According to "Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time" SRR hit harder than Tyson. :nut
You haven't grasped the concept of P4P yet, have you? There's a reason for The Ring not calling this list "top 100 list of greatest punching heavyweights of all time".
I have a good understanding of P4P concept. There is a medical term for it. It is called "small ***** syndrome".
Shavers is typical American Baloney. He has just one good win , over a somewhat faded Ken Norton who was KOd by almost everybody and hardly rock-solid. Still Shavers is mentioned with Tyson in the same sentence, just crazy.
"******s" because we acknowledge the fact that Sanders hit hard as hell? You know what don't even answer that. What am I doing! Lol FJAY360-PFP the top douchebag in ESB and quite possibly the most ignorant. :roll:
exactly, it's like voting Amir Khan over Meldrick Taylor for the fastest boxer just because you believe Khan is fast.
I view Sanders power in the same way as kendall Holt's. Their record may not indicate a load of power but both men punch MUCH harder than their respective records say.
If he hit as hard as people say he does, he would have had a much better record. He had a good punching technique and a good chin. That with the power some are suggesting he had, would have been ensure to ensure victories over bigger names. As for the fighters on his record, I know a couple of the guys he didn't stop. He didn't stop Steve Zouski, who Foreman knocked out in 4 rounds on his comeback trail. He didn't stop Mike Rouse, who Chris Byrd stopped in 6 rounds and Razor Ruddock brutally battered in a single round. He didn't stop Mike Evans, who Frank Bruno knocked out in 2. I'm sure you could do a more thorough analysis but those are just the names I know of. Seeing as I've already mentioned them, I don't think Sanders hit as hard as Bruno or Ruddock. Obviously not Foreman either. He was just a stiff, fast puncher who caught people off guard.