing frames,edited footage of Willard's knockout of Johnson?
anyone seeing that footage they showed would be suspicious)
Also the BS that both Jack Johnson and Stanley Ketchel agreed to"carry" Ketchil for a number of rounds
for the motion picture frames.
Maybe there was a intial agrrement,but it wasnt Stanley Ketchil who did the double-crossing,
Jack Johnson was punishing Ketchil for as many rounds as he felt till he wanted just like he was humilating Tommy Burns in Australia,until Ketchil landed the big right hand and almost knocked Johnson out,then of course Johnson did knock Ketchil out.

HEGrant
11-26-2005, 11:24 PM
Roberto, when was Holms supposed to fight Joe Frazier ? Frazier retired in 76 after back to back beatings from Ali and Foreman. Holmes did not begin to break out until 1977. Should he have prodded him out of retirement for a bout in 78 or 79 ?

Who out of such consistant world beaters as Page, Tubbs, Dokes, Thomas or Coetzee do you feel would have beaten Holmes ? I say absolutely none. Not only wasd Holmes more gifted and complete a fighter than any of them, he was far more dedicated and better conditioned.

Holmes easily defeated Trevor Berbick who easily beat both Page and the over hyped Thomas. Past his prime he outgutted and beat a very tough Witherspoon on Tim's best night. He beat Norton when Ken was at his top. He beat Shavers. He beat Cooney at Gerry's best. His legacy is without question.

You seem to have a habit of dissing fighters who do avoid certain opponents once they are past heir best days. Johnson did it to a degree and so did Holmes. They both realized to a degree that it was not getting any easier and were far more selective of the risk reward senarios involved. That should not negate all they did accomplish through out the total of their career.

As far as Holmes reign, I'd say without question his opponents were far better than Louis's, Marciano's or Dempseys.

Dragnet 69
11-27-2005, 12:00 AM
Sugar's criteria was who was the most dominant in their era's. He wasn't looking at who could beat who. One could have a variety of rankings depending on the criteria your basing it on. I thought Sugar's list was decent considering his criteria. TIP

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 12:12 AM
Why of course now I understand how Sugar came to his selection. OF COURSE EZZARD CHARLES was much more DOMINANT at hwt then Holmes, Frazier or Foreman, & he was even more dominant then TYSON, SURE HE WAS!! As for Tunney well I MUST"VE forgot how dominant he was during his reign of 1 DEFENSE!! & OF COURSE how can anyone FORGET that Marcianos reign was better then ANYTHING Holmes, Frazier, Foreman or Tyson produced. YEP!!! Burt is really an UNBIASED observer.

Roberto Aqui
11-27-2005, 12:19 AM
[[[[As far as Holmes reign, I'd say without question his opponents were far better than Louis's, Marciano's or Dempseys. ]]]]]
=========================

I wouldn't and I doubt many would. Regardless, Holmes didn't fight the fighters I listed much like I can make a list Roy didn't fight. We can excuse a few fights, but Holmes was taking the path of least resistance.

It doesn't matter if you think those fighter's couldn't beat Holmes. They were the best of his era, not Scott Frank. And yeah, Holmes had a physical prime that overlapped Joe Frazier's time. He could have fought Foreman and Frazier but he wasn't ready. If he wasn't ready for them, whats his excuse for not matching the other fighters?

I'll tell you the reason. He was trying to put together a padded streak that would beat Rocky and Louis. He would've avoided Cooney as well, but Cooney was worth too much money, so he was willing to take a chance.

Don't give me that Witherspoon BS. Spoon only had 16 or so fights when he challenged Larry. Some think Spoon won. Not me, but Larry should have made the rematch. Didn't rematch with Norton, who was past prime with a lot of Ali and Foreman mileage on him.

I think Larry was a fine fighter, but he had plenty of flaws and was not the juggernaut his title defense streak suggests. He's always bitching about Foreman not meeting him, but he wasn't ready when Foreman was prime and Larry couldn't even bother to fight the best of his own era.

He beat a couple of HOF fighters past their prime and got the big head and coasted, and years later after following the Roy Jones Jr. plan, he started losing to prime HOF fighters just like I predicted he would.

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 02:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto said:What a hypothetical match up of fighters of different eras have to do with career greatness. Fact is I indentified over a high dozen extremely high quality heavies that Holmes failed to meet when Larry was in his physical prime and or held the belt. If Larry had confidence in his prowess he would have fought at least a few of those guys. Larry was only 2-4 in HOF fights.

Those HIGH QUALITY heavies that you mentioned (Foreman & Frazier were not around at the time Holmes ruled, FACTS have a funny way of biting you in the AZZ when you just throw out something that has no basis. I'm beginning to see a pattern with you. Make a statement with no basis in fact, sort of like Burt Sugar. Holmes never fought Thomas or Dokes or Tate, BIG DEAL what were those guys all of a sudden the WRECKING CREW?? How come you don't mention that maybe they decided to side step Holmes? Or mention that Holmes went 48-0 BEFORE he was RIPPED by the boxing establishment, why let him break the ROCKS record? Anyone with any kind of boxing sense knows that Larry was on his way to breaking Marcianos record. Now you mention what doeshypothectical matches of different fighters from different eras have to do with greatness, Interesting that you mention this, because most guys always talk about a Tyson-Ali matchup or a Louis- Dempsey fight or so & so & so against another. I guess this never entered your mind? Very strange,you've watched boxing all your life & never thought how Louis would do against Ali? You must have a very different outlook about this game. please tell EVERYONE exactly which GREAT HOF's Louis beat? And were any of those GREAT HOF's better then Liston? Frazier? Foreman? Patterson ? matter of fact were they better then Chuvalo,Cooper or Terrell or lets go FURTHER how would these GREAT HOF's do against Shavers, Lyle or Foley? FACE IT, if ALI is over rated then Joe Louis needs to be looked at like he faced his NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS. And yes ALI beats Louis EVERDAY of the week & 3 times on Sunday & if Louis hit ALI FLUSH with his best shots he would'nt move a hair on ALIS BALLS!!! He did'nt have the kind of power that a Foreman or a Liston did & they could'nt move Ali, how was SLOW JOE going to even hit a PRIME ALI??

The forum is still waiting for you to answer the questions Roberto, why don't you tell EVERYONE which HOF's that you continually mention Louis beat were better then Liston,Foreman, Frazier or Patterson, your silence on this matter is DEAFENING.:lol

Ted Cogswell
11-27-2005, 02:17 AM
It was the conventional wisdom during the 80's that Holmes (and Don King) WERE dodging Coetzee and Doakes. Roberto was also right when he said that Larry should have given 'Spoon a rematch. He never met Weaver again even though he won the first time and a win would have given him the UNDISPUTED heavyweight title. You don't think Holmes should have been craving that? I hate to be critical of Holmes, who I'm a huge fan of, but that's all true, and it does count towards his place in history. All that considered, I'd stil place him better than ten.

I find all this discussion about who would have beat who completely irrelevant for this discussion. Based on that logic, the bigger, stronger fighter of today would always beat the smaller, more crudely trained champion of yesterday. If Joe Louis could fight with all of the nutrition, weightlifting, and training that the 21st Century has to offer, he'd destroy anyone you put in front of him.

For what it's worth, my top ten:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Johnson
5. Jeffries
6. Marciano
7. Holmes
8. Liston
9. Tunney
10. Foreman

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 04:27 AM
Roberto facts are not your strong suit. Whenever a fact is PROVEN to you, it seems you discount it like it does not exist. Is it that hard or difficult for you to UNDERSTAND Frazier retired after he lost to Ali & Foreman? Is it also hard for you to UNDERSTAND Foreman retired BEFORE Larry became champ? Is it also VERY DIFFICULT for you to admit & understand that BIG MONEY fighters at the time like Frazier & Foreman circa 1973-75 could care less about fighting a young barely 2 year old pro like Holmes? What for? For some nickel & dime purse? Or because a Roberto Aqui felt it should happen?Maybe it's time for you to hit the books & study a bit, because FACTS & you are like oil & water, they don't seem happy with each other. As for the rest of 2nd raters that you mentioned, Weaver, Dokes & Tate why not call them up & ask them why THEY avoided Holmes, then at least you'll get an A for effort & will not appear to be so lacking in this boxing class, now class is dismissed, you're failing miserably.:lol

Mr E
11-27-2005, 05:35 AM
Nice list, Ted.

Not sure I would agree, but I think one could at least make the argument that Holmes avoided rematches w/ Mike Weaver and Tim Witherspoon and that he avoided Michael Dokes, Greg Page and Pinklon Thomas altogether.

But no way did he avoid Gerrie Coetzee. The only time I can recall Holmes yelling for a unification match, in fact, was during that brief period of time when Coetzee had the WBA title. Once he lost it to Page, Holmes stopped yelling. [Seriously, can anyone imagine Gerrie Coetzee upsetting Larry Holmes?? Not me, I can tell you that.]

PeteLeo
11-27-2005, 06:26 AM
I don't remember who said it, but someone stated that a flush Sunday punch from Joe Louis wouldn't shake the hairs on Ali's balls . . . man, I have respect for Muhammad, a lot of it, but this is just beyond the pale (pail? payle?). A flush combo from the Brown Bomber could reduce the Statue of Liberty to rubble. Paolino Uzcudin was known for having perhaps the best chin in boxing up until that point (sort of a Chuvalo in a football helmet), but a fairly young Louis just wrecked him. And I surely think Joe hit harder than Sonny Banks, Henry Cooper, and Joe Frazier. PeteLeo.

Roberto Aqui
11-27-2005, 11:20 AM
[[[[Is it that hard or difficult for you to UNDERSTAND Frazier retired after he lost to Ali & Foreman?]]]]]
===============================

Gotta give you another big DUH for effort. You certainly do know how to pile on the points!

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 11:21 AM
Re: RE:FACTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[[[Is it that hard or difficult for you to UNDERSTAND Frazier retired after he lost to Ali & Foreman?]]]]]
===============================

Gotta give you another big DUH for effort. You certainly do know how to pile on the points!


Roberto GREAT COMEBACK, is DUH your middle name? Because when trying to answer questions with facts DUH is how you post. You've now become the micro mini CHAMP of this forum based on your lack of facts, understanding of facts & thorough DISTASTE for anything factual. From the comments how Jeffries fought men his size & did'nt outweigh them to this subject how Holmes failed to fight Foreman & Frazier even though both were retired. Absolutely FABULOUS your micro mini weight title will be yours whenever there is a discussion about facts which of course you know nothing about. I also want to give you CONGRATS in once again FAILING to point out to the FORUM EXACTLY how many of the HOFS that Louis beat are better then ANY of the guys ALI beat. I'll repeat in case you have a PROBLEM with the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, Foreman,Frazier,Liston,Patterson, I'll leave out the rest of my post because apparently these 4 are giving you a hard enough time. BTW if you keep going like this, with a lack of any facts to back up what you're saying I might have to fail you on 1st grade boxing 101.:lol

HEGrant
11-27-2005, 01:10 PM
Roberto you are wrong. Period.

Berbick pummelled Page, handing him his first loss when Page was hyped to be the next champ and in shape. He only needed a B-Cup at the time. Berbick knocked out John Tate and defeated Pinklon Thomas taking his titole. Holmes easily beat him over 15 rounds in Berbicks prime.

Witherspoon was in his prime for Holmes. His number of fights was light but he was mentally and physically at the top of his game. He was razor sharp from Philly gym wars. He was in the best shape of his career. He was mentally pumped up, not the fat, lazy pot head blaming King for everything he would soon become. He would never again aproach that condition. Holmes, already past his prime, beat him on skill and heart.

Holmes KO'ed Weaver on a night he fought with the flu ...the same Weaver who a year later flattened the highly overated Coetzee.

Page and Dokes, another of your mentions, were not in the same league as Holmes, even at their best. Holmes was faster, stronger and most importantly mentally tougher.

I see how you completely move off point here, refusing as with Jones, to say which of these men would have beaten Holmes. You simply want to make a statement for the sake of it, in the abstract. I repeat, who do you say beats him ? To say he simply did not fight someone can be used against every fighter that ever lived, except Marciano perhaps since the competition was so weak.

Of course a guy who defends his title 20 times is going to have some easy matches ... however to say Holmes ducked the best fighters of his era , without saying who you felt would beat him (your consistent track record in these arguments) is a huge cop out.

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 01:50 PM
No Ted I'm not kidding, each of those guys had a piece of the Mickey Mouse title that they each kept each for 1 fight, as HGrant has pointed out correctly, the game is about the green, since each of those guys could'nt draw flies, why do you think it never materialized. Grant said put the right amount on the table & Larry even today would fight Rahman or any of the other STIFFS calling themselves hwt champ. Cooney was the draw of the day, Holmes beat him up & got paid to do so, who would pay to see which of (as HGrant mentioned) the BRA BOYS? Page, size 48 bra, Tubbs size 50bra, Weaver he already stopped & Dokes was clocked by Coetzie, none of these guys INSPIRE anybody. So yes I'm serious in what I've said, & using this kind of logic all champs have guys that they did'nt fight, you would'nt pay 2 cents to see Holmes with a Page or a Tubbs.

Ted Cogswell
11-27-2005, 01:51 PM
That's all fair enough, but you don't need to give any of us lessons in the economics of prizefighting. The economic realities of a Heavyweight championship mean nothing in a discussion of who ranks ahead of who. Considering who someone did and didn't fight is a perfectly legitimate thing to factor in. One thing you seem to be forgetting here is that all of this is opinion. Ranking fighters of different eras against eachother is an entirely subjective exercize, but you talk to those who disagree with your conclusions as if they are just plain wrong. I don't see how that accomplishes anything.

HEGrant
11-27-2005, 02:25 PM
It amazes how many on the board simply have zero understanding of the fact that boxing is a business and that fighters and their management , if they are smart, protect the title as a commodity...this is especially the case when a figher gets older and is faced with challanges that may be tougher in the ring but offer no more financial reward as the opponents are flawed of simoply lack the charisma to attract public attention and demand bigger monies.

I now Larry Holmes well. He is 100% about the money. Period. If he could fight Rachman tomorrow for a few million dollars on two weeks notice he would jump at the chance for the money. To say he ducked the mixed bag of poorly conditioned underachievers you guys are mentioning is to look at a picture without anaylizing the details.

Between boxing politics and the dollars being ofered, Holmes made decisons based on lowest risk, highest reward for Larry Holmes, period. There was zero public demand for the bra needing trio of Witherspoon, Tubbs or Page as the 80's deepened. All three were terrible underachievers, crybabies and looked like shit in the ring. Their myriad of title changing bouts rank as the poorest display of heavyweight championship fighting since Canera/Baer and Braddock. None of them captured the public imagination in any way. There was zero demand for Holmes to fight any of them.

(more to come)....Gotta go for now...

Roberto Aqui
11-27-2005, 02:26 PM
[[[I see how you completely move off point here, refusing as with Jones, to say which of these men would have beaten Holmes. You simply want to make a statement for the sake of it, in the abstract. I repeat, who do you say beats him ? To say he simply did not fight someone can be used against every fighter that ever lived, except Marciano perhaps since the competition was so weak.

Of course a guy who defends his title 20 times is going to have some easy matches ... however to say Holmes ducked the best fighters of his era , without saying who you felt would beat him (your consistent track record in these arguments) is a huge cop out.]]]]
======================================

I never said he ducked ALL the best fighters of his era, I just posted a very large list of fighters who were as good or better than the comp Larry mostly defended against. It ain't rocket science to conclude he must have ducked at least a few of them.

Former or current champs who were active in Larry's physical prime and/or championship reign that Larry never matched with: Foreman, Frazier, Page, Tubbs, Thomas, Coetzee, Dokes, Tate. Seeing as how Shavers and Snipes were within a hair of knocking out Larry and taking his belt, any of those fighters could have sealed the deal because all at their best are better than Shavers and Snipes.

I'm not interested in excuses like Frazier or Foreman retired, King wouldn't let Holmes fight anyone, blah, blah, blah. The only reason Holmes faced Spinks is because he saw easy pickin's in his bid to tie Marciano after being beat up by Williams instead of stepping into the ring against the better prime heavies and having his legacy cut short. That's what top predators in the animal kingdom do, they look for the weakest to take.

It's not like I have animosity towards Holmes either. I understood the context of his Marciano remarks and his Cooney remarks and appreciated him holding back on Ali. He was a craftsman and a pro and knew his business. His record is what it is and it's a pretty weak list of contenders overall so historians will rightfully wonder the same things I have.

Now, if I really didn't like Larry, well, I'd rip him for not making the Tex Cobb rematch!

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 02:47 PM
TED SAID:
it was the conventional wisdom during the 80's that Holmes (and Don King) WERE dodging Coetzee and Doakes. Roberto was also right when he said that Larry should have given 'Spoon a rematch. He never met Weaver again even though he won the first time and a win would have given him the UNDISPUTED heavyweight title. You don't think Holmes should have been craving that? I hate to be critical of Holmes, who I'm a huge fan of, but that's all true, and it does count towards his place in history. All that considered, I'd stil place him better than ten.

I find all this discussion about who would have beat who completely irrelevant for this discussion. Based on that logic, the bigger, stronger fighter of today would always beat the smaller, more crudely trained champion of yesterday. If Joe Louis could fight with all of the nutrition, weightlifting, and training that the 21st Century has to offer, he'd destroy anyone you put in front of him.

For what it's worth, my top ten:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Johnson
5. Jeffries
6. Marciano
7. Holmes
8. Liston
9. Tunney
10. Foreman

Ted, whose conventional wisdom was it? I was around at that time, I saw Dokes, Tate,Page,Weaver,Coetzee, which of these non entities do you think had any chance in hell of beating Holmes? And did you ever consider that they were avoiding Larry? I mean those guys were basically a sorry lot, him not fighting Weaver again means nothing because Weaver lost in several of his fights with guys like Dokes,Thomas & Bonecrusher, all by K.O. Holmes stopped him as well in the 12th round. The other guys all lost their paper titles as soon as they got it, Holmes besides Joe Louis held it the 2nd longest of any hwt, & defended the 2nd most continuosly, so how does that translate in avoiding those misfits? Now you say if Louis could be transformed into modern times & get the nutrition & better training machines of today he'd beat any of the modern fighters, that might be true, but we don't know, we do know his level of competition & how he did against those men, we also know the level of competition for Ali & how he stood up against those men. Lets go the other way, if Ali or Holmes was transported back in time, & were lighter under 200lbs & a couple of inches shorter, & were using 4oz or 6 oz gloves then how would they do against the old timers? That's another discussion!!!
Next you put Dempsey,Johnson Jeffries in front of Holmes? Using your criteria based on the men they fought & how they ruled at that time, did anyone of them have a better level of competition then Holmes had? Did anyone of them defend the title as many times as Holmes & did anyone of them face any one remotely in the class of Holmes?

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 02:55 PM
Hey Pete, I said it!!! Do you really believe Louis hit harder then Liston, Foreman or Shavers? Tell you what, the difference if you measured it by a machine would astound you, with Louis in the distance!!! Not saying Joe could'nt punch, but he was not in the same league as these guys, & he was wearing what 6oz mitts, & 80% of the guys he clocked were under 200lbs. IMAGINE Foreman or Liston with that size glove, how about Shavers? How about TYSON a SCARY THOUGHT!!!!And please don't tell me Marciano had that kind of punching power, only if you're Italian can I understand putting the Rock in with that kind of punching power.

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 03:16 PM
Roberto said:
I'm not interested in excuses like Frazier or Foreman retired, King wouldn't let Holmes fight anyone

Man you keep that undisputed micro mini title everytime your open your mouth!!! According to you Larry Holmes should've fought Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey & the great but VERY DEAD Rocky Marciano, I don't care that they're RETIRED, DEAD or 100 years old. Great post Roberto!!!! LMFAO:lol

kikibalt
11-27-2005, 03:50 PM
I have to disagree with the Eagle here, Joe Louis was the harder hitter, why ? b/c of the way they threw their punches, Louis was short and alot of snap, Foreman push his punches, Shaver telegraph his punches, Ali tried to hit you an at the same time get out of the way of getting hit, Liston was the closes to Louis in punching power

Frank B.

Ted Cogswell
11-27-2005, 03:57 PM
I saw Dokes, Tate,Page,Weaver,Coetzee, which of these non entities do you think had any chance in hell of beating Holmes? And did you ever consider that they were avoiding Larry?

I didn't ever say that any of those guys would have a chance at beating Holmes, just that they were top fighters who he didn't get in the ring with. I think you're misunderstanding Roberto on that point as well. Nobody's saying that those guys were better than Holmes. And I doubt too many top contenders would be avoiding the Heavyweight Champ. I mean, really, are you kidding?

