Originally Posted by janitor
Isn't it the case for both Louis and Tyson, that what they had was 40% power and 60% technique?
I doubt that either was literaly the hardest puncher of their era in terms of measured kinetic energy.
I'd say with Tyson there was a strong physical element there. The man was just insanely explosive. Coupled with his excellent technique and accuracy and you had the puncher you had. Louis was much more technique based, it seems, and whilst fast, lacked the sheer kinetic oomph behind his punches that Tyson possessed. He was also, generally, fighting against smaller opponents than Tyson did, which has to factor into the argument somewhere (Carnera and Baer are just not a big enough body of evidence for allowing him to compete on even terms with Tyson who routinely fought and stopped large 220+ men).
Was either man the hardest puncher of his era? With Tyson I'd say there's a reasonable case for saying so. In Louis's case, perhaps Baer or one of the big boys would register harder in pure brute force.