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.