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 04:18 PM
You did'nt respond to my question about your list of hwts. You have Johnson, Dempsey, Jeffries rated higher then Larry on your list. Your criteria was these men ruled their division in their era, well again I ask? Which of these men ruled their division better then Holmes did? and did anyone face opponents better then Holmes faced?

PeteLeo
11-27-2005, 04:19 PM
Yup, I'd put Louis on top of Foreman, Liston, Tyson, and probably Shavers in punching power. Ali himself said that George didn't really hit as hard as his glowering rep would have the public believe (he claimed Foreman's power was of the thudding type and not sharp like Frazier's hook and that Big George knocked down a lot of guys, but almost all of them got up before the ten count). A number of fighters went the distance with Sonny (check his KO per centage) by giving him a little movement/a little head juking. Hell, the first guy to whip Liston was a slightly blown-up light-heavy. Tyson looked great for awhile against second-tier chins, but what really great jaws did he fracture? Tucker and the Bonecrusher went the distance, the only reason he even beat Tillis on the cards was because he gained a two-point round on a very questionable knockdown, Jessie Ferguson never came close to going down aside from the uppercut that crunched his nose (that fight -- now listed as a Tyson KO -- was orginally and rightfully a DQ, as Jessie's cornermen entered the ring), and then there's little old Evander Holyfield, a man actually smaller than Mike (poundage-wise), a physical twin of "little Jack Dempsey," plus a few ounces, a blown-up light-heavy/cruiser who couldn't deck grandfathers like Holmes and Foreman; so who went down when Massive Mike and Holyfield went at it? It wasn't Evander.
Punch for punch, Earnie Shavers may have approached Louis in concussive energy, but he certainly had nowhere near the combination speed, stamina, ring smarts, and killer instinct. I actually think Shavers is just a tad overrated in the power department these days. Take away Norton (glass chinned) and Ellis, and how many top flight fighters did Earnie stop? Not Holmes, Ali, Quarry, Cobb, or virtually anyone else he faced who had a claim to being a real contender. He was murder on the "usual suspects," though.
As for Marciano, I'll let others with more background info on the Blockbuster decide his power rating. Since you brought up the idea of machine-measuring punching power, however, I will point out that Rocky's shots were, indeed, subjected to such calibration while he was still champion. The conclusion arrived at was that a flush right hand from Marciano carried with it the impact to raise one thousand pounds one foot off the ground (that's what they said -- it's in the written records).
One point of Sugar's that I do tend to agree with was that Dempsey had the absolute best left hook of all time, better than Frazier's.
I have a little Italian blood, but I'm actually mostly an all-American mutt, white, black, Indian, and what have you (one of my great uncles was Hawaiian). Leonitis is of Greek derivation. PeteLeo.

HEGrant
11-27-2005, 05:53 PM
Roberto keeps writing that Holmes did not fight Frazier and Foreman, who were active during his reign...he is wrong.

Why he keeps mentioning Frazier when Joe was shot and retired is puzzeling to me. I believe Foreman started his comeback in 87 or 88. Holmes lost the title in 85. How did he duck Foreman. Larry has been lobbying for a Foreman fight for 18 years. It's Foreman who never wanted to fight Holmes.

To say Holmes finally started to fight HOF competition and thrn got his ass kicked is a joke and an untruth as well. At 37 he came out of 18 months retirement to challange an absolute prime, highly active Mike Tyson on six weeks notice. Yes he got crushed but he died on his shield. He did not get counted out on one knee or quit on his stool. He kept getting up. However, to say that 37 year old inactive Holmes is the same as the Holmes that beat Norton and Ali is a joke and wrong. Years Holmes fought a prime Holyfield and gave a great acount of himself, often making Holyfield look silly. I hardly consider that embarrassing himself.


Pretty much zero of his points have any validity in this piece.


It makes no sense to criticize a fighter by saying he did not fight so and so but then not say that you feel so and so would have beatenhim.

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 06:30 PM
Actually it seems to be you who objects to what I pointed out. The economics certainly do play a part, & again since reading is fundamental, HGrant pointed out in his astute observation of you that you still do not mention who of those fighters Tate,Weaver,Page,Tubbs would've even remotely had a chance against Larry. Why don't you tell us that? At least make your arguement feasible.

Dragnet 69
11-27-2005, 07:23 PM
"Why of course now I understand how Sugar came to his selection. OF COURSE EZZARD CHARLES was much more DOMINANT at hwt then Holmes, Frazier or Foreman, & he was even more dominant then TYSON, SURE HE WAS!! As for Tunney well I MUST"VE forgot how dominant he was during his reign of 1 DEFENSE!! & OF COURSE how can anyone FORGET that Marcianos reign was better then ANYTHING Holmes, Frazier, Foreman or Tyson produced. YEP!!! Burt is really an UNBIASED observer."

The way I understood Sugar's criteria was how well the fighter did overall career wise and was also a heavyweight champion. He supported his viewpoint by talking about Charles's and Tunney's various quality wins at light heavy as well as heavyweight. Now with that in mind Charles might be a reasonable pick. Of course if you're looking at just how the fighter did at heavyweight or how you think he might have done against other heavies, you have a whole different scenario for ranking. TIP

TheSentinel
11-27-2005, 07:32 PM
Maybe Foreman's power is more "concussive", and Shavers had more 1 Punch (right) power- it really doesn't matter. Foreman's power was murderous. What he did to Frazier, Norton, Chuvalo, Cooney, Moorer, etc. stands on it's own. On his way up he scored a number of devastating knockouts- often of the one punch variety. Even Ali stated if he didn't get Foreman out of there in the 8th, he would be in dire straits from the beating he took.

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 07:33 PM
Looks like HGrant just K.O'd Pete & Louis at 11 seconds of the 1st round. It amazes me that knowledgable boxing men buy into this theory of any man weighing 185-199lbs having more power then a Tyson, Liston, Foreman or a Shavers? There are men here who have fought pro & amateur & I'm CERTAIN these gents know the difference between a middleweight puncher & a lgt hwt puncher, & a TOTAL difference when it comes to the bigger better punching hwts. Pete mentioned that Foreman really did'nt K.O that many men. Well Foreman had 76 wins, 68 were K.O'd by Big George, now UNLESS I failed MATH that tells me the man basically stopped everyone put in front of him. Liston won 50 fights & stopped 39 of those men, the man was BRUTE POWER, if anybody here ever saw the hands of Liston up close you'd understand his hands looked like wrecking balls. Tyson in 50 wins he stopped 44 men, if that is not power then I've been watching golf. Shavers had 73 wins & stopped 67 by K.O. Now if that is not K.O power perhaps we need to get a different measurement of power. Frazier in his 32 wins had 27 K.O's. Joe Louis had 68 wins & 54 K.O's. Now how many of the K.O's that Louis had were against men under 200lbs? And Louis wore light gloves, the others all wore 8o z & 10oz gloves, Im standing pat, those men punched MUCH harder then Joe & they had pct wise, a better K.O pct then Louis.

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 07:53 PM
Well Dragnet since we're talking about hwts what has wins at lgt hwt got to do with anything. If that's the case then M.Spinks & Evander surely should make the list instead of Charles, who basically did squat at hwt, he won & lost to Walcott, beat a well past his prime Louis & was KILLED by Marciano both times, & lost to Valdes. How does this QUALIFY Ezzzard with the great hwts. I think Burts selecting him really shows the bias Burt has for any of the old time fighters. Charles I.M.O does'nt rate in the top 40 hwts, he has no place being rated in the hwt division, he had to many losses at hwt to be considered anywhere near an all time great hwt. At lgt hwt that is a horse of a different color.

HEGrant
11-27-2005, 08:55 PM
Pete I have to give you credit for a first...no one ever, anywhere dissed Tyson's, Foreman's, Shaver's and Liston's power in one paragraph before, maybe anywhere on the planet. I mean God, who did those lighteights every knock out anyway ?

No matter how you phrase it, it was a very bad post...the arguments you used can be spun on anyone...

Jeffries...look how he could not stop the much smaller Sharkey who was easily flattened by Fitz...

Fitz...loook how he could not hit...he could not stop Jeffries no matter how many times he landed flush. Johnson bounced Jeffries around like a rubber ball...

Marcino....look how long it took Marciano to stop an old man like Walcott, a shot fighter like Charles or a blow up light heavy like Moore who was stopped by several other fighters when he was younger...

Dempsey...look how Dempsey could not stop two light heavywweights like Tunney and Gibbons...his gloves must have been loaded against Willard like Kearns said...

Louis...look how long it took him to put away a journeyman light heavy like Braddock. He could not stop Tommy Farr or Pastor the first time.


How about reality:

Evander on Foreman: Even though he did not knock me out, he hit me harder than anyone else ever did...it felt like he knocked all my teeth out...

Ali on Foreman: He hit me so hard I knw I simply could not take many more of them. I was knocked into the room of trombones and flying bats...I was fighting for my life.

Norton on Foreman: It was like facing death...the power was unbelievable...

Holmes on Shavers: He hit me so hard in that seventh round that to this day I still feel it. I still get flashbacks from the pain.

Ali on Shavers: He hit me harder than any man ever. I was out on my feet in that second round .

Tyson's power is beyong question: Remember Trevor Berbick bounce like a rubber ball all over the ing ? Remember the iron chinned Pinklon Thomas crushed ? Larry Holmes getting flattened ? Tony Tubbs iced in two. Michael Spinks in one ?

Liston crushing Patterson twice in a round ? Liston crushing Clevand Williams ?

Your whole argument is confusing punching power with not catching an opponent because of an off night, a learning curve, a step up in class or simply facing a better man that managed to hit them more than they were able to be hit in return. To try and put any spin on the power of those power giants is just that, a spin.

If Foreman, Liston, Shavers and Tyson are not among the top five hitters of all time, who do you rate higher other than Louis ? Please don;t tell me Marciano.

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 10:53 PM
I'd like to also mention, that of all the guys I saw live & had the pleasure to watch I'd have to say either Tyson or Big George were the hardest punchers. Tyson by FAR had the fastest hands of any super punching hwt, Foreman just seemed to have the heaviest of hands, Shavers round house was something unreal. Now perhaps a better arguement would be of the smaller hwt champs under 200lbs who was the best puncher, was it Dempsey,Louis or the Rock, that would seem like a fairer comparision. And Liston perhaps had the hardest jab of these big monsters.

Mr E
11-27-2005, 11:08 PM
Can't have it both ways, fellas. If you want to say that Louis could not have competed with your 1970s-era heros because he was too light, then, by the same token, I guess those guys from the '70s couldn't have competed today. The weight differential is even greater.

I mean, shoot, Louis was 206 for his 1-round wipe-out of Buddy Baer right before he went into the Army, which was possibly his best performance ever. Ali was 210 against Liston and 212 against Williams. Frazier was 205 1/2 against Ali the first time. I just don't see weight being the difference in these fights.

I agree w/ Pete. Louis was a better 2-handed hitter than Liston was. Liston may have had a "harder" left hook, in terms of sheer impact, but not by much, and Joe's hook was quicker and more accurate. And Joe had a better right hand all the way around, impact included.

IMO, Joe hit both harder and faster from either side than Frazier did.

Foreman, I think, likely WAS a bigger puncher than the Louis was, but Joe did everything else better. Could Joe give away the 20 pounds and lick Big George? I'd bet he could. [I bet he'd beat Liston & Frazier, too.]

Just my opinion, gentlemen.

wildhawke11
11-27-2005, 11:29 PM
In my humble opinion the hardest one punch hitters of the fighters your discussing i will mark them out of 12.

Foreman -12
Shavers - 12
Tyson-11 plus
Liston -11 ?
Marciano -10 Not as hard but the punches just kept coming.
Dempsey - 9
Frazier -9
Louis -9

Of course i don't expect some of you feel the same but this is how i see it right or wrong. But this does not always mean that in a fight the guy with the harder punch on paper will in effect at times in the ring always punch harder. Think of hitting a car that is stationary at 40 miles an hour. Now that same car moving towards you when you hit it, the impact will be much greater. If and not many modern fighters can do this, you move inside the punch thrown at you and then connect its the same as hitting the moving car. So the 9 rated fighter can if he is good enough can connect with a power of 10 plus.

What i am trying to say is if you are skilful enough you can at times punch just as hard as the guy who seems to carry the bigger punch. Unfortunately i don't seem to see many fighters doing this. They only seem to have the ability to move away and not parry or move inside a thrown punch. In the case of the 240 lb big modern HW they are inclined to stand there and take it on the chin.

I Don't wish to upset anyone on here but to my mind it can only be the lack of either no skill on the fighters part or the lack of a first class trainer. My Thoughts anyway Gentlemen for what there worth.

DEEAGLE
11-27-2005, 11:30 PM
Roberto you have not only a problem with facts, but you have a problem even getting your own posts straight. You mentioned Larry avoided both Frazier & Foreman. EXACTLY what are you speaking about? Are you so thick that it's beyond your capacity to understand even a simple point? Both Frazier & Foreman retired before Holmes won the title point 1. Point 2 EXACTLY when was it that Holmes should've fought Frazier? When Frazier was fighting Big George for millions or when Big George was fighting Ali for millions. Who BESIDES Roberto Aqui would've paid PEANUTS to see a 2nd year pro like Holmes fight Frazier or Foreman? Next you conviently side stepped questions put to you, a pattern usually associated with a man that cannot offer facts to back up anything he has to say. Unless of course DUH is your only answer. Which Foreman do you believe Larry should've fought? The hwt champ Foreman?Was Larry in a position being a pro for 2 years to force Foreman to fight him? Or perhaps Frazier who in all reality would tell Larry to go away & comeback when he grows up to be a real money making attraction. Of course you have no answers because you have no facts, & like all people with no facts they have no knowledge, you Roberto are very easy to see through!! Reading is fundamental, making up B.S about a fine fighter is really the reason you're the undisputed micro mini weight champ. Congrats. Mr E, actually it's you who cannot have it both ways because you're mixing apples & pairs. The discussion was about Liston, Foreman & Tyson throwing harder shots then Louis, you then mentioned that the 70's fighters were small next to the current dinosaur type hwts, how did the conversation go from the better punchers vs Louis & the new generation of dinosaurs? Since you brought up Ali you should at least mention that a good part of his career he fought at 218+ as well, & you should also mention why you think a Louis for example punched harder then Tyson? I'd like to hear how you rationalize this? Also I don't know how you figure Louis was a bigger puncher then a Liston or a Foreman.

Roberto Aqui
11-28-2005, 12:04 AM
[[[[Roberto keeps writing that Holmes did not fight Frazier and Foreman, who were active during his reign...he is wrong.]]]]
==========================

Never SPECIFICALLY stated that, so you are wrong. You are always welcome to find the post where I SPECIFICALLY state that.

Now what is true is that Holmes was 22-0 before Foreman KOed Frazier in the rematch, and Larry was the same age as George, 27 and had been fighting 4 yrs. Obviously Larry would've been 22-2 had he made a match with George and Joe, but smartly Larry chose not to make those matches.

HEGrant
11-28-2005, 12:14 AM
Robero, I'm going to start to call you the Spinmeister because you love to take half stories and spin them into your interpretation of facts...yes Larry and George are about the same age, however in Robertoland does that mean they were in the same positions, being promoted and moved on the same speed track? Is every 24 year old fighterat the exact same point ? Is every person ?

I honestly don't know if you believe what you write or just try to bait good natured arguments...you consistently make broad range statements leaving out the details that make up the back story, often the most significant portions of what were the causes and effects of the actions..in other words, you leave out the details ...a creature of this remote control society perhaps ?

YOu were the one who said Holmes ducked the best fighters of his day. You listed Frazier and Foreman. I simply wrote the facts. Still, you have not stepped up and said which of the men fighting during Holmes title reign would have beaten him...very similiar to your rants against Roy Jone...there seems to be a pattern.

Roberto Aqui
11-28-2005, 12:42 AM
[[[[YOu were the one who said Holmes ducked the best fighters of his day. You listed Frazier and Foreman. I simply wrote the facts. Still, you have not stepped up and said which of the men fighting during Holmes title reign would have beaten him...very similiar to your rants against Roy Jone...there seems to be a pattern. ]]]]
========================

Indeed, the pattern is I make a post and you follow up with baloney.

I never stated Holmes ducked the best fighters of his day. I did say he didn't fight most of the best fighters of his day. Big difference to those who know and understand the English language.

I also did mention that all the fighters I listed were fully capable of beating Holmes, so I suggest you get an English interpreter to decipher that post for you.

Tell you what: Holmes was 22-0 when Foreman KOed Frazier in their rematch. From '83-85 Holmes defended against; Spoon, 15-0; Frank, 21-0-1; Frazier, 10-0; Smith, 14-1; Bey, 14-0, and Williams, 16-0. Apparently those heavies were willing to step up to the plate for an opportunity at an earlier level of experience than was Holmes.

One has to ask the question why Holmes was unable or unwilling to step up to the plate against Frazier or Foreman when they were the "MEN" in the division. Maybe it was a "money" thing where making 10X the money was simply not part of Holmes' agenda then.

Roberto Aqui
11-28-2005, 03:29 AM
[[[[Are you so thick that it's beyond your capacity to understand even a simple point?]]]]
======================

Another big DUH for you. I'm thick enough to easily deflect the scurrilous strawman arguments you spam forth like holiday junk mail.

PeteLeo
11-28-2005, 06:36 AM
Once again we're sitting at our desks and trembling before the grading system of the great HeGranny, hmm?
As usual, our Hero introduces completely irrelevant points in an effort to rewrite another poster's words and cast a veil of sarcasm over them: I focused on Louis' power in relation to that of Liston, Tyson, Foreman, and Shavers. Where Fitzsimmons, Jefferies, Demspey, Marciano, etc. fit into this topic, I have no idea. I guess if you throw enough stuff against the wall something will stick?
My remark about Marciano was only in relating the results of the machine-calibrated force of his righthanded punch. In fact, I made a point of stating that I would allow others to evaluate his hitting level -- but things like clear statements mean next to nothing in the HeGranny World of Argumentation, don't they?
Oh, and here's another annoying little factoid that you'll probably want to dismiss, Mr. He: I never said that Liston, Foreman, Tyson, and Shavers couldn't punch. I said that I thought that overall Louis was a better and more devastating hitter than they were. My, things sure do look different when the entire treatise is included in the discussion, don't they?
All of your quotations from the people on the receiving side of punches from the modern quartet are compelling but also basically irrelevant. Were any of the quotees (to coin a word) ever hit by Joe Louis? I don't believe they were. I certainly wouldn't want to be punched in the face or body by any of those men, but let's face it, in most cases the memories of specific encounters are greatly modulated by many outside forces. I'm reminded of words attributed to grand old champs Jack Sharkey and Jimmy Braddock, who stated at various times (1 -- Sharkey) that Dempsey hit much harder than Louis and Louis hit harder than any man ever to enter the ring, and (2 -- Braddock) that Baer's right hand was the hardest blow ever generated by a human fist and Louis was the greatest hitter in boxing history. See how personal accounts can act to muddy the issue as much as clear it?
Plus, your lineup of testifiers were never hit by Louis.
"The iron-chinned Pinklon Thomas"? You mean the Pinklon Thomas who was thoroughly shaken and almost shattered several times by the "undersized" Mike Weaver in his prime (which definitely was before he faced Tyson)? The Pinklon Thomas who was blown away in one by Morrison? The Pinklon Thomas who was forced into retirement after sustaining brain trauma from the punches of former middleweight Poncho Carter? Oh, I forgot -- they're all the same guy.
Just when did Michael Spinks ever display an "iron chin" at heavyweight? He was rocked to his socks each time an over-the-hill Holmes tapped his chin with a right, and he certainly didn't put that "iron chin" in the path of coked-out Gerry Cooney's used up left hook, did he?
Seems to me that Trevor Berbick's "iron chin" couldn't even take him into the second round against Mercado.
As for the Liston victims, could you have chosen two less impressive examples of the man's power than Patterson and Williams? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the cumulative time these guys spent on the canvas equal more than the time they were upright in the ring? Why couldn't the "inhumanly powerful" Liston conclusively destroy mediocre Bert Whitehurst in nineteen of their twenty rounds together? Is Bert Whitehurst known as a block of granite alongside men like Uzcudun and Baer?
Again I ask, aside from Norton and the fluke uppercut against Ellis, just how many top-flight men did Shavers crush?
Of the great KO's attributed to Foreman in your and your team's posts, I see only Chuvalo as a participant without obvious chin questions, and George to this day claims that he could have continued (and, more importantly, wanted to continue).
As for the high-flying, all capitals EAGLE, I think he pretty much rules himself out as a serious part of the argument when he states (apparently not in jest) that since Foreman stopped 68 of 76 opponents whom he beat, George "basically knocked out everyone he faced." Uh . . . no? 68 out of 76 isn't everyone in the math system I was introduced to in school. Also, the point with Foreman's "knockouts" (introduced into the public consciousness about thirty years ago by Ali, not me) was that very many of George's stoppages came as TKO's when men he was knocking over through sheer strength were rescued on their feet by the refs, not when they were counted out. (Ali: "Yeah, he knocks a lot of people down, but watch and see if most of 'em don't get right back up.") Compare Foreman's knockouts with Louis' surgical brain scramblings.
Who had the longest streak of knockouts ever among heavyweight prizefighters? It was someone named Lamarr Clark, if memory serves, but we don't enshrine old Lamarr among the gods of the ring, do we? Because he couldn't carry that power into the Big Leagues. All of the men you guys are holding up as harder hitters than Louis have their issues among the very best fighters they faced (escpecially Shavers and Tyson). Of course they were great punchers, and of course they almost certainly belong in the top ten or twelve of all time in that category, but for my money no one in boxing's history knocked the shit out of a wider spectrum of worthy opponents than did Louis. He destroyed men known for having blocks of stone for chins (Uzcudun, Baer, Godoy), he devastated men much larger than he (and larger than anyone Liston, Tyson, Foreman, or Shavers ever knocked out -- Carnera, Buddy Baer, Abe Simon), he tracked down and wrecked marvelous slicksters (Conn, Walcott, Pastor, Nova), and, perhaps most impressively, he came back from a truly career-threatening, sustained beating KO loss to stop the man who gave it to him (Schmeling). Did Foreman ever knock out Ali? Did Liston? Did Tyson turn the tables on Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis, Williams, McBride? How about Shavers and Quarry, Holmes, Cobb, Mercado, etc,, etc., etc.?
Gosh, I sure hope this post rates at least a C-, though since reasoning apparently doesn't count under your grading system, I won't hold my breath. PeteLeo.

