Originally Posted by Seamus
Today's heavyweights are bigger and stronger. Bigger and stronger means, on average, harder hitters, stronger operators in the clinch. Is this debatable? Should we abolish weight divisions because the above is not true?
Thompson had very good clout. Brewster could do little else but hit like a tank. Brock had decent power. McCline could punch. Even at 35, Rahman could still punch.
A murderer's row? No. But on average harder hitters than Marciano faced.
Bigger & stronger doesn't necessarily mean harder puncher though. Earlier tonight I watched Pulev vs Ustinov...jab aside, Pulev punches all wrong. His left hook is a wide, slapping punch and he doesn't put his shoulder into his right hand.
Now he may be bigger and stronger than Walcott (well, he is, no debate there) but Walcott could deliver a left hook with torque and leverage behind it. It was a short, sharp punch, as a hook should be.
Frankly, I'd rather be hit by Pulev than Walcott.
Wlad has faced some hitters fair enough, but to insinuate simply because Thompson or McCline are big and therefor big punchers (or rather, dangerous punchers) is wrong, imo.