Originally Posted by Big N Bad
we can respect each others opinions.
i personally think punching power is a hard one to explain. a puncher is born not made. i dont think the HW's today are hitting any harder than the boys back in the days. maybe a little stronger strength wise (maybe due to extra weight) even that i doubt cos an old foreman was throwing the 90's crop of guys around like morrison, ****ey, holyfield, briggs and we know these guys arn't weaklings.
Thanks. Yours too. It is indeed. I would agree with you to an extent. I mean I would never argue that Liston, Foreman, Shavers, Louis, Lyle, Cleveland Williams, Marciano could not compete power wise with today's heavies because they could. Foreman was stronger than all those guys no doubt. But Foreman isn't your standard heavy.
Foreman was a freak of nature - he was a big man in the 70's and he was a big man in the 90's - he was just a hugely powerful man in any era. Kind of like Sonny Liston would have been or Jim Jeffries - so strong. They aren't your typical fighter though. I would say the average heavy is a stronger man, but the power is so dependent on the individual. I would argue that the average modern heavy is a more powerful hitter - but only slightly so. The older heavies had, in special fighters, that rare combination - the speed and smaller build, but tremendous power; Joe Louis is a a good example.
Personally I prefer the older style of fighter - the guy who was smaller but who had speed, endurance and threw more punches. We still see that in the lighter divisions to be fair. Just the heavies are so big and strong and carry so much weight they simply cannot do it. I personally don't think the strength and slight power increase is worth the loss of endurance and action that results in more punches thrown and landed. I miss the days of the strong, quick, perfectly muscled, 215lb heavyweight who was not a lumbering tank.