DEEAGLE
11-28-2005, 09:28 AM
Finally a Louis supporter that can write a post that has a sense of logic in it. Nice post Pete, at least you explained why you thought Louis was a more devastating puncher & not just show a bias for Louis without anything except a cheer leading mentality to add credability to your thoughts. However some of your post is attributed to the wrong poster, it was Roberto that was talking about Thomas' great chin not HGrant, so you need to revise just who you are shooting bullets at, you would'nt want to kill those men on your side of the fence!!! As for 68 K.O's out of 74 wins if that's not good enough for you where Foreman is concerned how is Louis' 54 K.O's out of 68 wins mathematically better? And I seem to recall Foreman bouncing Frazier off the canvas like a rubber ball, Norton also looked like he was a dead man, as did Roman in round1,how about Lyle? And was Moorer a TKO victim? That right that a 45 year old Foreman threw still had enough on it to give Big George the title at 45 years old. Come to think of it Walcott was 37 when he won the title, who do you think will break that record of being a champ at 45 or older? Foremans early K.O record is filled with him stopping guys in 1,2 & 3 rounds,although it's not a who's who of greats, neither is Louis'. Mauriello,Pastor, Paycheck,2 ton Tony Galento, Braddock etc, not greats by any means. Still no doubt he could punch. 1 other point, considering we're speaking of punchers exactly who would you bet on in a Foreman vs Louis fight? Or a Tyson vs Louis fight? I'm talking prime fighters not used up shells of their former selfs.

DEEAGLE
11-28-2005, 12:36 PM
These are some figures on the guys we're speaking about.

Foreman 74 wins 68 K.O's =91.89 %

Shavers 73 wins 67 K.O's =91.78 %

Tyson 50 wins 44 K.O's =88 %

Marciano 49 wins 43 K.o's =87.75 %

Dempsey 62 wins 50 K.O's = 80.64%

Louis 68 wins 54 K.O's = 79.41%

Now Pete, if Foreman cannot punch then Louis cannot punch & neither can Tyson, Dempsey or Marciano. Foreman was a brute, those heavy hands of his hurt guys bad, whether he put spice on it or just threw an arm punch. Now no one ever said Louis cannot punch, & as a matter of fact he threw some of the most beautiful short hard shots of anyone, but a Foreman or a Tyson were a different animal, Tysons shots were amazingly fast & hard, a combination rarely seen by any other big banger. Had Tyson not lost his way & stayed righteous, he would've had the highest K.O pct of any of them, & still he's right up there, not any other man I've ever seen threw such hard quick shots with either hand like Tyson.

kikibalt
11-28-2005, 12:37 PM
Eagle
Are you mixing together t.k.o's and k.o's here to make you case as to who is the harder puncher ?

Frank B.

walsh b
11-28-2005, 01:20 PM
I agree a lot with the Eagle in relation to Louis. I really believe Louis to watch was majestic, he threw such beautiful hard fast short punches and had great power, but he did not hit as hard as Foreman, Tyson or Shavers. And his competition was not close to Ali......He got KO'd in his prime to Schmeling who would never make a top ten and he really struggled against a light heavy Billy conn. How the hell can anyone expect him to take Foreman's shots or Tyson's shots. He hasn't the chin or defense. I don't see him getting close to Ali to KO him, too slow on his feet. Nobody would beat the prime Ali. If Louis was around in the seventies at 200lbs, he would be probably number 5 in my opinion. In the 40's he was number 1 no doubt, but fighters get better, bigger and meaner as the yrs go by. As career goes he is number 2, but on a one off fight situation at peaks he does not beat Ali, Marciano, Foreman, Tyson, Frazier, Dempsey......and struggles against Liston, Lewis, Tunney.....

DEEAGLE
11-28-2005, 01:28 PM
Just goes to show you how full of himself Burt is. Look at it from a logical point of view, he has Charles as the #7 hwt, above Holmes, Frazier & Foreman, even if you go along with his BOOLCHIT that these ratings are about who was the most dominant hwt of his era, how in GODS NAME does this man put Charles at #7? Charles as far as being a hwt should'nt be ranked in the top 100 hwts let alone at #7, Charles did squat as a hwt & having Tunney at #5 is almost as ridiculous. Tunney made 1 defense of the title so how dominant was he using Burts criteria? The whole program was B.S because when Holmes & Chuvalo tried to make a point he was basically telling them that his ratings were the correct one. Holmes at #10 huh? As I said in another post if that weasel had to make a bet between Holmes & Charles he would'nt put up 2 cents on Charles. The entire program was biased to fighters before 1950 which spoiled the entire broadcast. He did'nt even rate Tyson or Liston which really shows how the man is losing all perspective of the game.

Mr E
11-28-2005, 01:29 PM
Mr E, actually it's you who cannot have it both ways because you're mixing apples & pairs. The discussion was about Liston, Foreman & Tyson throwing harder shots then Louis, you then mentioned that the 70's fighters were small next to the current dinosaur type hwts, how did the conversation go from the better punchers vs Louis & the new generation of dinosaurs? Since you brought up Ali you should at least mention that a good part of his career he fought at 218+ as well, & you should also mention why you think a Louis for example punched harder then Tyson? I'd like to hear how you rationalize this? Also I don't know how you figure Louis was a bigger puncher then a Liston or a Foreman.

Not mixing anything, amigo-- but I did make a presumption. Specifically, I presume, or guess, that you are not quite so rigorous in your analysis of relative weights when comparing 1970s fighters to today's figthers, as you are in comparing Joe Louis to the fighters of the 1970s. Having made that presumption, I decided to make the comment as a point of reference. Could be I'm wrong and that you think Ali's 212 would not hold up against Vitaly Klitschko's 245, in which case, please tell me.

Now, how is that relevant to the question of whether Louis hits as hard as Liston did, say? Only to make the point that if, as I took you to suggest, the weight difference between prime Liston and prime Louis was so great that Liston's greater power is an obvious matter of physics, then, clearly, the power difference between Liston and the far bigger heavyweights of today must likewise be obvious. Again, I was curious to learn whether you agreed with that point.

As to your other points:

(1) Ali fighting @ 218. So did Louis (v. Charles). What weights they attained when past their primes is irrelevant. What matters is what they weighed when at their best, right? For Ali, it was 210-215. For Louis, it was 198-206.

(2) How do I 'rationalize' Louis hitting harder than Tyson hit? I never mentioned Tyson, and I do not, in fact, necessarily think Louis did hit harder than Tyson hit.

(3) How do I 'rationalize' Louis hitting harder than Foreman hit? I specifically stated that I thought Foreman likely was a bigger hitter than Louis was.

(4) How do I 'rationalize' Louis hitting harder than Liston hit?
Why do I have to 'rationalize' it? Surely, you don't imagine the relatively modest size advantage Liston had (less than 10 pounds in weight) guarantees that Liston was the harder hitter, do you? Louis crushed some great chins, right? Paolino Uzcuden, Max Baer and Tony Galento had 3 of the greatest chins ever, perhaps, yet Louis destroyed them all. Massive heavyeights Abe Simon and Buddy Baer were, if not talented fighters, two big, tough muthas who could really take it as well. Not sure who Liston KO'd that could be said to have had a granite jaw. To the contrary, his higher profile KO victims -- namely, Zora Folley, Cleveland Williams and Floyd Patterson -- could all be accused of having weak chins (which they did). Don't get me wrong, Sonny could certainly hit, particularly w/ the left, but to say he hit harder than the Brown Bomber is going some. All things considered, is that this is a point on which reasonable minds could differ. My vote, however, goes to Joe.

PeteLeo
11-28-2005, 01:42 PM
Okay, a few short points:
To repeat myself (again), I never said or implied that Foreman & Company couldn't punch. In fact, I stated clearly in italics and bold script that I wasn't claiming this. Most of them could knock down a house if so motivated. I just think Louis was a better hitter.
If we're going to select the hardest puncher by KO per centage, then guess who trumps all of the guys previously listed (yes, better than Foreman, Marciano, Dempsey, etc.)? With 34 KOs in 35 wins, none other than VITALI KLITSCHKO. Do we have a new all-time supreme puncher now, folks?
I didn't attribute all of the quotes I was responding to to HeG. alone. I said they came from him and his fellow posters.
Who would I put money on in Louis-Tyson and Louis-Foreman?
After seeing "Iron Mike's" complete inability to deal with a smaller guy who wasn't afraid to stand in and hit him back (Holyfield) and his inability to blast mediocre trial horses like Tillis and Ferguson, I'd bet my ass on Louis to bring out the dog in Tyson. As for Foreman, I'm not sure that I would bet, but I'd contribute my next seven truck payments just to see it happen. Much is made of Louis' knockdowns by men like Galento and Braddock, but you have to factor in Lyle's slamming of Foreman, as well. I certainly think Louis had the power to stop George . . . but I also believe Foreman had the power to blast Joe.
Foreman's win over Moorer was a great moment in sports history, one of my favorites (you probably could have heard me cheering all the way out to the West Coast), but it's not necessarily a prime endorsement of George's power. Hasn't Moorer been on the floor about as much as Patterson now? PeteLeo.

DEEAGLE
11-28-2005, 03:55 PM
Frank, it's both TKOs & K.O's.

BDeskins
11-28-2005, 04:01 PM
I just caught a little of the program a couple of nights ago. It certainly seems that Bert Sugar feels that he has played a bigger part in the sport than many actual fighters, which I guess he has to a degree, but I don’t think he has been as important a figure in the sport as he thinks he has.

I noticed at one point during the show, around the beginning, when they were talking to Larry Holmes, Sugar said that Don Turner told him that while Turner was in Holmes’ corner during a bout he kept saying “Number 63” over and over to Holmes because Sugar had Holmes at number 63 in his 100 Greatest Boxers book. Talk about trying to be arrogant, and trying to make himself seem like such a big player in the fighters make-up, but of course Holmes spoke up and said that if Turner had told Bert Sugar that then he was lying to him because Turner never said anything like it during whatever fight it was, not that it would have been anything Holmes would have paid attention to anyway…I just thought it was plain ridiculous for Sugar to even make the statement like it somehow encouraged Holmes to turn it on!

DEEAGLE
11-28-2005, 05:29 PM
Tell you what Pete, a prime Tyson at 20-23 years of age had no dog in him what so ever. And I really doubt that Tyson could'nt concuss Joe into the next lifetime. At that stage Joe was stopped by Maxie & was wobbled & put down by guys that were'nt the greatest of punchers. Now of course the punch you don't see is the one that hurts you most. But with the incredible speed & force that Tyson generated, I doubt Joes chin would hold up. In reality I think Tyson would stop him inside of 5 rounds, not saying that Joe does'nt have a punchers chance, still in my opinion the Tyson that was still with Rooney has few if any peers when it came to blasting out men.

DEEAGLE
11-28-2005, 05:40 PM
MrE thank you for clearing up some of those points. As for Ali against Klitschko as long as a robotic mummy cannot catch a ferrari fast Ali I don't see the Klit being at all effective against Ali. I do think that perhaps a well conditioned Steward trained Lewis might hold his own against Ali, however I could'nt see Lewis winning a fight against Ali, any version of Ali. As time goes on though & we get lets say a big well tuned fighter like say a Riddick Bowe, we will eventually find someone that can either beat Ali or at least be on a level to give him a real contest. Bowe was I.M.O the best big man that I've seen, to bad that he ate himself out of the title. Bowe also knew how to infight which is rare for a big fighter. Ike Ibeabuchi might've filled the bill, but you know the rest of his story. The only man I see as having even a possibility at beating Ali, is Larry Holmes, because of that fantastic perfect jab.

Roberto Aqui
11-28-2005, 05:48 PM
Using Lunkhead Logic Vitali's 34 KOs out of 35 wins guarantees he will be the biggest puncher in history. That's a 97% KO ratio. Lamar Clark is just behind him with 45 of 47, or 96%.

Naturally I don't subscribe to Lunkhead Logic since there is no doubt some journeymen heavies scattered about with modest records but 100% their wins by KO. I have no doubt there are some NFL linemen or heavyduty powerlifters like shotputters who could register higher one punch force measurements on a machine, but that really has nothing to do ring power.

Probably most on this board would agree on at least 5 of 10 on all time lists, so it's really much ado over nothing. Heck, you could even cheat and use Ring's ratings from last year and pick out heavies in order.

DEEAGLE
11-28-2005, 06:09 PM
Ahh Roberto besides you having a middle name of DUH!!! You don't have to advertise what you're known as to the entire forum. "LUNKHEAD" man you really need to get a handle on projecting your inadequacies on people. But hey good post it's the 1st time you hav'nt mentioned your middle name DUH, it's also another 1st, you hav'nt mentioned why Holmes never called out Marciano or Louis. BTW a GED is available to you, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.LMFAO

mike21
11-28-2005, 07:44 PM
(unable to load pagetext)

mike21
11-28-2005, 08:04 PM
mr. e i saw sugar on tv a couple of months ago on the tim mcgarvey show and sugar picked dempsey number one, as usual. i dont know why for 15 years he would al the sudden change it- may he lost whatever integrity he had and went for a more popular choice. say he backed up ali as number one than then suddenly changed course in a matter of weeks to dempsey- pretty fuckin stupid to do it in public.as far as dempseys power, well if joe louis who saw dempsey in exhition in 38 thought dempsey hit harder than anyone, including foreman, ill take his word . braddock said baer hit harder than luis but dempsey hit harderst. baer said dempsey hit harder than he himself ever did and anyone else. of the 20 plus experts who saw louis and foreman fight i think only three picked foreman as the harder hitter.iforeman sure could hit but to me not quite like louis , dempsey,or baer.ione thing about dempsey- he had more clean kos than anyheavy in history, including exhitions. he had only three tkos.i dont rate fighters except in categoties such as best jab, hook etc but if i had to pick one heavy it would be dempsey- such a devastatingly complete fighter. but i love luois, and marciano and the young tyson and chose to enjoy rather than rate them as i watch the films- i have alot. thanks oh yeahi saw foreman workout for the second frazier fight and tyson fot the willams fight. foreman hit harder, but neither blew me away like the films i have of depsy, lois and baer hitting the bag. thanks

mike21
11-28-2005, 08:19 PM
youall must rember if a 190 puond guy hits with either one or all combined with 15% mor speed, torque, leverage, balance. accuracy, kinetic energy compared to a 225 puonder- he can easily hit harder-its physics. and its not hard for a 200 pounder to do- that is why there have not benn very many real hardhitting 300 pounders sice the 60s when there were plenty of 300 pound althletes.so much of the above count so much and thats why so many middleweights much less 210 pounders can also realley crack. thanks.

BDeskins
11-28-2005, 10:33 PM
A NOTE TO ALL POSTERS ESPECIALLY THE NEW ONES ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We don't have many rules here but the most important one is this: NO PERSONAL ATTACKS OR FLAME WARS! I welcome vehement discussion over any boxing subject.

BUT ... the moment you cross the line & start personally attacking someone you disagree with, you're outta here. We are talking a ZERO TOLERANCE policy.

Lastly, this is a public forum not the Cyber Boxing Zone itself. I post articles from other websites & newspapers & I ALWAYS make sure the writer's byline is included.

This is NOT copyright infringement because this is a public forum. If I posted those articles on the CBZ itself, that would be copyright infringement.

I include these pieces to spark dialogue which they do.

So that's basically it, no personal attacks on ANYONE on this board & I've got no problem. Cross the line & I'm going to bounce your butt outta here.

This is a boxing board NOT a work out your personal issues board. If you can't live with that go someplace else.

It's that simple ...

GorDoom

Mr E
11-28-2005, 10:48 PM
mr. e i saw sugar on tv a couple of months ago on the tim mcgarvey show and sugar picked dempsey number one, as usual. i dont know why for 15 years he would al the sudden change it- may he lost whatever integrity he had and went for a more popular choice. say he backed up ali as number one than then suddenly changed course in a matter of weeks to dempsey- pretty fuckin stupid to do it in public.as far as dempseys power, well if joe louis who saw dempsey in exhition in 38 thought dempsey hit harder than anyone, including foreman, ill take his word . braddock said baer hit harder than luis but dempsey hit harderst. baer said dempsey hit harder than he himself ever did and anyone else. of the 20 plus experts who saw louis and foreman fight i think only three picked foreman as the harder hitter.iforeman sure could hit but to me not quite like louis , dempsey,or baer.ione thing about dempsey- he had more clean kos than anyheavy in history, including exhitions. he had only three tkos.i dont rate fighters except in categoties such as best jab, hook etc but if i had to pick one heavy it would be dempsey- such a devastatingly complete fighter. but i love luois, and marciano and the young tyson and chose to enjoy rather than rate them as i watch the films- i have alot. thanks oh yeahi saw foreman workout for the second frazier fight and tyson fot the willams fight. foreman hit harder, but neither blew me away like the films i have of depsy, lois and baer hitting the bag. thanks

You make a lot of sense, Mike. As fighters, I think a lot of Jeffries, Johnson, Tunney, Marciano, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis, but I tend to think the greatest of all is one of the following 4: Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali or Larry Holmes. What you say about Dempsey is 100% correct. The difference between you & me is not how we regard the Mauler -- I think we're in complete agreement there -- but rather that I think more highly of Ali than you do.

HEGrant
11-28-2005, 11:42 PM
The whole series of graphs following (and obviously including) Pee Wee are confused...are we talking about who beats who or who hits hardest ? Either way, I always included Louis at the very top. Another I add is Lennox Lewis...although we can use Pete's logic to say he could not drop Ray Mercer who was dropped by Klit Sr. so I guess Lennox could not hit as well. :rollin :rollin :rollin

PeteLeo
11-28-2005, 11:43 PM
Ummm, Mercer was dropped by "Klit Sr."?
My teevee must have been on the blink that night.
Never said Foreman "pushed" (just that a lot of his KOs were in reality strength-induced TKOs in which the opponents went down from his clubbing power but were on their feet again well before a ten-count, unlike so many of Louis' "lights out" clean knockouts). Never said Liston had such trouble with Marshall and Whitehurst because he didn't hit hard enough (just that he wasn't the atomic puncher some would have him to be). Never called Shavers a patsy or whatever (just that he had precious few KOs against upper-level guys -- most of whom KOd him). Simply pointed out that fellas who would have been embalmed by Louis went the distance with Tyson, and some did surprisingly well (Tillis, Holyfield). I also said, with specific emphasis (because I knew you'd flail about desperately and seize on something that wasn't there) that all of these men were your basic hellacious hitters (or words to that effect); I just didn't put them in the same class as the Brown Bomber.
Pure strength and impact potential need to be refined and controlled by technique and basic body intelligence, something that Joe Louis possessed as much of (or more than) any man to ever step into the ring.
I think Louis conclusively beats Liston, Tyson, and Shavers, prime to prime, but I'm still undecided about Foreman. Sometimes I see Joe doing a "Lyle" on George (with more smarts and stamina), while other times I can envision Foreman performing like a Buddy Baer times 2 (in the first match) and using that raw, brimming power and rage to roll over Louis.
Either way, it would be a hell of a thing to watch. PeteLeo.

