Who is more powerful- David Tua or George Foreman

Dispersion of force across surface area is important, too. Bigger hands, which Foreman had, and all that.

I took physics like 10 years ago, but I don't freaking remember. I blame punches.

 

Valuev has larger fists than Foreman, so does he punch harder?

No

In reality its a lot more than just F = MA, but that is the basis of it.

The only real way to tell is the have them tested, like Bruno was. You've never sparred Tyson so I doubt you can make a better judgement than any of us ... although you have sparred with Foreman.

 

BTW here's Brunos measurement

[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3936571[/url]

 

Ok, I guess you're right. I'm a moron.

 

What exactly are you saying here?

Brunos a harder puncher than Foreman or something?

Forgive me but its near 5am and im fighting the sleep so im not as alert as usual

 

No I'm saying that Bruno is the only boxer who I know had his punch actually measured

 

Interesting. I've never read that before.

I've heard people refer to Holmes mentioning Butterbean as a harder puncher than Shavers, but have never actually found the quote. Shavers himself allegedly said that Cobb was the hardest puncher, but again I can't find the quote.

Briggs claimed in his post fight interview that Vitali was the hardest puncher he ever fought, harder than Lennox and Foreman. I think he later switched back to Foreman. Poor old Lewis, who actually knocked him out, never got a look in.

If you think boxers (or humans in general) are perfectly objective recording devices then you're free to do so I suppose, but it's clear to me that this isn't the case, and that there are often countless reasons behind a boxer making such a statement in the first place. They may be lying, they may be concussed, they may be being polite, they may be in pain, they may be trying to get one over on another fighter, and so on and so on.

By the way, the hardest puncher I ever sparred with was a tubby little Asian girl. She hit me right in the knackers. Shook up my kinfolk back in Africa, I can tell you that. Didn't even bother to say sorry afterwards, either.

 

I'm not sure I should be admitting this, but I once made a boxing top trumps game and had to invent stats for all the fighters involved. Bruno, if I remember correctly I gave a power rating of 93, and Foreman 94, which meant of course that Bruno couldn't punch for ****. I may have to make amendments following this new piece of data. Now it will be Foreman who, in fact, cannot punch for ****. Take that classicists.

 

I never took physics...but isn't it the opposite? Like the force being spread over a larger area makes it weaker or something...I dunno.

 

I think only people who have actually been in the ring can understand what you mean by that, me being one of them

Theres hard punchers, then theres sharp punchers

 

Larry himself told me that Shavers was the hardest puncher he faced. He has always been very, very consistent about it. He also stated that Cooney was a harder puncher than Tyson. What he says about Tyson goes along with what myself, Magna, and others said. Tyson was an extremely sharp puncher. Obviously he carried a lot of power, too, but not the raw BOOM power that Shavers, Foreman, Bruno, etc carried.

He never once mentioned Butterbean amongst the hardest punchers he faced. He always brought up Shavers and Cooney, and sometimes mentioned how brutal Norton's body punches were.

In every interview I've seen with Tillis, barring the one above, he's mentioned Shavers as being the hardest puncher. The only fighter that's ever commented on Shavers's power and didn't say he was the hardest puncher they faced was Jerry Quarry, who was unaware he was even hit that night.

I've seen Briggs mention Foreman as the hardest puncher he faced pretty consistently. The only time he didn't was in the immediate time after facing Vitali, and I think it was more out of respect than truthfulness.

Holyfield has stated Foreman was the hardest hitter, but Bowe hit him the hardest on a consistent basis. In other words, he recognized Foreman as the harder puncher between George and Riddick, but it was Riddick who was actually landing the power shots against him.

Tyson's speed, accuracy, timing, and perfect technique is what made him so dangerous. He and Joe Louis are easily the top 2 best punchers at heavyweight, but neither the top two hardest punchers. There's a big difference between being the better puncher and being the harder puncher.

 

Definitely. I'd prefer to be in there with someone with dull, hard, thudding punches than sharp ones.

 

What do fighters even mean with punching "harder"

Ron Stander stopped Shavers
But Jeff Merritt totally destroyed the man and give him his first KD and KO loss.

And Jeff wasn't really that skilled, not more skilled than Shavers.

 

The hard thudding punches you can recover from, its the sharp ones that stun you that hurt more. And its even worse when your hit by a combination of them because as soon as your caught, you enter 'wtf' mode, where you dont know what to do and your mind goes blank even if its for a quick second. This is what made Tyson great, when he was at his best. As soon as the sharpness was gone, his slower punches were easier to see coming and he doesnt hit as hard as Foreman so his punches didnt have quiet the effect.

That being said, Tyson did absolutely rock Holyfield with the first punch he threw (in their first fight)

 

Pretty much spot on with what i think.

Tysons sharpness and speed gave the 'impression' he was a very hard puncher when he wasnt, not as hard as guys like Tua, Cooney, Shavers or even Morrison. Tyson still hit hard enough though.

Bruno on the other hand, was the direct opposite, he was a very hard puncher, more than given credit for but he lacked some of the skill (that Tyson had)

Ive checked Brunos record, he won all of his fights by KO, the only 2 guys he didnt KO were some Phil Jackson dude and Oliver Mcall (Self explanatory)