[[[[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.
[[[[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.
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.
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.
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.
Are you mixing together t.k.o's and k.o's here to make you case as to who is the harder puncher ?
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.....
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Frank, it's both TKOs & K.O's.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
(unable to load pagetext)
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
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.
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 ...
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.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
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
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.
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!!!
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....
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!
gd- i hear an ax being sharped.
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.
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.
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!
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.