HEGrant
11-29-2005, 12:24 AM
No back peddling, side stepping or denying the facts Pee Wee...you clearly wrote at length that you felt they (Shavers/Foreman/Tyson/Liston ) were overated as punchers. It's immortalized.....Hall of Shame stuff.

According to you, Foreman pushed, Liston lost to light heavyweights because he did not hit hard enough to hurt them, Tyson could not stop a few giants that held on to him for dear life an Shavers simply was not that hard a hitter.

I called you on it not only because I feel you are 100% wrong but that it was a a purposedly squired argument that could be made by anyone against anyone... meaningless...

You should actually be proud of yourself...your the first man ever to diss the punching power of Liston, Foreman, Shavers and Tyson in one paragraph.......you've peaked Pee Wee!!!

walsh b
11-29-2005, 08:22 AM
This arguement could go on forever and I brought up a scenario where fighters would punch a machine which measured the force generated, like in Rocky IV.....Does anyone else agree that if you were to use this as an experiment, it would probably have Tyson or Foreman as the hardest single shot hitter??...I'd bet on George with Tyson close behind and Lennox Lewis in 3rd.....As for combo shots I'd pick Louis. then Tyson...just watch Joe's KO of Walcott, absolute precision and power....BTW, Louis doesn't beat Tyson at peak, because Joe hadn't the chin, where as Tyson did, same with Foreman.....Louis had two of the best assets in fighting, his KO punch and his combo speed. However his slow feet and weak chin are his big downfall...I see these two weaknesses as being more detrimental than his assets....

mike21
11-29-2005, 10:34 AM
mr. e- i think we have alot in ommom knowledege as i have read almost all of your articles- ver, very astute! mr. e , i could easily envision ali as the greatest ever; no problem here with that. but i do try to get others to think of fighters before their own time, and mine. i think thats important for all of us; to learn more.basically when i rate any fighter, which i dont, relley, i take a wild guess, in this case dempsey with a huge question mark, as far as who MAY be number one- i dont go any further down the list- just a guess on the number one spot- like a guess for greb as best middle- but thats as far as i go. ali definately could well have been the best ever- and believe me, he is absolutely one of my favorites ever! just a guess here and ali may be the more correct guess. thank you. keep up the great research!

mike21
11-29-2005, 01:08 PM
gd- i hear an ax being sharped.

thumper3852
11-29-2005, 01:25 PM
A couple of comments:

I never cared much for Bert Sugar...I think he's a Norman Mailer wannabe, so I don't give a crap what he thinks about the top ten heavies.

Many years ago, I think a Ring Magazine (pre Bert) article was ran on a test done with an automotive crash test dummy and Al Blue Lewis to measure heavyweight punching power..I dont remember the exact conclusion but I think it said his punch was comparable to a 35 mph head on collision

Maybe Mike Tyson is developing a future job opportunity for himself by posing as a crash test dummy for run of the mill heavyweight fighters.....I think he may be on to something.

Kid Achilles
11-30-2005, 06:42 AM
DEAGLE

Foreman at his best weighed about 217 pounds. By your logic he would be a lighter puncher than John Ruiz or Jameel McCline.

From what I can tell, added musculature only effects a fighter's punching power to a limited degree. This is why a welterweight who bulks up to middleweight usually sees a decrease in his relative punching power. Although he weighs the same as his opponents, his natural frame is smaller, and his punch and ability to take his larger framed opponents punches are decreased.

Whatever he may have weighed, the 6'1" Jack Dempsey was a natural heavyweight with a heavyweight's frame and punch. Anyone who has seen footage of him blasting Jess Willard around like an oversized ragdoll could attest to this. When Dempsey hit you, you hurt you. It didn't matter how big you were. If he hit you flush on the chin, you were in serious trouble.

How can you be so blinded by Dempsey's weight that you cannot see the evident force behind his blows?

Also if it were so easy to break an opponents bones with small gloves in that era tell me why there are no stories of modern sized heavyweights like George Godfrey and Harry Wills doing the same? I doubt there were many people around at the time claiming that Wills was a harder puncher than Dempsey after comparing both of their performances against Firpo.

BDeskins
11-30-2005, 06:59 AM
Jimmy Wilde, one of the smallest of fighters hit like a welterweight and any fighter up to lightweight that he hit went out...size means very little in punching ability...look at the giant Russian Valuev...he's a monster, but he doesn't even hit as hard as some cruiserweights!

DEEAGLE
11-30-2005, 08:36 AM
Kid when did I say Dempsey did not hit hard? Reading is fundamental. I said guys like Tyson, Foreman, Liston & Shavers were the hardest punchers. That does'nt mean Dempsey or Louis did not punch hard. As for 4 OZ gloves, put 4 OZ gloves on a Tyson or a Foreman & see how many guys they fight that don't wind up dead. I'm serious!!!

B.D you are supposed to know better then to make a statement like that SIZE & WEIGHT really don't matter when it comes to punching power. Then you bring up a CLOD like Valeuv to make your point. If size & weight means nothing how about this, go into any high profile gym, get any of the better hwts & lgtweights together, put on 4 OZ gloves & see which guys want to fight each other, next get any type of medical insurance (if you can) & see EXACTLY who winds up in the hospital, what you're saying is RIDICULOUS. I managed a hwt in the 80's, the guy was a piece of steel 6ft 5in 245lbs with heavy hands, I had all I could do to find HWTS who would spar with him, & anytime I had to have a lighter fighter work with him the lighter guys made us promise this man would'nt hit them HARD, the lighter guys could'nt move a hair on this guys balls. And I'll tell you this, even with 16OZ gloves PRO HWTS were telling me (after paying them) that they would rather look elsewhere, I think you really need to get into either a gym or a sparring session & see the DIFFERENCE between when a BIG MAN who punches hard hits you, as opposed to a small man who punches hard, anyone that says size & weight does not matter, does'nt know what they're talking about. HELL TRAINERS that work with the BIG HWTS all have problems holding the mitts while letting the hwt tee off on them, they have back problems, neck problems & they're moved from 1 side of the ring to the other side. Don't BELIEVE ME? Ask any of the better trainers that work with the big guys. 1 other point, I used to watch Al Cole when he was a cruiser spar with some hwts, after the sessions with 16 OZ gloves & head gear the guy looked like a MACK TRUCK had worked him over, the hwt however looked like he just spent a day at the beach.

BDeskins
11-30-2005, 08:37 AM
Valuev...well then how about Vitali Klitschko...a giant who most certainly had to land a lot of punches before the ref would finally stop it...the same Vitali who basically could not put a dent in the questionable chin of Lennox Lewis, yet two smaller guys come alone and one puts Lewis down and out, or how about Lance Whitaker, or Jameel McCline...I would try to name some others, but the real big fighters rarely ever make it to the top...again...size doesn't mean shit. Another fine example would be all the steroid shooting body-builders with gigantic arms which can lift 200lbs and yet they still punch like a girl! About the only two big guys that I can think of right off hand that had really good punching power is Lennox Lewis and Wlad Klistchko, but Wlad's chin and lack of durability completely negates his punching prowess!

Fact...throughout history take a look at who the hardest punching heavyweights of all-time were...they were guys like Joe Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, Fitzsimmons, Satterfield, Tommy Gomez, Shavers, Tyson and Foreman...Foreman is the only one to really qualify as big...again...size means dick!

And for the 4oz. gloves to be such a big advantage, well the guys who fought with 4oz gloves fought once, twice, sometimes five times a month with 4oz gloves...it looks like if they had been such punishing weapons the guys would have fought as least as possible!

Roberto Aqui
11-30-2005, 12:38 PM
[[[About the only two big guys that I can think of right off hand that had really good punching power is Lennox Lewis and Wlad Klistchko, but Wlad's chin and lack of durability completely negates his punching prowess!]]]
====================

Willard had a right hand equivilent to Lewis. Your comment about Wlad is curious seeing as he's been quite successful.

Vitali doesn't try to punch with maximum effect. He's a thudding type of puncher with a high % connect rate and just wears a fighter down. He has small hands that he has to protect. He was powerful enough to have Lewis staggering around like a drunken sailer all through that fight.

The big heavy is a relative recent phenomena. Before they were the exception, not the rule. Timing has a lot to do with power, and most big guys have been just clumsy enough to blunt their power with inferior timing. It's just a matter of time before a big guy comes along with the training and talent to go where no big guys have ever gone. Moorer is working with JD Chapman who may or may not prove to be that guy. Guys like Dempsey or Louis don't grow on trees either.

DEEAGLE
11-30-2005, 01:36 PM
BD, with each of your posts you really show me a lack of understanding of not only the physical make up of fighters but as a whole that you've not been anywhere near a gym in over 50 years or so. So size means DICK HUH? You maybe right in the DICK department, but you're SADLY mistaken in the boxing arena. When was the LAST time you saw a hwt champ 5FT tall & weighing a 120LBS? Please ENLIGHTEN everyone? When was the last time you ACTUALLY sparred with a hwt lets say weighing 240lbs? When was the last time you sparred in the same day with a lgtweight weighing 135lbs. Please TELL EVERYONE how much HARDER that lgtweight punched then that hwt??? This I'd love to hear. Now your point about the Klit, obviously stopping 32 guys out of 34 guys is not enough for you, HOWEVER you keep bringing up Valeuv, have you even seen him? You might as well bring up Jim Jeffries & all the FILMS we have on him. How about Henry Armstrong, how come he did'nt win the hwt title, I mean if size means DICK then hammering Hank should've won it, Ray Robinson also, & the Moongoose most certainly should've won it, he had more K.O's then anyone else. Funny thing happened to him, everytime he faced a hwt he lost. Bob Foster I think you'll admit was a hard puncher, still at hwt BANG he was a failure. Now it was pointed out to you that the big hwt is a relatively new creature, Lewis & Bowe were at this time the 2 best big men. Lewis could punch I would say, & we were not speaking about Valeuv, just the way we were not speaking about Willie Pep, I'm SURPRISED you did'nt say that Pep could beat any hwt because they would'nt be able to find him. My comments about trainers having problems holding the mitts for the bigger stronger hwts must've went over your head, perhaps you should try holding those mitts for a couple of days & see how your back feels, neck, shoulders etc. A guy that's been around the game as long as yourself shows me that you still need a brush up course about the difference in power between the bigger men & the lighter men. I would think you need also to go a gym & watch CERTAIN hwts workout, & then see CERTAIN 135lbers, 147lbs & 160lbers workout, then comeback & tell everyone that SIZE MEANS DICK. 1 other small point,if you think 4OZ gloves are not any different from 12 OZ gloves, I suggest HIGHLY you go to your doctor for a checkup, something is WRONG!!!

thumper3852
11-30-2005, 05:17 PM
The discussion wasn't about lightweights and welterweights against heavies...it was smaller heavies versus bigger heavies.

Mere size alone does not determine the outcome of a fight, no more than does power.....boxing is so much more than that.

kikibalt
11-30-2005, 05:20 PM
T-3852
I agree with you 100%

Frank B.

GorDoom
11-30-2005, 05:21 PM
DEEagle:

Your new to this board & I suggest you read the note at the top for all new posters. Everybody has a right to their opinions but we're not into confrontational b.s. on this board. We treat each other with respect or your outta here.

That doesn't mean that vehement discussion is not welcomed but when you get personal you cross the line ...

You're obviously an ardent fan & that's fine. We welcome people with a passion for boxing here. We just don't welcome confrontational crap that can lead to flame wars. If that's what you are into there are plenty of other boards for that stuff.

So ... Welcome aboard our board just cool it with the venting & getting personal.

GorDoom

DEEAGLE
11-30-2005, 05:49 PM
Gordoom I thank you for the welcome, I really do, but perhaps you could take some time & see if my responses are in line with what is being thrown at me. I mean you would'nt want me to walk into the ring with a guy throwing leather at me & then not be able to defend myself. I've noticed that you have not said a word to anyone that was taking their shots at me. BTW if you think I'm here just to start wars with the guys here I'll leave, that is not my intention. But i also don't have to hear B.S hurled at me when guys are making either incorrect or using outright & intentionally wrong facts. Since I watched & have been part of this game for many years I know my history & I know what to look for in this game, if this is OFFENDING anyone then it's time for them to brush up & take a new look at how their ideas are put together. No one is going make me accept incorrect facts or downright made up stories. When a guy states things like Holmes side stepped a Frazier or Foreman & I point out that they were retired by the time Holmes had the title, the response to me was DUH & other responses as intelligent. Now if I'm telling you anything incorrect then I'll leave but if I'm telling you the truth I suggest you take issue with the guys that started hurling the stones in the 1st place. let me know if you want me to find other real estate or if you think my knowledge isn't up to snuff on this board, but when I say Jeffries was beating up on smaller guys & guys are challenging that then it shows me that they're not really concerned with facts but would rather say that it was'nt so, I guess the records books are all incorrect. As for my opinions about the smaller hwts vs the bigger hwts, I was'nt the guy who brought up lgtweights & welters punching out bigger men that was a guy on your own staff, I was merely responding to his post, wihich was extremely inaccurate..thanks Deeagle

mike21
11-30-2005, 06:38 PM
part of the game? im very surprised to here that you spent any time at all in a boxing gym, not some kickboxing gym- your analysis is often frought with theory rather than gym experiece.you, as well as anybody with background should know that how one is built means nothing --size means nothing unless you are one of the comparitive very few with the talent to maximize your phsiological potential.and i f you think its your way or the highway, believe me , you will be bounced from here and can argue in adolescant fashion on those kid boards. this is the TOP board in the world in boxing, and as you, i am lucky to be on it, and try to wise enough not to be bounced off it!

GorDoom
11-30-2005, 06:57 PM
DEEAGLE:

I am by no means trying to run you off the board. You may not be aware of it but this board is populated by former world champions, boxers, retired & current, promoters, managers, cornermen, boxing historians, boxing writers & hard core aficionado's.

There is a LOT of boxing knowledge on this board. I've been a fighter, a boxing writer & I still work corners. I've been doing this for 49 years & I've always felt I've had a pretty good grasp of the fight game.

BUT ... Since we've started this board I learn something new all the time. You have to keep an open mind. I've even had opinions I was rock solid about changed because I listened & learned.

You mentioned people firing back at you & that's not something I'm crazy about either. But you have to understand you joined the board & came out firing aggressively - people are going to react to that. I guess all I'm saying is that EVERYBODY here need to be respectful of each other or the board will turn to absolute chaos like most boards on the net.

& to a large degree we do mantain that respect & that's why this board works so well.

So anyway, like I said, I have no desire to have you leave just understand that not everybody agrees on everything but we still remain civil to each other.

GorDoom

DEEAGLE
11-30-2005, 08:06 PM
Thank you for that civil response, as long as anyone here wants to be civil with me I'm more then happy to respond like a man as I believe men should be able to speak.
Mike21, was'nt it you who called me Doogle & you talk about being a child? Or you mentioned that I would be thrown off because I will not be battered by a guy like you? LMAO, now because you think that size does'nt matter or that perhaps Louis was the best puncher, then that is your take on it. please don't tell me I've not been in a gym or if I have it was for martial arts, although I did study martial arts that has nothing what so ever to do with my take on it. I've seen to many men in the gym (including myself years before) figure that they could take on the bigger stronger hwts, the results are to say the least not very good. Ask any trainer if he ever had a guy 135-175lbs that could bang like a fine tuned 220-250lber? As a matter of fact if the men on this site would like to chime in then please do, because I'd love to find a fighter or hear about 1 that hits like a Tyson or a Foreman weighing less then 200lbs. And as I said & it's not theory, ask any trainer who works with the bigger hwts & ask them if they have back problems, arm problems, shoulder problems, neck problems, ETC as a result of being moved when a mack truck hits you.

Gordoom, I know & appreciate there are some ex fighters & people associated with the game here, I'll take some ZIP off my shots I would'nt want to TYSON anyone. ;)

GorDoom
11-30-2005, 08:35 PM
Cool .... I'm down with that. Btw: Mike 21 is a VERY respected boxing coach & trainer with decades of experience. He shouldn't have called you Doogie but maybe from this point forward we can nip all this extraneous nonsense in the bud & just talk boxing like adults.

GorDoom

mike21
11-30-2005, 08:46 PM
im not refferring specifically to tyson or whoever, but little old me at 142 used to as is custom for all boxers, sparr with any one at any weight- sometimes by some i got mashed, other times, i had the skills to win- guys from 200 to 300 pounds. but, you answered the question fair enough; it was not a boxing gym. listen, in all honesty and most importantly, for your own knowlwdge and INTEREST go to a fight gym-YOU WILL LOVE IT_ there is nothing more exciting except sex than a boxing gym; obviouly some of it wears off; but it gets in your blood more, much more than any other sport or self defense. if i could, i would move next door to a gym, and be there all the time. but, chill out. the listons of this world could fight and hit, but the weight factor can be delusional and misinformed when compared to super puchers of a dempsey or louis. not that they positively did- but it is more than possible that the hardest hitting 190 pound ever could actually hit harder than the hardest hittng 250 pounder ever because of their own specific phsyiology (just as the harder hitting 250 pound) and physics- f= m times accerlation to the fifth9non linear accerlation which a punch and boxing is) but mass and acceraltion are all influenced by torque, momentum,inertia, moment of inertia,velocity,center of mass, balance, timing, etc. so is it proble that foreman hit harder- not in physics- it would have to do with his own psyiologyy in any and all cases from 180 and above. got to go

mike21
11-30-2005, 08:49 PM
and it is equally probable a 190 pound demspey hit harder than any other man. bye thanks.

mike21
11-30-2005, 08:52 PM
and equally possible for a 190 pound man to hit harder than any man on earth.

kikibalt
11-30-2005, 09:00 PM
The bigger they are the harder they fall

Frank B.

PeteLeo
11-30-2005, 09:27 PM
I always felt that there was a sort of "upper limit" in height and weight performance for boxers, around 6' to 6' 4" and 190 to 220lbs. Just my personal observation (I'm not qiute as taken with Riddick Bowe as some).
I know that even a height-based endeavor like basketball admits that once you go much beyond 7', you're in a zone of diminishing returns. (Jordan, Johnson, Byrd, Walton, these guys could play anyone off the boards, and they were between 6'9" and 6' 11", I think).
Gil Clancy said that a good two hundred pounder could hit hard enough to knock out a man of any size (his example was Louis, who KO'd eveything from light-heavies to giants). Maybe things will change in the future, if naturally huge -- not pathologically oversized -- athletes continue to seek their fame and fortune in the ring, but so far not a single person of any consequence over 6' 3" has failed to be beaten by a smaller man, am I right? Valuev has a decent chance at upsetting Ruiz, but he still needs to prove himself in my eyes.
It's all conjecture, but that's what a board like this one is designed for, right? PeteLeo.

jyoungfan2
12-01-2005, 04:01 AM
I was watching frazier/ali III the other night on classic and was thinking almost the same thing.

Patterson, jerry quarry, ezzard charles were 6'0". Speed, power, stamina, balance, mobility.

Ali is 6'3", Foreman 6'3" and 1/2, holmes is 6'3". Not only were these men big, but they could move. speed, size, tremendous power, mobility, balance. joe louis was 6'2".

Lewis is 6'5", wlad 6'6", carnera 6'5", vitali 6'7" and 1/2. Very large men, but a bit awkward and suspect chins. power and size.


there are naturally exceptions to every list, frazier 5'11, tyson 5'10, and marciano 5'11" to name a few. solid base and awesome punching power.

walsh b
12-01-2005, 06:13 AM
And Jimmy your post proves to me that these greats of the ring were the true p4p greatest fighters......

DEEAGLE
12-01-2005, 08:42 AM
Mike said:im not refferring specifically to tyson or whoever, but little old me at 142 used to as is custom for all boxers, sparr with any one at any weight- sometimes by some i got mashed, other times, i had the skills to win- guys from 200 to 300 pounds. but, you answered the question fair enough; it was not a boxing gym. listen, in all honesty and most importantly, for your own knowlwdge and INTEREST go to a fight gym-YOU WILL LOVE IT_ there is nothing more exciting except sex than a boxing gym; obviouly some of it wears off; but it gets in your blood more, much more than any other sport or self defense. if i could, i would move next door to a gym, and be there all the time. but, chill out. the listons of this world could fight and hit, but the weight factor can be delusional and misinformed when compared to super puchers of a dempsey or louis. not that they positively did- but it is more than possible that the hardest hitting 190 pound ever could actually hit harder than the hardest hittng 250 pounder ever because of their own specific phsyiology (just as the harder hitting 250 pound) and physics- f= m times accerlation to the fifth9non linear accerlation which a punch and boxing is) but mass and acceraltion are all influenced by torque, momentum,inertia, moment of inertia,velocity,center of mass, balance, timing, etc. so is it proble that foreman hit harder- not in physics- it would have to do with his own psyiologyy in any and all cases from 180 and above. got to go

1st I want to congratulate you, at 142 years young getting the best of guys 200-300lbs is a TREMENDOUS accomplishment, I'm only 120 years old but I hav'nt beat up on any 300lbers in nearly 50 years now, please tell me how you've keep so strong at 142? :lol Next case, I don't know why when I ask guys a question on this site I for some reason cannot get an answer? Besides several questions that were side stepped by Roberto, you Mike hav'nt answered a question you should be capable of answering, how many trainers that you know or maybe yourself has had problems when using the mitts on bigger guys? I have seen & know trainers that have all complained of back,neck,shoulder problems as a result of being hit & moved by the bigger men. My point is, if size & weight does'nt play into this power equation then why do trainers all seem to be having difficulty handling the bigger stronger guys? Another point that another esteemed poster could not or would not answer, I asked Mr E if size & weight mean DICK like he said why are there no men 5ft tall & 120lbs the hwt champ of the world? Also since there are a lot of former fighters on here & trainers both current & former, why is it that no one answered just how many 135lbers,147lbers, 160lbers etc feel like fighting hwts is as easy as fighting men their own size? And if it's like fighting a man their own size with no major difference in power, then how long has it been since they sparred with hwts? This I've got to hear. But if size & weight don't mean DICK then we should get rid of all these weight divisions completely, my sense of it would be fighters would be getting killed everyday,those days of 4OZ gloves & Wilde fighting guys 60-100lbs heavier would not fly today, as I.M.O it should not!!!I would also still say Tyson, Foreman,Shavers still punches much harder then any man who weighed 185-200lbs, again if weight & size don't matter a guy like Barrera would be the hwt champ.1 other small point, since guys like Dempsey & Louis used 4OZ & 6OZ gloves, does ANYONE here have an opinion that if a Tyson, or a Foreman used these same gloves they would have more K.O's on their ledger as a result of using lighter gloves or LESS K.Os?

Roberto Aqui
12-01-2005, 12:01 PM
[[[[Ali is 6'3", Foreman 6'3" and 1/2, holmes is 6'3". Not only were these men big, but they could move. speed, size, tremendous power, mobility, balance. joe louis was 6'2".

Lewis is 6'5", wlad 6'6", carnera 6'5", vitali 6'7" and 1/2. Very large men, but a bit awkward and suspect chins. power and size.]]]]
==========================

Holmes may have been able to move well before he held the title, but he was a stationary upright fighter for the bulk of his title defenses. Foreman was hardly known for his ring movement though it appeared he could move in as quick as was needed.

Lewis and Wlad are quite fluid and moved well when they want. No, they were not Ali, but they are good athletes.

Vitali has never even been knocked down, not even when Lewis held his head down and delivered a succession of KO highlight uppercuts to him. Vitali does not have a suspect chin.

Roberto Aqui
12-01-2005, 12:07 PM
]]]]Besides several questions that were side stepped by Roberto[[[[
===================

First thing you learn in the country is what to sidestep in the pasture and the barn.

DEEAGLE
12-01-2005, 12:15 PM
Absolutely especially when most of the droppings are caused by you!!!:lol

HEGrant
12-01-2005, 10:56 PM
I agree that Wlad has a very solid chin .. he took monster shots from Lewis and a few great ones from Saunders and took them well...his brother is another mater entirely...

PeteLeo
12-02-2005, 04:41 AM
Wlad?
Was he taking those punches well while Vitali was knocking down Mercer?
Couldn't pass those two up. PeteLeo.

mike21
12-02-2005, 03:17 PM
to the readers. as most of you already knoe, lightweights routinly sparr with heavy, middles etc.i agree that in height and weight, to be a heavyweight of the century- being to tall and heavy will limit you to a near great status- only- which still is pretty damn good.

mike21
12-02-2005, 05:53 PM
as far as the 6 oz gloves- why is it the opponents of louis get so mangled and luois barely a bruise- why did dempsey break peoples faces with 6 or 20 oz gloves-and he never had besided his nose- anything broken. mainly because i used to spar with 6 oz and they had the padding up front and had beautiful leather- some of those gloves were less lethal than the 8 or 10 ounces. thing is both guys are getting hit with the same thing.the 2 ouces gloves- well those i never would spar with- no way.

mike21
12-02-2005, 06:03 PM
i aree also with kid, pete, and others- 190 to 220 is about it. height 6 foot 3 around there.there can or will be near greats bigger than that, but never a great. less and less talented athletes and real tough hombres with balls are going into boxing, worldwide, this has a seriuos effect and it will continue to lessen -not even maintain its numbers. thanks. bigger than the 63 ,one eventually will become the hittee not the pitcher- stanima, power, speed,timing all these things mention by others,,tend to go down- body to hand coordination,etc

HEGrant
12-02-2005, 10:28 PM
Pee Wee: Just can't leave enough alone small fry, can you ? Don't make me have to bit-h slap you again. It's too easy and so much fun.

Monte Cox
12-03-2005, 03:22 AM
Some people just dont get it.

DEEagle reminds me of another poster on another sight that I ran into. I spanked him, although he was too ignorant to know it.

Here is that post:

coxscorner.tripod.com/eastgonesouth.html (http://coxscorner.tripod.com/eastgonesouth.html)

Roberto Aqui
12-03-2005, 04:31 AM
[[[[[[[[Revolver has criticized Louis saying that Joe "couldn't adapt" and hence was a "dummy" ]]]]]]]]
================================

Yeah, Louis was such a dummy he left almost every fighter he faced speechless on the canvas. Louis must've "projected his dumminess!"

PeteLeo
12-03-2005, 06:21 AM
Ah, He, does it really hurt your feewings when I playfully point out only a few of your many, many mistakes around here (Wlad's "great chin," Viltali "knocking down Mercer," etc.)? It's all done in fun, I assure you, kiddo. I just thought that since you started it up again (the "relative punching power" posting), you wanted me to play along. Guess I was mistaken.
One thing: you might need to look up the real meaning of the term "bitch-slap," however. Sorry, but it doesn't mean that the bitch does the slapping.
Later, hon. PeteLeo.

PeteLeo
12-03-2005, 06:29 AM
Man, this thread is turning into a real cat fight, isn't it? Meeoowww!

Clemenza to Michael Corleone in THE GODFATHER: "These things have to happen every five, ten years. Helps to get rid of all the bad blood." PeteLeo.

BDeskins
12-03-2005, 07:23 AM
Whenever we need to do that we'll just start talking politics!!

DEEAGLE
12-03-2005, 09:10 AM
Monte:Some people just dont get it.

DEEagle reminds me of another poster on another sight that I ran into. I spanked him, although he was too ignorant to know it.


It's you whose getting his panties all twisted. You even have made it your business to bring your DIRTY LAUNDRY from another site onto this site, & then project it on me,talk about a DUNCE!!!. You pulled this SHIT out of your AZZ & then attack me?? Now after this I'll remember to put you on ignore, with a special note, PHONEY boxing historian knows how to pitch but CANNOT catch. Now wipe your tears shorty.

Roberto Aqui
12-03-2005, 01:04 PM
Hell, go check out Box Rec's alltime heavy ranking. Charles is number 1 and Bivins is 4th!

PeteLeo
12-03-2005, 01:29 PM
How do they arrive at this line-up? Is it based on some complicated mathematical system or something? (I doubt that it is derived from personal preferences.) PeteLeo.

GorDoom
12-03-2005, 01:30 PM
Eagle:

I warned you once but you've really crossed the line. The man you called a "dunce" & a "phony historian", Monte Cox, has forgotten more about boxing than you've ever learned.

Monte is a VERY respected historian who has written for the CBZ for years. We are also both members of the International Boxing Research Org. While I've never met Monte we've corresponded for years & I consider him a friend.

The "Golden Rule" here is no personal attacks. You're constant derision in your posts & the personal jabs, have gotten real tired. Your attitude seems to be that by being overly aggressive you're somehow getting over on people.

Well ... This board is not about playing the dozens. We're here to share our love & respect for the sport. Sure there are plenty of differing views, boxing is a passionate sport populated by passionate people. But we respect each other here & don't attack each other personally.

What you do is treat everyone with contempt. Well do it some place else. Calling Monte a dunce & a phony historian just shows what a complete moron you are.

GorDoom

rocky111
12-04-2005, 08:05 PM
All that show proved was that Bert Sugar is NOT a boxing historian by a long shot. It also proved that the media is full of political correctness. Here the guy for years has had Jack Dempsey as number one and when he gets the shot at the national media to say what he really feels, he suddenly moves Ali and Louis to the front. Now you know why Dempsey fans are so passionate. If Jack could or could not beat other guys is not the question. But its the insanity to force the public to forget the guy and what he meant to millions for the sake of promoting others. This is a hidden agenda and Bert Sugar is a joke to me. Hes doing what he has to do to get the exposure. I laughed through this thing at mistakes Sugar made. Monte Cox, Ron LIpton or MIke Delisa or Sal Rappa for example would have been better choices to host such a show.

Ronald Lipton
12-04-2005, 10:15 PM
I would just like to say one thing quickly here about punching power. I know a little bit about it, as all I cared about for years was to learn, execute, teach and study how to hit harder and harder with both hands.

Jack Chappie Blackburn, Sam Langford, Lew Jenkins, Jimmy Wilde, Eduardo Lausse, Rubin Carter, Satterfield, and so many others in their prime on a given night could take out just about any man if he walked into their shots.

I also include Ruben Olivares from what Gor-Doom saw with his own eyes in the gym. This guy hit the bag with the power of a heavyweight.

I will not even mention me in the same dream or breath as these great men. Just as an additional note, look at the film of me hitting the bag at almost age 60. When I was in my late 30's, I was constantly knocking out guys in the gym who weighed well over 220 not to mention in my job as a bouncer.

It is speed, timing, harnessing deep muscular fiber into the punch from everywhere, hard hands, snap, balance, body dip, great torque on the punch, use of pulling the trigger deep through the midsections entire group of muscle, getting the legs quickly into the shot, and a powerful forearm twist upon impact helps too.

All that =a man named Joseph Louis Barrow.

Ronald Lipton
12-04-2005, 10:17 PM
I forgot to add one of the most important ingredients.

Terrific hand speed.

handtomouth
12-04-2005, 11:34 PM
ronald re:

>>>It is speed, timing, harnessing deep muscular fiber into the punch from everywhere, hard hands, snap, balance, body dip, great torque on the punch, use of pulling the trigger deep through the midsections entire group of muscle, getting the legs quickly into the shot, and a powerful forearm twist upon impact helps too.>>>

excellent description... concise but covers all the bases...

for me it actually points even more to dempsey then louis ... it precisely describes why dempsey had so much freakish power for a guy, who at first appearance (esp to the more novice) on film, seems too wiry to topple the tree top 220lb + guys...

what you succinctly described so well.. is exactly what the 185lb dempsey uncorked in perfect collective kinetic force, when he hit willard w/ the last punch of the 4 punch sequence in the first knockdown of willard...

that particular left was a reaping scythe from hell, released as if from the tension of a steel cord being cut away from the golden gate bridge ... it completely caved in & shattered willards right cheek bone plate & and knocked the senses out of a fighter who to my knowledge hadnt even been stunned before in a fight... simply stated... it was the most devasting left hook ever in a major fight.

the point you made about harnessing deep muscular fiber & pulling the trigger deep through the midsections entire group of muscle... also point precisely to why bowed up low rep weight lifting muscle isnt the same as labor intensive dense muscles.. wh/ again is why a guy like dempsey got a lot of mileage from years of past mining & agric work and later axe training... or why anyone w/ any sense tends to fear the punch of a hardened construction worker... moreso then a bowed up weight rm addict...

lastly in re to your point on great torque on the punch... something i'd add to that in re to the great power punchers who were 205 lbs and down .... is that i've noticed w/ many of these punchers they not only have long arms wh/ helped creating the centrifugal force creating the torque... but they also had proportonally longer upper torsos then usual from the waist up... if you couple a strong long back w/ powerful shoulders and long, strong forearmed arms... you get physical assets if used w/ gifted balance and agility of timing thru the legs that can be lethal in their ability to break down opponents...

unlike someone w/ tall long legged frames over 6"3", you dont needs as much distance from your opponent to unleash full power... and you can maximize the power of your shoulder rotation and snap into the opponent w/ the added force of a long powerful back following thru it...

i've specifically noticed this w/ louis, marciano and dempsey in frame and on action in film... wh/ in each case accounts for some much power i think w/in close distance... i understand that fitzsimmons and langford were also blessed w/ long upper torsos.

HEGrant
12-07-2005, 01:38 AM
Sure Pee-Wee, keep correcting me like how Liston, Foreman, Shavers and Tyson were overated as punchers...we can all learn from you. Mine ws a name slip...yours was simply a lack of knowledge...it's all right in the thread. Memoralized. As to your leel of knowledge :rollin

PeteLeo
12-07-2005, 03:26 AM
Maybe more than one name slip, huh, boobala? Like say, every second or third name you toss out? But it's part of that warm, indefinable charm you weave over us all.

Liston, Foreman, Tyson overrated as punchers? Only in relation to Louis, I'd say. I do contend that Earnie is a little bit mythologized by fans (including me from time to time). He was hell on second-raters, but his resume against the upper tier of fighters is a rather barren one: Ellis, Norton, and . . . whom? If he were really "the hardest puncher in boxing history," as I've read him described by more than one observer, it just seems to me than he would have shown it against at least a few really tough jamokes.

Gotta admit, however, you've got me dead to rights regarding your last sentence there, pard. I have no idea at all just what my "leel" of knowledge is in the grand scheme of things. Maybe watching my tape of "Vitali" decking Mercer again will help me work that one out?

Happy holidays! PeteLeo.

HEGrant
12-07-2005, 10:53 AM
Pee Wee, your lack of knowledge is obvious but excusable...no one ever said you were bright or interesting...however, your recent attempts to revise your all time ignorant position from this thread by resorting to name calling, deflection and personal attacks is sad, a bit pathetic but obviously reflective of who you are Old Man. Just another keyboard bigshot.

I openly question if Gor holds his "staff" to the same standards he asks of the other posters. If so, now is the time to show it. Pee Wee is discrediting the positons and standards we are asked to uphold...

Regardless, you'll always be know as Pee Wee, the man who wrote that Liston, Foreman, Shavers and Tyson were overated as puncher and worse, the man when confronted about it, choose to resort to personal attacks rather than admit first he wrote a dumb piece.

Pee Wee , this is your legacy. It's fair, memorialized and accurately reflects your (limited) knowledge and talents...Quit while your behind, obviously a position your used to and comfortable with. ;)

HEGrant
12-07-2005, 10:59 AM
Sorry there, I notice that Pee Wee is not staff...sorry Board.

GorDoom
12-07-2005, 02:59 PM
Evan:

Who is Pee Wee? & why did you get on my case about him? Btw: Did you ever talk to that webmaster you mentioned?

GorDoom

PeteLeo
12-07-2005, 03:11 PM
I think he's talking about me, but, with that sweet little guy, it's difficult to be sure what exactly he's aiming at. Apparently, I'm not allowed to have the opinion that Louis was a better/harder puncher than Tyson, Shavers, Foreman, and Liston, but that's okay. He thinks Wlad Klitschko has a great chin and Vitali knocked down Mercer. We all see life in our own special ways, and that's what makes for entertaining discussions. PeteLeo.

TKO11
12-07-2005, 03:30 PM
A dumb question: is someone questioning that Klit Sr. knocked Mercer down? He did.

Roberto Aqui
12-07-2005, 03:46 PM
[[[A dumb question: is someone questioning that Klit Sr. knocked Mercer down? He did. ]]]]
=============================

It was Klitscho Jr that knocked down and stopped Mercer, not Sr. The first time I got a Vitali tape, I thought it was Wlad as they look so much alike in the ring and the fight lasted less than 2 rds. Vitali was about the same age as Wlad is now.

As a side note, Shavers often gets credit as the hardest puncher ever, but he was not the hardest "effective" puncher ever because a weak chin often kept him out of the fight and limited arsenal and speed usually kept him from connecting on better fighters.

Effective power has to go to Vitali or Marciano overall. However I think when Louis first retired that he would probably be considered the king. His comeback showed much less effective ring power and diluted his numbers. Fighters like Langford, Dempsey and Tyson had incredible peaks of power and Big George may get the nod for the longest effective power.

In the end, it's all one fella sitting in his shorts against another which is why they call it subjective speculation and is hardly worth scrappin' over.

TKO11
12-07-2005, 03:54 PM
You're right Roberto. It was Junior, not Senior. My mistake - though who can tell them apart at the best of times (or apart from when Junior is falling down from the breeze of a haymaker that missed)?

PeteLeo
12-07-2005, 10:49 PM
I've watched the bout a couple of times now, but I have to ask: did anyone see Lamon Brewster throw a punch close enough to Klitschko the Lesser's chin so that even the breeze impacted it? I can't see even a jab that lands with enough force to create the last knockdown. That remains one of the weirdest pieces of business I've even encountered in what is basically a weird business, boxing.
Maybe it isn't Wlad's chops that are letting him down -- maybe he's crumbling from vicious extra-sensory projections? PeteLeo.

gregbeyer
12-08-2005, 01:35 AM
whoa...pee wee...boobala....extra sensory projections....have i crossed over here??:rolleyes

greg

PeteLeo
12-08-2005, 04:11 AM
"The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine." Somebody Famous (I think I heard Carl Sagan attribute that to Einstein once. Or somebody.) PeteLeo.

Roberto Aqui
12-08-2005, 08:06 AM
"Just remember, too much of something is the same as nothing."..............Johnny Cash

HEGrant
12-08-2005, 10:41 AM
and that Foreman cannot hit....talk about strange ! :rollin ;)

PeteLeo
12-08-2005, 04:10 PM
But Wlad K. can take a monstrous blow to the mandibles. "Cursiouser and curiouser." PeteLeo.

Hagler04
12-08-2005, 06:42 PM
I always hear people say that about Wlad-Brewster

3rd round-straight left by Brewster, Wlad seriously wobbled

5th round-Wlad NAILED FLUSH on the chin by a left hook

More then a breeze me thinks . . .

PeteLeo
12-08-2005, 07:24 PM
I'll have to watch it again when the opportunity presents itself (I didn't keep a copy on VHS). It just all seemed so weird to me when Klitschko began hyperventilating in the corner even before he appeared to be tiring (or hurt). You could see the panic attack birthing in his eyes. I'm not making any excuses for the guy, his chin problems are there for all to see (though I concede the point to those who also remind us that he's always getting up from the knockdowns and trying to stay in the fight -- re: Sam Peter), but if there ever was a hinky, possibly "influenced" (by the opponent's camp) fight in modern big-time boxing, this one surely looks the part.
So, who should Wladdy try for next? Redemption or oblivion with Brewster, or repetition with Byrd? PeteLeo.

Roberto Aqui
12-08-2005, 07:55 PM
[[[[3rd round-straight left by Brewster, Wlad seriously wobbled

5th round-Wlad NAILED FLUSH on the chin by a left hook

More then a breeze me thinks . . . ]]]]
===================================

That's a lot more than a breeze you're producing, that's an EPA warning.

Wlad was never seriously wobbled in the fight, Brewster was, or did you get them mixed up? Wlad took 20X the punishment against Peter in a far tougher fight for him than Brewster dished out. Wlad was up 4X against Sanders who is far more powerful and landing cleaner on him than Brewster. C'mon, according to you, Wlad can't take zer0 punishment without being KOed.

Brewster was given a gift.

mike21
12-08-2005, 08:14 PM
htm- just curios- did marciano have a lon back in proportion- im not at all sarcastis here - but curios- i just have not thought of it;please reply, of hand maybe he did but he certainly was nbot long armed but blessed with incredible power in the right- with the added attitibutes of a very srtong back, forearms, and more importantly- natual bodt to hand genius that separetes great punhers from all others- they get their power behin their shots in a natural manner, short long or inderrent, withou little concentration, effort or forcing the blow- its natually to them as opposed to a , not the best examples but examples nevertheless, a foreman and baer who had to really force the blow as opposed to the more giifted puncher who hits soooo hard because he does not need to and when needed will force his punches as well- but no need to. thanks. bye for now

PeteLeo
12-08-2005, 08:15 PM
Go back to Mr. Ron's post of 12/4, 3:15 p.m. on this thread (page 7). Unless I misread it, he picked Louis as overall the hardest hitter.
I never thought about the length of the torso in relation to power. Certainly, physiological aspects must play in to the power equation, but you sometimes get rather squat guys who bring huge impact to their punches (Gomez, Olivares, Frazier, etc.).
Foreman and Shavers a little overrated, you say? Shhh, that might get a troll or two nipping at your ankles, you know.
Good post, man. PeteLeo.

HEGrant
12-08-2005, 08:17 PM
He can obviously take a shot from light weights like Foreman or Shavers Pee Wee...you'll never live it down...it's great !!!

GorDoom
12-08-2005, 08:44 PM
This has turned into one of the most juvenile, insipid threads we've ever had. What is this? Jr. High School?

C'mon, I know times are slow in boxing right now but this board is better than this tripe. Or at least I'd like to think so ...

GorDoom

Roberto Aqui
12-08-2005, 09:14 PM
[[[[I really need to track down a copy of this one. Was Klitschko officially ruled down in the fifth? I seem to remember the ref counting, but there're also images of the "knockdown" being ruled a slip.]]]]]
============================

Wlad was clearly out of steam and almost defenseless and in retreat when Brewster knocked him into the ropes. The ref administered a standing 8 count. Brewster then went after the retreating Wlad who bounced off the ropes as Brewster swung, clipping him on the top of the head as he was already heading down from the momentum of the bounce. Since the bell had rung it was not a KD, but Wlad was incoherent and could not get up, so it was ruled a TKO since he needed assistance to his stool and could not continue.

Now Wlad had beat the crud out of Brewster in the 4th, not to mention the previous 3 rds, knocking him down and even Roy was calling for the slaughter to end. Wlad was knocking down Brewster again, but Lamon managed to duck the last blow and went down at Wlads legs. Suddenly, though not even hit, Wlad tumbled and couldn't get up, so the ref helped him to his feet since the bell had rung. I felt right then in there that he had been drugged. He came out in the 5th like a baby lamb, barely having the strength to guard himself and Brewster quickly sensed his own nightmare was over and went after him leading to the standing 8 count, ect.

handtomouth
12-08-2005, 09:15 PM
mike good points in re power punchers...

in re to how long backed upper torso fighters get a carry over to power...

power no doubt is mixture of balance, timing & power... the gift or mystery if you will to it, in re to how some seemingly smaller fighter get major power is the ability of those few to maximize and coordinate the above attributes into a collective force...

its no doubt part gift... and can be seen for ex in football w/ qb's... how could a doug flutie or michael vick be able to uncork 70yrd passing ability when so many smaller and even larger qb's can't? ... the answer is partly their gift to collectivly combine in motion their tools...

in re to the science of punching power... it truely starts w/ distribution from the feet up... thats why the planting of the feet is so important...as the puncher begins to uncoil thru the thighs he then quickly distributes to the lower back and abs... this split sec juncture takes honed skills and some level of natural gifts to trump up the energy transfer as the torso swivels and extends thru the shoulder and arms...

that explosion power and snap then really gets its power base from the upper thighs and midsection... hence the vital importance of ab work....

to maximize this even further... one can get a marked added advantage if they have a long back to extend that energy transfer thru....

it also allows you, esp when inside, to wedge your body & inturn your punches in closer thru being able to lean in closer... this advantage falls into place w/o having to move your feet any closer b/c of that added extension... you see in other sports also... for ex middle linebackers who have to deliver abrupt crushing power in short spaces are bolstered when built like this... ck out for ex the frame of dick butkis, sam huff or a zach thomas... all had or have longer proportioned upper torso's in comparison to their legs.

powerful forearms, wrists & shoulders are also obviously pluses for power.... but the long back allows a longer route of energy transfer... those punchers who have that physical attribute and then can synchronize energy seamlessly from the feet up thru the back to the fist get an added dynamic to power that can be vital...

marciano, dempsey & louis all had that frame & i firmly believe it was a key component, along w/ the velocity to unleash it, to the freakish power they possesed.

HEGrant
12-08-2005, 09:34 PM
There is very little rhyme of reason to power...some have it and some don't...it's not arm or back length...it's something inate like being able to have a great throwing arm...how could Fitz at 170 hit harder than Ali at 215 ? How could Dempsey at 180 hit harder than almost anyone at any size ?

I think Dempsey, Louis and Marciano had three diffferent bodytypes...Marciano was obviously short and squat. Dempsey was long limbed , lanky and thin legged...Louis was naturally a bit more muscular in the arms and legs than Dempsey ....a bitthicker overall...however, all three had great power ...still, some might not agree. :rollin , there's no accounting for perception. ;)

PeteLeo
12-08-2005, 09:35 PM
I really need to track down a copy of this one. Was Klitschko officially ruled down in the fifth? I seem to remember the ref counting, but there're also images of the "knockdown" being ruled a slip. Anyhow, it was much crazier than Wlad's losses to Puritty and Sanders. I thought it was all over when Brewster was smacked down (and maybe it was, since Wlad threw everything he had in an effort to end it there).
Isn't it funny how Lamon started off his championship reign being regarded as clearly unworthy of the title due to this strange encounter and then getting his ass handed to him through much of the Meehan present, yet now he's being upgraded to perhaps the best of the lot of claimants due to his last couple of performances? He still takes a lot of punishment, though (and he takes it in a way that shows it hurts him), so I hope we're not watching an unfortunate ending in the making. PeteLeo.

handtomouth
12-08-2005, 09:35 PM
hegrant...

no doubt power is not an exact science... and there is no cookie cutter frame that always points to it...

there have obviously been other power punchers who didnt have long backs...

the secret more then anything must first come from the gift of being able to collectively combine all of ones attributes (whatever they are) into a synchronous collective force...

hitting a baseball or even golf in this since has a true blood brother w/ boxing...

if you ever saw sam snead swing a club, it didnt even really look like he was trying that hard... yet the ball would explode down the fairway... why? ... b/c he could collectively harmonize the flow of power... ditto ted williams and joe dimaggo...

and today who hits further then anyone... tiger woods

certainly a strong guy in a wiry way... but in no way is this guy huge like a big john daly... rather he maxamizes velocity, equipt advantages and a seamless swing into 360 yrd consistent drives...

all that said... my point was in re to a long torso.... is if you get gifted athletic punchers like a marciano or dempsey or louis... who knew how to use balance and collective flow....

then you got to see 3 punchers who also had the added physical gift of build.... b/c solely from a cold science physics calculus... a long extended upper torso provides a longer passageway for energy transfer wh/ translates into added power...

that is of course if you have the gift and skill those fighters had to get the components collectively in motion along w/ the velocity to carry that mojo thru the long torso and out the fists.

PeteLeo
12-08-2005, 10:00 PM
Who did all that better than Louis? The man was poetry when he had an opponent in trouble.

Naturally, bigger performers tend to be able to take more punishment -- in sheer, measured ergs (is that a word?) -- than smaller ones, which is why we have weight divisions, but even this seems to have an upper limit. I don't watch the UFC-styled broadscasts often, but on one that a buddy of my invited me to, an American "sumo" (I think his name was Lester Jackson or something like that) who weighed over six hundred pounds and had some degree of athletic ability (I imagine he could get off of the couch unassisted, anyway) took on a much smaller mixed-arts fighter (bout 180lbs.) with a background in boxing and wrestling. The match lasted some twenty seconds, as the first clean combo the "little" guy landed dropped the sumo like a very large sack of wet cement.
Vitali K. seems to have possessed a nice beard, but can that be said of Lewis? Grant? McCline? Not really. Even Golota failed to stand up well when pasted by guys who knew how to punch (aside from Bowe, of course). I would guess that Whitaker takes the best shot of the current "giants," but even he was stopped by a much smaller opponent in his last match.
In short, the Dempseys and Louises may be members of a rare club, but when they show up, "bigger is better" often goes right out the window. PeteLeo.

mike21
12-08-2005, 10:17 PM
pete, wasnt it you who thought foreman an shavers were overrated in this regard. im not sure of this opininon because im here at the library and consequently am rused nine times of ten . as far as i rember, yes foreman needed alot of room and did push his punches- fact is- although some some his oppents said how hard he hi others did not- such as chuvalo who thought dejon and one other hit harder- most importantly from a century of devastingly dangerous punchers- perhaps only one man had his oppents in unanimous agreement as far as firepower was concerned- and yes that was dempsey- much of the reason i rate him so high in this regard- how he is to bbe ranked as a fighter is beyond me, but in some attribites i definatealy rank fighters, be it best jab, etc. for example in dempseys case; following the willard bout. the nyt in july 5 19; willard said " its hard to admitt defeat, but dempseys the hardest hitter i ever faced", morris said "hes the hardest hitter i ever faced. hes a man killer" miske said "he just hits too hard to be beaten", jack skelly who fought george dixon and was at the willard fight " i honsetjy believe dempseys tthe hardest hitter who ever lived<", grantand rice said after the willard fight"dempsey must be able to hit harder than any man who has lived- his punches seemmed to the same effect on willard as a srong man swinging upon willard with a sladgehammer." nat fleisher in 1970 rated dempsey in a special ring issue 0who was the all time power puncher- had "dempsey most detrucive puncher" carpentier said"dempsey hit me with the hardestest punches any man ever threw, nobody could hit like dempsey." gibbons "lord, how that man can hit", sharkey"dempsey was the hardest hitter i ever faced. if he hit you on the shoulder, he could disolcate it." tunney always ranked dempsey as the hardest hitter he ever fouhgt, schemling thought dempsey as a fighter and a puncher as a "man killer." max baer on numerous occasions, he sparred with dempsey at leAST 4 TIMES said"demspey hits harder than i ever could and harder than any man i saw or fouhgt."jim braddock said "baer hit harder than luis with one punch, but dempsey was the hardest hitter who ever lived." jack mcaullie lightweight champ who saw sullivan and all of his successors was leafd to comment after sparring with dempsey- outside of dempseys ear-what he thought-he thought alot of suilvan- butt- a sullivan-dempsey fight "would have been heart breaking in its sudeness, over in three punches. sullivan would throw and land the first punch; a right. dempsey would land the next two- a right to the heart and left to the jaw,.that would be it." louis always said dempsey was the hardest hitter he ever saw; he saw dempsey and refferred the exhition in 1940. bearcat wright who fought baer and in exhition said"dempseys the hardest hitter i ever foght and the greatest fighter" 1940. many others said the same thing. anyhow, it provers absolutly noyhing, just dont underestimate a steel hard hungry puncher with real punching coordinayion and reflesses.thaks

handtomouth
12-08-2005, 10:18 PM
further extending the parallel between collective motion swing sports like baseball and golf to boxing...

i've seen in several photos over the years... of both louis and dempsey on the fairways... along also w/ carpentier & tunney (no suprise there as he was probaly trying to upscale /w the bluebloods ;) ) ...

i'm interested if any other known boxers are also golfers...

i understand that joe louis was actually very good... getting close to a scratch player... it certainly points to the guys athletic gifts w/ timing & coordination.

does anyone know if dempsey, tunney and carp were also decent golfers?

i know the two sports seems miles away... but i contend, in regards to the motion to power aspect.... there are similarities in re to how some could so amazingly maximaize velocity and balance into power.

tiger woods in the ring !!?? :hat

mike21
12-08-2005, 10:32 PM
late to this post as i needc to go to a library to ge on the interent, i dont have one at home. to bad doodie is gone; face to face i would have busted his face for the sarcastic stupipty that is prebvalent on other boxing forums- old school or not- i would have bust him out until he was unconsious or hane one of my fighters do it for me if my age got in the way-dont wise off to an adult- if you do- youll be f- up for doniing so- and the whole block would be cheering. anytime some tough kid or moer like it some wiseass got to wise in the gym- hed be sparring with pros day in day oout with orders to punish and f him up. usually its one sparring session. wiseasses get theirs quick- and are doommed in the gym; or the gym i used to teach at.i was waiting for lipton to put his 2 cents in . imo only dempsey hit harder. but one can NEVER discount louis out of that. the right hand long range swing belongs to baer- but it simply was not much harder at all than a lois or dempsy right thrown as they did. dempsey when he did rear back probaly hit harder than baer- as baer said-"dempsey could hit harder than i could" lois slightly below baer it this respect-BUT louis definatly hit almost as had by only a slight degree less with short compact rights, than all the swings baer threwand was more effective. to me in all respects to ron, demnpsey hit harderest, but louis, man if dempsey didnt louis assuredly did. imo after these two in sheer power, then in no order, marciano,liston, baer-when his left hand wasnt messed up, that is from schemilg and before. shavers overrated, foreman was not the hulk, and satterfield way up there, but not in the marciano class- YOU DO NEED TO KO TOP TEN FIGHTERS TO BE A GREAT PUNCHER FAIRLY CONSISTANT MY GOD. anyhow ron may disagree with me oon a top choice- but if the reverse was true. NO big shock in this corner.

brutu
12-08-2005, 11:50 PM
Wasnt it Arthur C. Clarke who said that in his television show?

mike21
12-09-2005, 12:26 AM
as far as a long backed scientific, physics type of energy theroy, please exlain futher as im interseted but not convinced. if your talking more of srong, lean men, thats different, and specifically, longer backed men that may be so, but arennt many a six foot plus man have proportion a longer back- or perhape not- if your are saying in proportion like a louis, etc, i get your drift- but not the mechanics behind it. if it is something that has been explored in other sports in testing- im all ears- i suspect you have come across something like this in other sports, such as golf, where, finetics are a huge part of the interset in swing analisis. thanks. and i suspect more than one proment analysyt may have said in golf,=if you can, whenever, please expain if thats where you came upon this- if so - i need no further expaination-thay know their stuff.

handtomouth
12-09-2005, 12:27 AM
mike as hegrant alluded to its certainly not exact science nor a prerequisite...

tommy hearns is a classic ex of a long-legged indiv w/o a long back who had killer power...

that said, i've seen the longer proportioned back as an added advantage to not only power.... but also being able to better maximize space...

in this sense, when turned to the side and leaning it essentially extends ones reach.... wh/ imo points to one of the reasons marciano was able to get around to some degree in having very little reach in comparison to other fighters...

go to corbis.com or other sites and put in marciano's name and look at many of the fight photos... you'll notice how this guy really knew how to use that lean and get the full extension of his back thru his punches...

that leaning inside can also be used, if strong enough to more easily in grapples get under someone to create space for punches... or even move people laterally some in clinches...

even from the outside you also see it as an advantage... ck out some of the willard dempsey photos and noticed how much full added extension got on punches from the outside by taking advantage of his longer back and extending them thru his punches...

in both fighters cases it seemed to be much more of an advantage against bigger & taller fighters...

so if your taller over 6'3" it doesnt play as much to your advantage b/c your already taller then most of your competition.... also keep in mind not all tall people have proportionally longer backs... its person to person...

for ex. wilt chamberlain vrs bill walton shows the contrast.... chamberlain got more of his height via his legs... on the other hand walton got more of his height via his long backed torso...

so if both were in the ring & had to fight an 7'8" giant :lol ... walton imo would have a physical advantage ...

essentially the physics based mechanics advantage to it is (esp against taller fighters), you've don't have to position yourself inside quite as close, in vulnerable range... yet b/c of your added back extension, you can still get the added reach...

also, if you have fast torso swivel, your punches can get more inside power to them b/c you can extend your longer back thru them... duran for ex was good at this taking advantage of his longer torso... or think of dempsey's ko punch on sharkey...

lastly, from the outside those mechanics play simply to added extension... that has to couple w/ a lot of handspeed though to mean anything... & in dempsey's case, pre '23, he did play this to his advantage in the willard and fulton fights for ex.

hey mike did you get your phone fixed? ... still like to talk to you in re to your conversations w/ sharkey.

PeteLeo
12-09-2005, 04:57 AM
Yep, I wrote (revisitionists aside) that Foreman scored a lot of TKO's with the brute force style of hitting that knocked men down repeatedly but often didn't knock them out (I can't take credit for having the idea first, as it came from Ali himself); whereas Joe's faster and more precise hitting scored many old-fashioned "out to a thousand," totally unconscious, bring-in-the-stretcher knockouts. I rate Louis a harder puncher than George.
I also stated that Shavers might actually approach Louis in sheer power, but his poor record against upper level opposition (most of the better men he fought knocked him out, instead of the other way around) could lead only to the conclusion that he must be seen as somewhat overrated as "the hardest hitter in boxing history." Someone (I think it was you, actually) pointed out that a great puncher must first prove himself consistently against top-notch competition.
Now, this is all a matter of degree, naturally, so I'm not going to categorically deny that Dempsey hit harder than Louis. The entire effort was inspired by that EAGLE poster's shrill declaration that Louis could land his money punch directly on Ali's chin and "not disturb a hair on Muhammad's balls," apparently entirely due to Ali's size advantage. I guess he conveniently forgot that Henry Cooper was something like 188 lbs. when he knocked Ali into another reality with one left hook.
I pick Louis to clearly defeat Liston, Shavers, and Tyson, while I think a Louis-Foreman match would be a toss-up. Man, wouldn't that fight be the ultimate Christmas present? PeteLeo.

handtomouth
12-09-2005, 05:39 AM
i'll always contend... when it came to pure raw power... shavers ranks in the top 5 ever...

again this is much different then effective use of power... something he wasnt that good in...

not to mention his own lack of defensive skills and vulnerability to get rocked...

but prayers go out to anyone who took flush full bore shots from shavers... that guy rocked people to the bone...

ali had the unfortunate circumstance to run into just that... in what may have been his finest hour... he rocked a woefully untrained ali to the river styx... if anyone ever denies ali didnt have one of the greatest chins ever... go view that fight... i can distinctly remember seeing that the first time on live tv and being shocked at how glassy ali's eyes became after taking some vicious flush shots... yet his will refused to let him go down...

in retrospect, maybe ali shouldve gone down... imo if you could point to any one fight in wh/ ali may have taken damage wh/ has led to his health problems... i think its the flush hammers he took in this one.

mike21
12-09-2005, 12:40 PM
htm- damn goog post about mechanics-really damn insughtful-glad guys like you, pete ,gd,ron,and all the others are in this so i could learn; and i have as im sure most of you all have.htm-really DAMN good.as far as power who the hell knows but as dempsey said regarding louis,marciano, and liston "they COULD HIT- and im glad i never had to face them," the bold type just as he wrote it. and so could sullivan to louis-to shavers etc. i did notice marcianos long back too.my phone is working feel free to call anytime- if not in just leave a message. it would be all of my pleasure, thanks to all, gotta go.

mike21
12-09-2005, 12:52 PM
htm, as far as that inside extention and speed and swirl- check out in slow moyion in the second round of the dempsey firpo fight just before the first kdown the four inside shots dempsey threw- youll get a kick out of it in slow motion- of couse0 in marciano , hearns others you see it slomo. thanks

mike21
12-09-2005, 01:28 PM
pete- i think it was you who said braddock said baer hit harder than anyman that could ever live- i think you just got the name wrong. in an article that i had titled THE POWER in sport or sports illustrated mag- im not sure as i lost the article- lou nova was interviewed in the 80s as hearns was coming up and devasting his opponents. max baer did not kill 2 men in the ring- check out ibro article- but he did kill one inside and one outside the ring. nova said fighting baer was a very frightenig experiece. it was like he had the power to break your neck. now; in the first baer fight he had some friends at ringside. just when baer hit nova and sent him into the ropes and then down, one of his friends expired on the spot,from a heart attack. he died from fright. absolutely true ;nova would never make that up- he was a straight guy, according to arcel, and why make up such a tragic yarn. you can tell mr, nova felt very bad about that. perhaps at the end of his long ranged puch baer did hit hardest- woulnt bet too much agaist it, maybe somebody out there has the article. thaks.

kikibalt
12-09-2005, 01:49 PM
Walsh b
It not April fools day yet.
Lewis # 5 hardest hitter?

Kid Achilles
12-09-2005, 01:50 PM
I just can't see Tyson in such a top ten list. He was powerful for sure, but his handspeed and ability to catch a guy off guard were so vital for his being effective as a knockout puncher. Once he slowed down, his punches were revealed as being strong but not earth shattering. A true top ten puncher at any age would have been able to at least stagger McBride who is an easy target with a poor chin.

Does anyone here doubt that a 50 year old Dempsey,Louis,Foreman, Shavers, Baer etc. would have iced McBride in a few rounds? I understand Tyson was shot but all of those guys could really hit far after they were world class material in the ring.

It just seems suspicious to me, all of those TKO's and mutltide knockdowns in matches. I feel like Tyson overwhelmed them with speed and accuracy and a pretty damn hard punch, but I'd rather get hit by a Tyson right than stand between what Shavers nailed Holmes with.

Tyson's power just seems impressive to me in the way that Morrison, Mike Weaver, Ibeabuchi etc were impressive hitters. Exceptional power, for sure, but nothing freakish. If you measured Tyson on some kind of power punching machine and compared his score to some of his contemporaries, Ruddock, Bruno, Weaver etc. I don't think Tyson's results would have stood out at all, and he may have produced less force than some of these men.

Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Baer, Foreman, Shavers, Liston etc broke the mold. They produced feats of punching power, all of them. They broke bones, lifted opponents off their feet in shocking fashion. Tyson never did that, he just knocked guys out, and usually after they had taken a few trips to the canvas. I don't think I've read an interview where a boxer lists Tyson as the hardest puncher he had fought. They would say "God he hit hard" but never "Without a doubt, Tyson was the hardest puncher I fought".

Tyson was one of the BEST punchers in the sport for the way he married speed/accuracy and power but not one of the HARDEST.

HEGrant
12-09-2005, 02:18 PM
There is a clear distinction between a great puncher and a great fighter. Louis was a great puncher and a great fighter.....Foreman was a great puncher who was a great fighter..so was Dempsey, the young Tyson and Liston...their power was exceptional, with question (almost always ;) )...

Shavers was a great puncher who was not a great fighter..to dispute, handicap or factor his power in any way can only be justified by someone who took a few (too many) from him....no one would say a Bob Satterfield was not a great puncher because he was not a great fighter..Cleveland Williams would be another...Luis Firpo would be another.....

A great puncher who is not a great fighter might not beat any great fighters because their limitations will be exposed...however, simply because they did not knock out great opponents because they were unable to connect does not take away from their power.

As far as comparing power from fighter to fighter, it is tough...Walcott said once that Marciano hit harder , shot for shot, than Louis...while he was in a huge position to have authority to say so, I find it hard to beleve based on who they fought and the KO's they produced...take out the Walcot KO and I don't remember any one punch KO's produced by Rocky against world class opposition..he more often had to wear guys down and these were not Chavalo's either (Charles, Moore, LaStarza, Cockell)....In addition, the far more limited (than Louis) Marciano did try to throw haymakers far more often, he had little choice if he was to win. What was he going to do, try and out jab his opponents ? I also feel Walcott was on the spot when he made that statement on a national t.v. show and he did not want to diss either fighter...who knows ?

Tex Cobb had an interesting theoy on this topic ...since he took so many shots, he might be in a great position to offer comment. He said that there is only so hard a man can hit another man...the difference is how often some men can produce that power...he said that Earnie Shavers hit him the hardest because every time Shavers hit him it was with all he had..every time....Tex said that Ken Norton hit him once just as hard as Shavers ever hit him, however Shavers managed to hit him that hard every time...

It is also a random topic...you have Ali, a decent and underated puncher but still not on the top level, icing Bonavena when the harder hitting Frazier could not do so in 25 rounds. Go figure...James Toney , for all his hitting hype, only took out Nunn with a killer hook. I have never seen Toney flatten a world class guy with one shot in the past 15 years since. Nunn, a light hitter, took out an exceptional Kalamby with one shot in the first round..a huge surprise. This type of list goes on and on...

My point is that there are many, many factors figured into KO's and power in general...it is more often who manages to catch who when and where...other than that you have the most consistant, great punchers (at heavy) , tried and true, over the decades...Fitz, Jeffries, Langford, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano (maybe a slight step below) Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, Lewis of the greats...the non-greats...Shavers, Firpo, Satterfield, Williams, Lyle and a half dozen others...

walsh b
12-09-2005, 03:45 PM
Top ten hardest hitters (single shot)

1. Foreman
2.Tyson
3.Shavers
4. Liston
5. Lewis
6. Marciano
7. Dempsey
8. Louis
9. Cooney
10. Bowe

Cooney I could rate higher as he really could wallop, but I think it might infuriate a ferw people. He wasn't an alltime legend I know, but he had a deadly punch, as Norton found out. BTW, These are my ratings if I could conduct a test on a machine.....one single almighty punch. I still see Louis or Tyson as having the overall package, speed, precision and volume......

Sebastian Guerriero
12-09-2005, 05:15 PM
Tyson was a great puncher, but he was not a raw power puncher. I wouldn't rate him high in terms of raw power, punching or otherwise (Clinching). Don't get me wrong, I would rate him highly as a puncher because of his combination of speed, accuracy, and natural power. However, without the speed and accuracy, he wouldn't have been what he was. If your talking about terms of raw strength, guys like Liston, Foreman, Marciano, and Shavers would be ahead of him, as would others in my book.

walsh b
12-09-2005, 05:21 PM
Tyson's blockbuster right he clobbered Holmes with to knock him down for the first time was right up there as one of the single hardest shots thrown by a heavyweight. Kiki, Lewis was 6ft 5 an 17 stone.....to say he wasn't a mighty single shot hitter is a little naieve. He threw that shot against Rahman and I don't think many heavies in history could have generated that power from one shot. Rahman's face broke up on impact....

Achilles I see where you're coming from as regards Tyson, I rate him I suppose because of his rep as well as his performances. Maybe a Bruno or Ruddock could hit harder, but they failed to demonstrate it as effectively as Mike.....

kikibalt
12-09-2005, 06:03 PM
Walsh- i'm i a boxing fan?, i was more then a fan i was involved in the boxing game as a trainer and manager since the late 50s

Frank B.

handtomouth
12-09-2005, 06:04 PM
tend to agree w/ hegrant in re to tyson...

sure in his prime he revved up serious velocity and accurate form into devasting effect.... but behind that was viciously exploding raw power...

look at his body... esp his thighs and tree trunk thick back... his spring upward w/ this muscle exploded thru his fists... that compact, wired tight brick of muscle generated a lot of raw power.. even w/ the velocity set aside...

as mentioned, the list of some of the chins he rocked were big tough chinned men... in several cases he not only knocked them down... but he short circuited their whole nervous systems... you dont do that w/o serious power...

even on the downfall... the power was still unleashed...

buster douglas busted up his body and lumped his head for a agonizing duration of most of the fight... yet that wounded tyson w/ one well placed punch put the best buster back on his butt temporarily...

ditto his ability to still hurt holy late in the fight...

& granted holmes may well have been past his prime... but this was still the larry who got up from the destroyer shavers.. yet tyson put the very well chinned holmes into dream land...

effective punching power (the ability to deliver it and accurately maximize it) in his prime ... he may be tops... w/ louis and dempsey close behind....

in re to just pure raw power (mass impact & effect on landed shots).... he's probaly only 2nd or 3rd to foreman & baer ... i'd say he had more in this re then even liston, tua or shavers.

naf2003
12-09-2005, 06:08 PM
The 50 year old Shavers was knocked out in two by Brian Yates who was 5-16-2 at the time and who went on to a career record of 13-86-3. So, it is doubtful the 50 year old Shavers could have stopped McBride.

Walker Smith
12-09-2005, 06:11 PM
Another instance of Lewis' power was Razor Ruddock, who couldn't stand 2 rounds with Lewis, but could stand in against Tyson for well longer. Lewis, when he came at you aggressively, could knock you out rather quickly.

The punch on Vitali created the worst cut I've seen from one punch with 10 ounce gloves or heavier. Downright brutal.

There is no doubt that he had the ability to wreck guys with one punch. The problem was that he didn't have confidence in his power. I always thought of him as a George Foreman type in the beginning of his career (without the chin). Later in his career, his power became only an asset.

I fret to think how brutal that punch he landed Rahman would've been with Dempsey's gloves rather than the 12 ouncers.

kikibalt
12-09-2005, 06:13 PM
Walsh b
to think that b/c lewis is 6ft-5 make him a great puncher i think is been naieve, by your thinking Primo Carnera 6ft-5 was also a great puncher, btw what is 17 stone?.
Do you think Carnera was a great puncher?


Frank B.

HEGrant
12-09-2005, 06:56 PM
Lennox Lewis was a tremendous puncher. The flattening of Ruddock, Golata, Grant were devestating...the right hand that KO'ed Rachman was about as hard as I've ever seen anyone hit...his KO power was exceptional.

handtomouth
12-09-2005, 06:58 PM
re:

Weight doesn't mean jack when you don't have the leg equilibrium, speed and hip movement that the shorter, more compact Louis did...

Louis was a big man. I still can't get over how much larger he looked, at 60-something years old, in comaprison to Frazier-Quarry when he ref'd them, two guys who should be in around his size if we go by simple stats (and who more then held their own with big heavyweights).

It's skeletal structure and makeup, not weight.

hagler... good points...

louis like dempsey trained down in weight in their primes... they felt better at that lean continuum end of their weight ranges... and also knew in that era, bulking up wasnt needed
as much...

one distinctive exception for dempsey though, while still in his prime.... was in the firpo fight...

after seeing that fight again closely a couple of years ago.... i noticed that dempsey looked bigger across the shoulders and chest... sure enough when i checked his weight stats for that fight... he added on about 8lbs coming in at 193 lbs for that fight...

i'm not sure what type of strength training he did.... but its clear in seeing him in that fight, that he targeted adding more muscle mass... in fighting a guy as big and unruly as firpo... it seemed a wise move on dempsey's part...

even for that fight though these were guys that conditioned for lean mass in their era...

but as hagler points out... it doesnt mean their frames werent of thick bone density... nor does it mean that couldnt have handled more weight if they trained and diet for that....

as ive stated in a few other posts... i really see no problem at all for louis and dempsey... w/ todays diets and targeted muscle training... get their frames up to 215... thats a weight that could be still held naturally w/o little loss to velocity or punching effectiveness... infact, even then (as in training for firpo), i'm sure dempsey couldve bulked up over 200lb and still been uncorked quick explosionary power...

look at jack johnson for ex in his body contrast between 1906 (when he held the black belt) fighting langford at 185 & then by 1910 ... he was fighting between 200-205... that added weight wasnt just simply late maturity... rather, it was focused strength training... even i understand weight lifting...

so again both dempsey and even louis in their days couldve bulked up to the 205-215lb range if they had chosen like johnson to take that route... they both had the mesomorph thicker bone frame... this frame can carry weight and maximize increasing power very effectively.

handtomouth
12-09-2005, 06:59 PM
re:

Look, I know it popular and easy to jump all over Tyson these days, but what he did to Berbick, Holmes, and Spinks is all time highlight material. Put him in Jack and Joe's 6 oz gloves and you have major facial breakups and a death or two. Supposedly he did bust up Golota's orbital socket and crack a cervical vertabre. Tyson is a top 10 swatter, no doubt.

agree...

tyson w/ many carries so much bad karma for stunts in (ear biting) & outside the ring (possible rape & squandering a fortune) that its easy to not want to give the guy his objective due... people need psychological scapegoats & he sure fits the bill well when it comes to whipping boys...

if you put that aside & look at the crack this guys punches landed w/ when they hit flush... your fear of facial breakage implosions w/ 6 oz gloves isnt an exxageration...

thats essentially what the 185lb dempsey did to the giant willard in '19... he caved in his entire right cheek bone plate... shattering it into several pieces... w/ tyson's velocity & brickhouse strength .. I could see the same effect happening w/ gloves that small... esp if tyson's fists were as big as dempsey's ( roberto or anyone else know this?)...

HEGrant
12-09-2005, 07:05 PM
The Tyson cannot hit that hard arguments framing his results around speed are a bit silly...you did not see Ali with greater speed flattening so many people...Tyson was a monster puncher, period. He knocked out some guys that had great chins ... remember Berbick ? Remember Thomas ? Both had great chins and Tyson wrecked them. They were never the same in their ability to take and recover from power shots...

Tony Tucker KO'ed with one shot.

Michael Spinks, never even down, flattened like a fly.

His masasacre of Holmes, truly frighteneing.

This is of world class guys...look at the early knockouts, the faces in agony and disbelif of the men he crushed...

Like I wrote, it's a silly argument.

walsh b
12-09-2005, 07:18 PM
Kiki, you are failing to really see the whole point to this debate, whether or not you think Lewis was a great fighter means nothing, the fact is that he had awesome one punch power. Yes he was 17 stone and yes he was not the greatest champion. I'll give you that, but for a single shot, he generated fierce power as some of the posters have pointed out. You seem fixated on the past and Joe Louis. You don't seem to be able to credit the current crop of fighters as being good or great. And I'm a firm believer that size and weight, especially between guys below 200lbs and over 200lbs is very important. Obviously talent has to come into it and if you have a talenetd fighter weighing 220 against a talented fighter weighing 195, you're gonna' put your money on the 220 guy. Another fierce punncher was David Tua, for such a squat guy he could really unload. I'd put him up there with the big hitters no doubt.....

kikibalt
12-09-2005, 07:28 PM
Walsh
Your boy Lewis was not a one punch k.o. artist, no matter how bad you want it to be

Frank B.

kikibalt
12-09-2005, 07:38 PM
Walsh- just using your list of fighters here is my
1-dempsey
2-tyson
3-shaver
4-louis
5-marciano
6-foreman
7- liston
8-lewis
9-cooney
10-bowe

walsh b
12-09-2005, 07:39 PM
Kiki, are you a real boxing fan or not. Did you not see what Lewis did to Rahman with that shot???....Louis wouldn't have done as much damage, nor would many other big punchers. I don't necessarily want him to be a great puncher, he simply is....Physics, nature and talent put him in that league.....

And BTW, Lewis to me was a guy who for his size and physical advantages didn't really use them as he could have. He went thru his career without really fulfilling his potential. He could have been greater, as the Holyfield fights showed, Lewis coasted when he should have excelled.....

walsh b
12-09-2005, 07:44 PM
HEGrant, you say in your last POST that 'Toney Tucker KOed with one single shot'???, do you mean Tucker could do that, or are you saying Mike KO'd Tucker with a single shot???

I always thought Tucker went 12rds with Tyson???

Hagler04
12-09-2005, 08:28 PM
Walsh, Lennox was a very punishing puncher no doubt, but he was not the one-punch KO artist Louis was. Weight doesn't mean jack when you don't have the leg equilibrium, speed and hip movement that the shorter, more compact Louis did. Louis made the huge 6'6 240 lb Buddy Baer do a friggin' 360 spin and then drop to the canvas. He would've done the same to Hasim "couldn't get out of the way if he wanted to" Rahman.

Louis was a big man. I still can't get over how much larger he looked, at 60-something years old, in comaprison to Frazier-Quarry when he ref'd them, two guys who should be in around his size if we go by simple stats (and who more then held their own with big heavyweights).

It's skeletal structure and makeup, not weight. Lewis was a big man but he wouldn't seem like a giant in comparison to Louis if they'd fought. In terms of body type, Lewis, who in his late 20s was a lanky 225 lber, was a smaller man then for example Carnera or Abe Simon.

Kid Achilles
12-09-2005, 08:48 PM
Perhaps I am underrating Tyson as a puncher. It's just that I can't recall one interview where a fighter claimed that punch for punch Tyson hit them the hardest. One fighter (I can't remember who) said that Mike Weaver actually hit significantly harder. Another who had fought/sparred with both Tyson and Bowe said Bowe hit harder than Tyson. I even recall hearing someone who had fought Tyson naming Bruno as a harder puncher. I've read in an interview with Freddie Roach that Wladimir Klitschko also hits the heavybag and mits with more power than Tyson did.

I give a great deal of weight to the opinions of past opponents and trainers when assessing punching power. These are the guys who've fought with them and worked with them. It's the main reason I consider both Marciano and Baer harder (but not better) punchers than Louis.

I've never heard an opponent say "wow no one hits like this guy" in regards to Tyson. Peter McNeely claimed he was actually surprised by Tyson, that he didn't hit as hard as he expected, but was far quicker than he could have ever imagined.

So if we include Tyson, then I think we also need to include Ruddock, Bruno, Morrison, Tua etc. and all these other guys who had exceptional power. I just don't see Tyson hitting much harder if at all harder than Ruddock or Tua.

Walker Smith
12-09-2005, 08:49 PM
To me, the difference between 6 oz gloves and 10/12 oz gloves is the difference between batting with an aluminum bat and a wooden bat. Sure, you can do real damage with a wooden bat, but the aluminum bat is clearly the more effective tool.

Comparing Louis to Lewis isn't totally fair to Lewis. Actually, comparing Dempsey and Louis to any of the 10 oz/12 oz guys isn't fair either. Heck, Dempsey was allowed to maul guys who were on one knee without the neutral corner rule. Totally different eras.

Roberto Aqui
12-09-2005, 09:39 PM
[[[Does anyone here doubt that a 50 year old Dempsey,Louis,Foreman, Shavers, Baer etc. would have iced McBride in a few rounds?]]]
================================

Foreman, probably
Dempsey, remotely possible, but Jack was a roly poly 50 and I imagine that even a shot 36 yr old Tyson on Zoloft is more formidable than Jack was at 50.
Baer died of a heart attact at age 50, so nope, and Louis was not well at age 50, so nope. Shavers KOed by a journeyman many degrees below McBride at age 50, so nope.

Look, I know it popular and easy to jump all over Tyson these days, but what he did to Berbick, Holmes, and Spinks is all time highlight material. Put him in Jack and Joe's 6 oz gloves and you have major facial breakups and a death or two. Supposedly he did bust up Golota's orbital socket and crack a cervical vertabre. Tyson is a top 10 swatter, no doubt.

HEGrant
12-09-2005, 09:56 PM
The only man that took Lewis' shots and lasted in his entire career was the iron chinned Ray Mercer and Mercer hung on often for his life. Holyfield survived because he was able for the most part to avoid getting hit flush, similiar as he did with Tyson. In addition, Holyfield had a granite chin as well...everybody else he flattened...

This business about one punch power is highly overared...almost no one had one punch power...the one punch KO's through out history at=re few and far between...it is all about stopping guys in general, being able to hurt them when you landed...sure Marciano stopped Walcott with one shot, the 90th that he landed that night...the same thing can be said time and again about most.

wildhawke11
12-09-2005, 09:57 PM
When Marciano was destroying all challengers with his blockbuster assault, the U.S. Testing Co. was asked to measure the power of Rocky's wallop. Its findings: "Marciano's knockout blow packs more explosive energy than an armour-piercing bullet and represents as much energy as would be required to spot lift 1000 pounds one foot off the ground." Boxing Illustrated December 1963

Jack Dempsey, interviewed in the 1953 fall edition of Fight magazine said, "What everyone forgets is that Marciano can punch harder with a right hand than any modern-day heavyweight. In his first fight with Walcott, Rocky needed only one blow to win the title. The power in his right scrambled Jersey Joe's brains at Chicago." "I've scored my share of knockouts along the way, but more often than not my opponents got up after being knocked down and had to be knocked down repeatedly. The same is true of Joe Louis. But Marciano needs only one solid smash and it's all over. That's why I say Rocky Marciano is the hardest-hitting heavyweight champion I have seen."

Jersey Joe Walcott, who lost his title to Marciano in a 13th round KO and a rematch in a 1st round KO, was asked who hit harder, Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano. "Joe could take you out with combinations Marciano was a one-punch artist. He threw every punch like you throw a baseball, as hard as he could. I have to say, with all respect to Joe, Marciano hit harder."

Archie Moore (KO'd in 9th), when asked by reporters which of Marciano's punches hurt him, said, "Man they all hurt." He also said, "After a fight with Marciano, it felt like you had been beat all over the upper body with a blackjack or hit with rocks." "He could hurt you, sure, but it was the quantity of his punches. He just had more stamina than anyone else in those days. He was like a bull with gloves."

"Louis is faster with a barrage of punches, but Rocky hurts more with one punch than Joe did with four. Rocky hurts you every time he connects." Response to a reporter from a sparring partner of both Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano.


My own thoughts are
How many times did old out of shape Willard get up when Dempsey put him down *6 times* and then the bell of course saved the old guy when he went down for the 7th time. The man was a sitting duck and yet took everything Dempsey had to offer. I am not saying Dempsey could not hit hard of course he could, but i am pretty sure Marciano, Foreman, Shavers or even Tyson could have at least stood a fair chance of getting a pure KO. with a guy who was virtually helpless in front of them.

I Hope you also noted Dempsey's remarks about his own punching power. I Respect of course everyone's opinion but i think most people feel that in one punch power. Shavers and Foreman could be the top dogs. But of course its each to his own.

In regard to a young Tyson i tend to think and i hate the guy as a person but fair play, in his young days he was probably the most or very near the most devesting 3 round HW fighter in the history of the HW division. Now before anyone says there were all bums. We could very easy pick Dempseys opposition to pieces or the little guys both Jeffries and Johnson beat up on. Lets take for example the considered number one or two greatest HW of all time the great Joe Louis. I mean how many times was he put down in his fights, it was double figures and not all of then were great fighters. Not only that i have seen Louis also a little shaken in fights that he did not go down in. So i have often wondered just how well his chin would have stood up against the later to come Tysons, Liston, Foreman, Frazier etc etc of the world.

I think we agree Dempsey could really hit its just a matter of i think in one punch power there were a few who i think hit harder. Am i right or am i wrong who knows. Dont think i am a Dempsey hater in fact quite the opposite i love the guy. But i am just trying to take a step back and try to judge things impartially.

HEGrant
12-10-2005, 12:05 AM
Walsh: I ment to say Tubbs...sorry about that...however, rock solid chins like Smith and Tucker took his power and decided to hug for the night instead of fight, a testiment to Tyson's power as well.

Roberto Aqui
12-10-2005, 12:06 AM
[[[[I've never heard an opponent say "wow no one hits like this guy" in regards to Tyson. Peter McNeely claimed he was actually surprised by Tyson, that he didn't hit as hard as he expected, but was far quicker than he could have ever imagined.]]]]]]
=============================

McNeely barely stayed in the ring long enough to be hit by the wild Tyson in his 1st fight in 5 yrs. That was not the prime fit Tyson we're talking about. Holmes claims Shavers and Cooney hit harder, but it was Tyson who left him paralyzed on the canvas screaming for his corner to pick him up like a baby needing a diaper change.

HEGrant
12-10-2005, 01:42 AM
Willard was 6'6", 245 and had an iron jaw. He had never been dropped in his career. Dempsey, 65 pounds lighter, bounced him like a ball. Froeman dropped Frazier 6 times. Are you saying Foreman could not hit ? If so, I have a friend I want you to meet.

Who is the biggest, best chinned fighter Marciano ever dropped ? Please don't tell me the often KO'ed, shakey jawed Walcott. As far as publicized tests, let's take them with the grain of salt they are intended. As far as sparring partners, keep in mind their loyality is to their paycheck. Do you actually believe Rocky hit four times harder than Joe Louis ? Do you want to buy a bridge ?

I just don't understand why Rocky is so overated by so many. He was a very tough, well conditioned, hard punching, strong chinned, brave, and tough with a champions heart. He was also small, short armed, cut prone, slow by world class standards and quite hittable. He fought everyone in his day. His day was filled with former champions past their best days. These are the facts.

Why most white people love Rocky is easy to understand. He was the last dominant white world's heavyweight champion. He is a throwback to all the old cliques about the tough, gritty white guy from the good old days, , really the same shit written about during Johnson's day....(The tough and true white man with the inner fortitude to defeat the colored man's inevitable yellow streak, whatever...)..the subliminal feelings that when tapped into made Stallone a zillion dollars....

Rocky is the last window to an age that for the most part has passed, a white American man dominating heavyweight boxing. He is a hinge on history, to the good old days. Because of this he means so much to so many and his legend is totally blown out of proportion.

Examples: Rocky never tired. Bullshit. Watch his fights. He did get tired. The announcers note it against Charles, Walcott and Moore. Rocky was never hurt. More Bullshit. He was hurt several times, a few before he ever won the title as well as against Walcott and Archie. He survived. He was very tough but let's not say he never tired or got hurt. He survived because it is different taking shots from Walcott and Moore than it is Liston, Foreman or Tyson.

Rocky was a great fighter who overachieved. He did the most with what he had. That deserves tremendous respect. He was not the best heavyweight that ever lived by a long shot. He was not the best ever under 200 either but he belongs with the elite of that group, where his match ups are far more competitive. That in it's own right is a hell of an accomplishment. It is indisputable.

I wish people would deal in reality and respect Rocky for what he was, which was accomplishment enough, instead of what they need him to be. If there were five other damn good white heavyweight champions in the near 50 years since Rocky retired instead of two half second flukes flukes (Ingo and Coetzee) and one genetic freak import (Klit Sr.), I am sure the Marciano legend would be viewed in proper perspective.

Since this is not the case, since the reality is that the division has been overwhelmingly dominated by black fighters while white hopes like Quarry and Cooney only ultimately lost and lost big, shattering hearts and spreading embarrassment along the way, whites grasp at straws. Marciano is such a straw.

This is how I see it.

PeteLeo
12-10-2005, 06:02 AM
Wow, you wanna start an argument? Try picking the hardest hitters in boxing history, huh?
I didn't see Tyson KO Tucker -- must've been on the same card that Vitali decked Mercer?
I'll throw another spanner into the works with a few quotes by a man who should have known what he was talking about:
(Don Dunphy) "Jerry, did he hurt you at any time? Did you feel his power?"
(Jerry Quarry, after sampling several Earnie Shavers right hands flush on the chin before stopping ol' Earn in the first) "Did he hit me? When? I sure didn't feel it." And a bit later, "I've been hit harder than that."
Of course, Quarry was just too trusting in his toughness, as was made tragically clear later.

Here's an idea for our next topic: Who's the most beautiful woman to ever walk this Earth? (Relatives are ineligible.) PeteLeo.

HEGrant
12-10-2005, 10:57 AM
Pee Wee, your childish responses are substanciating your journeyman's legacy here...the biggest is your lack of embarrassment for your choice of argument defense...really weak..like a Shavers punch ...:rollin

wildhawke11
12-10-2005, 10:58 AM
Deleted
Because i misunderstood a posting from HeGrant

walsh b
12-10-2005, 01:08 PM
Thor, I agree fully about Jan...the javelin-one of the most gifted acts in sport.....As for boxing I don't think it compares really. All the guys posting here seem hell bent on trying to impose their opinion. I think we should all at least try to agree that power punching or one punch KO power is really unique and very few heavies possessed it. Can we also agree that weight and size when harnessed properly by gifted fighters is the most important factor in the power of a punch??. The Rock p4p was one of the hardest hitters ever, harder I would say than Louis even. That's one single shot I'm talking about

On the other hand, Louis threw the fastest close hard shots of probably all heavies, Tyson close behind...Now Foreman or Liston or Cooney or Lennox threw the hardest most forceful single shot of all time....That's my opinion. The reason I say this is that I have seen them all and studied closely each fighter. George and Lewis and Cooney were not justy big guys with a punch, they also had the talent and balance and skill to use their extra weight and size effectively. That's where the physical advantage tells, when you're talking about good or great fighters, as is in their case....

PeteLeo
12-10-2005, 01:09 PM
Ah, Sweetpea, just can't get that little burr out of your diaper, can you?
Just what about Quarry's responses to Shavers' power was "childish"? (The statements are easily available on the tape of his KO of Earnie. Sorry, old sot, but that's what the man said.)
Whatever makes you feel good about yourself. You take care, now. PeteLeo.:hat

Thor DK
12-10-2005, 02:37 PM
If you ever watch track and field, you've likely seen Jan Zeleszny, probably the greatest javelin thrower ever. He's not remarkable to look at in any way, until he throws that thing to the other end of the stadium. His delivery of the javelin is without doubt one of the most explosive moves ever by a human being. I wonder, how he would have been rated as a puncher, if he had picked up a boxing glove instead of a javelin, when he was a kid.

Roberto Aqui
12-10-2005, 03:21 PM
[[[He's not remarkable to look at in any way, until he throws that thing to the other end of the stadium.]]]]
====================

Indeed, Tony Galento resembles more closely an aging barfly than he does a fighter and he was probably only around 25 ft/lbs short of putting Louis down for the 10 count in their fight with his left hook. A lot of champs would've folded with that punch.

JCChavez looks more like a Mexico City taxi driver than he does fighter, but the way he consistantly busted up fighters has seldom been seen before.

Physique is nice, but no guarantee.

mike21
12-10-2005, 06:34 PM
i tend to agree wtih heg and more so but not by much, with the kid. his picks and reasons were very good as well as heg,imo. i tend to agree that tyson was slightly overrated in pure power- other than that im allittle more in line with the kid.and as far as buid- well its means not a thing- its only in retropest that a fighters bulid is even considered- mainly as some curiuosity to try to expain such a talent- and always falls short if any expaination, aside from what htm and ron said, when one has the balance, flexess, body to hand coorination,etc. etc. and speed it all comes down one thing - just born with it- until science does a few large studys on this;which woulnt happen. htm long back makes sense to me- but 99.9 percent of the rest of humanity- as you all know- power is just born with it and zero relation to buid,. thanks imo.

mike21
12-10-2005, 06:44 PM
i do thik imo the kid nailed on the head with tyson;and what his opponent failed to say of him- you can fool the experts- but never your opponent. his list was great imo- but w-so was hegrants, just a slight difference of opinion- hell tysons way up there just only imo not in the top tier.thanks bye

HEGrant
12-10-2005, 07:26 PM
Wildhawk...by no means was my Marciano peice singled out as a direct response to you...forgive me if it appeared that way...it was more an overall response ...

Pee Wee, Quarry's quotes were fine, it was your focusing on a slipped name as your rebutal to your legendary flawed argument that I called childish...and it was....

Dragnet 69
12-10-2005, 08:57 PM
I think Louis might have been the best puncher. He combined excellent technique with speed. Joe threw shots where his arms were closer to his body which IMO helps a lot in generating power. Marciano's 13th round ko of Walcott was a beautiful close to the body punch. Part of Rocky's ability to punch hard was because he had such short arms even when he threw wider punches they were closer to his body than other's who threw wide shots. Tyson was a big puncher for the same sort of reasons as Marciano. Mike was a bigger man and faster puncher but wasn't as well conditioned or as compact as Rocky was. These factors may have balanced each other out in terms of their power.
Liston and Foreman relied on strength between these two I'd say Liston had more power in a big punch because he had better technique stamina and was more relaxed. Sonny wasn't always looking for the KO either.

Lots of big punchers out there I'd say Louis was the most consistent in technique and maybe the most explosive Ko puncher because of it. But who's to say at any one given time anyone of the many big shot heavies couldn't have put it all together and landed the most potent punch of all.

A few other heavies I'm not sure were mentioned in this thread with good power.

Bernado Mercado- the only outside of Tyson to Ko Berbick

Ingemar Johansson- big right hand

Gerrie Coetzee- bionic right hand

Jeff (candy slim) Merrit very good power

Razor Ruddock- hybrid hook/uppercut

Kallie Knoetze- limited but strong wild swinging ko artist

Mac Foster- Liston like until derailed by Quarry 24 straight ko's

Jose Manuel Urtain - made Ring Magazine cover in early 70's with 30 straight ko's

Frank Bruno- very strong but limited 38 ko's in w's

TIP

mike21
12-10-2005, 08:59 PM
he as far as tyson is concerned- well he was a great puncher to say the least- and i always respect your insights- but of course in his prime he was absolutly one of most excitnging fighters ever. i guess in push comes to shove as a fighter only his lack of heart and very importantly lack of great infighting ability got in the way- he had very short arms-nevertheless as sheer power is conconcerned- hes way up there. but i was shocked at his lack of subtle but important infighting ability in his prime- dmato was maybe- a little limited of his teaching of this. at any rate, if i fought tyson, my will and testament would be already written, the comments by cobb and ron l as far as shavers power are a matter of record- and important reading.in regards to shavers- no he was never a great fighter- still in my boof - because top tier fighters got thier by superior skills, will ,chin. and determination even a cracker like shavers needed to hit a bit more hard to garnish the admiration of say a louis or scheling, etc because that fiece power simply was less evident in the films of sahers agaimst some of these guys.anyhow, ouside of dempsey,louis,baer, liston and marciano- shaver, foreman, tyson, satterfield etc are way up there. now, for htm, i still do not really get the longd back theroy- example- if its in regards to koufax who studuied pithing and kienetics- he was able to both lwer and extend the center of gravity in his form thereby creating more momentem and more time to transfer his power from his legs- does a long backed fighter havve like a long backed, but also longarmed speed pither- have lower center of gravity as well as more momenum and slightly more TIME to generate to power from the legs and torso to the shoulders and deliver power even in short luois like distance- or am i off base here. please respond at your leisyre.

PeteLeo
12-10-2005, 09:57 PM
????

Did I misspell "Don Dunphy"? Or "misspell"? (Can you actually mis-spell "misspell"?) PeteLeo.

mike21
12-10-2005, 10:14 PM
excellant analysis- can anyman reaaley go against louis as the top power puncher ever--- i would say no--- it just seems physically impossible to hit with quite as much power as he did-- no man hit like that-- exept for dempsey; wheter he hit quite like louis is always debateable- but one thing is for certain- in the short ko punches thrown by both men only dempsey could ko guys with punches to the body agaist tough, smart, experienced well schooled fighters; if louis got his tail down lower against the crouchers such as godoy, galento he may have took them out earlyier with shots to the body- but i put it to all the readers- the best and shortest ko punch ever- and without any leverage- was a slow motion study of the lest hook that that koed firpo- and it was not the first or last such PURE power was demonstrated by dempsey. but look at it in slo motion. asw jack sharkey told me- "only dempsey could ko the best of guys in the chinch" simply "no man ever could finifh a man from pure power like dempsey". anyhow check it out- and only louis hit like dempsey in my opinion. anyhow i knew sharrkey well and would disvcuss others up to tyson- but he was the one guy who fought dempsey and louis- so in rating punchers- if louis is number one- and why not- as far as real power- that is short- then dempsey must be very close- or your missing a boat.thanks

PeteLeo
12-10-2005, 10:29 PM
Dempsey's one-punch stoppage of Sharkey himself was phenominal, whether the Sailor had been fouled a moment earlier or not. Also the shot that destroyed Carpentier was almost invisible due to its tightness and speed. Georges looked like a man in continual free-fall during the count in that one. PeteLeo.

mike21
12-10-2005, 11:51 PM
pete the short hook dempsey took care of sharkey was simialr ot the firpo ko- only the short hook that took out forpo was even shorter and so tight and CRAMPED its relley humorus in the power but the thought that someone would attempst to take someone out of theer in that manner. basically, pete, and to all of interest, watch that thing in slo or superslo motion- only until then was i impressed by it- after that- well its difficult to believe. anyhow, as far as power there is only a c-- hair difference betwenn the top guys. thanks -check it out in slo motion- hell i laughed out of disbelieve- believe me-its much more than worht the effort- youall will like it- it may well be the shortest and most cramped ko pung in history- its so short, its ridiulous, gotta go-and only louis hit so hard or harder,but never as short as this or some other dempsey shots.reaal;y check it out,

wildhawke11
12-11-2005, 01:17 AM
HeGrant
No problem it was my mistake then. As you may have noted i have deleted that previous post i made. Just like to mention that at 66 years age, out of shape and only 5ft 6ins tall just as well i never met your friend.
Cheers and Sorry
Danny

HEGrant
12-11-2005, 12:17 PM
The shots Louis used to take out Max Baer were some of the fastest, most power punches I ever saw thrown in a single combination that all hit and were effective....they were actual beautiful (excepts perhaps for Max) ...

Let's not forget Dempsey's seconfd fight with Brennan where he comes from behind to flatten Brennan woth a two punch KO...brutal stuff...Dempsey's single hook KO of Sharkey was a definative statement on his one punch power...talk about a one punch KO...in a fight where he was hanging tough but really behind, past his prime, in a fight where his legs were shot, in a fight where he was talking a lot of punishment, he blasts out a prime Sharkey with one shot...that is one punch power...especially when you consider Louis stopped a much older Sharkey eight years or so later and had him on the floor five times or so but did not stop him with one shot...

However...if you buy Primo's one shot KO as real ...let's ask the power specialist (Mr. P.W.) on that one ....;)

mike21
12-11-2005, 03:08 PM
he- those three hooks louis kd baer were beatiful- except for max. when you get a chance check out the firpo ko of but in very slow motion- in real slo- its a bit to quick to see just how cramped it was and its effects- you will enjoy. anyhow- have a good day,thanks.

HEGrant
12-11-2005, 05:47 PM
I'm sure Dempsey threw dynamite, it is just so hard to see it on the films I have seen. The same with Carpienter and even Brennan. I get frustrated trying my best to catch them through so motion. I just think frames are missing from the films and the speeds are messed up. It's too bad.

Kid Achilles
12-11-2005, 07:03 PM
Louis's KO of Baer may be the most brutal demolition of a man with an iron chin I can recall. Baer was a hulking brute too, such a massive frame that his 15" biceps (same as Louis's arm size) looked like scrawny sticks compared to his torso. He had a head like, well like a bear. Just a naturally huge person. In Africa Screams (the Abbot and Costello flick) he looks even bigger and stronger in frame than his 6'6" brother. In that movie he must be 230-250 lbs, definitely not in fighting shape, but you get the feeling watching him onscreen, especially with the added mass, that he could crack open a human skull with his right fist.

Baer was a complete physical freak and like Dempsey once said of Willard "You don't fight a guy like that, you box him". Well Louis *fought* him and kicked his ass too.

Louis had the kind of power that no chin could stand up to. If you took flush shots from that man you could not last, I don't care who you were.

PeteLeo
12-11-2005, 07:36 PM
My favorite line from AFRICA SCREAMS comes when Max and Buddy are engaged in yet another squabble (they fought with one another throughout the flick), and an enraged Max yells at his brother, "I'll mess you up worse than Louis ever did!" PeteLeo.

HEGrant
12-11-2005, 09:35 PM
P.W., a very funny reference. Have to look that one up...

I read a very interesting account of the M. Baer/Galento fight in a newspaper the day after...it refered to Max as an all time great front runner...I found it very interesting especially considering how he chose to bow out of the Louis fight rather than take the final crushing blows that would have followed anyway...

Louis refered to that fight as his finest night...he said that he never punched as fast again...I fould that interesting , how a fighter could feel faster on some nights that other when they were refering to their prime years...

Roberto Aqui
12-11-2005, 10:19 PM
[[[[how a fighter could feel faster on some nights that other when they were refering to their prime years...]]]]
=======================================

Top athletic contests usually come down to fine differences that athletes are aware of. That's why they often look unbeatable and invincible one day, and come the next contest may look sluggish and uncoordinated. It's a good day-bad day scenario we all go through. Of course there are those special magic moments when time stands still for their manipulations in another plane of being from their peers.

PeteLeo
12-12-2005, 06:24 AM
Okay, right at the git-go, I'll admit that this was probably an Internet hoax, but back about seven years or so ago, a story was making the rounds that a late nineteenth century heavyweight out of Australia was such a hellacious hitter that he had won a dozen straight bouts by one-round KO and, in that span, had killed seven of his opponents. Supposedly Fitzsimmons flatly refused to get into the ring with him (which, if all of this is remotely related to reality, was a damned smart way to look at it: if a monster had killed even one guy in the ring, I'd be quite wary of him, and if he'd killed seven, I think even I would have caught on to the fact that this was not a person to engage in fisticuffs).
Naturally, extensive searching turned up absolutely no data about this alleged Godzilla-esque puncher. PeteLeo.

mike21
12-13-2005, 04:20 PM
as far as dempseys comments concerning marciano, or most fighters, he was usually overgenerous of his praise at time they are fighting;dending on who they are talking to - when anyman is asked litterrally 24 times a day the same question, as dempsey was in his resturant, some times he just says things off the cuff and not seriuos-but when he lost the computer fight to marciano- he seriosly thought of sueing woroner. he thought rocky was a great puncher- but not the equal of himselk-period---- he as a puncher i thought marciano was a great- but it with a question mark- your analsis i thought was excellant- a great but overachieving fighter. the best i ever saw of marciano and walcott was the night they collied- sinde then marciano never attaind such brillance- i have definate questions of his greatness and at times his power. thanks

HEGrant
12-13-2005, 05:45 PM
Dempsey also said publically , endlessly, that Tunney could have gotten up and won without the long count. Do you honestly beileve he always felt that way, day in and day out ? I don't.

mike21
12-13-2005, 06:54 PM
mr.graant-nope.you know how it is. thanks- marciano gets too many kudos for being white.thanks imo.