Comparing power between eras

If the previous posts and statements from those who were in the ring with him can't sell you, I don't think there's any convincing you on it.

 

That's about as good a gauge as what you can get.

 

No it isn't, unless you consider the brain a perfectly objective measuring device when brought to the brink of unconsciousness and beyond.

 

These guys take punches for a living. Yet you don't think they can gauge the difference in power between blows when they get hit?

 

Between two or more top level punchers scrambling their brains to the point where they no longer function correctly? No I don't think they can. No one can.

 

This probably isn't the thread for you :good

 

First time I've heard that?

Yea I don't think George got anything but a ass kicking

 

Having power is only an asset if it can be utilized at the level it is required. If the powerful guy is one move behind all the better fighters he faced he may as well be shooting blanks. Comparing powerful punchers should include only those that were potent at championship level.

Williams was a powerful athletically built giant but as often is the case he needed lesser men to face to provide the openings necessary to punch to his potential. Against those with world class reactions, timing, power and craft he could not see everything that was coming his way or time a punch as well as he could against a sitting duck. The story of Williams's career was that he was exciting, big and could punch out journeymen in a more spectacular way than most but was always found out at a level above.

 

No, it's a good thread and an intriguing problem.

I think that when comparing power between eras you have to take into account what people say about common foes, but it's not the best gauge there is, nor should it be the only one. A degree of guesswork based on looking at the fight footage and taking into account the size and toughness of opponents is also needed. Quality of opposition is not so important unless you want to lump power in with effectiveness. Under those criteria I'd definitely consider Cleveland Williams a major league hitter, even if he did fail at the top end of the sport. He showed on video that he was explosive and fast, and someone who put a large degree of torque in his shots. He was also relatively large for a heavyweight, and naturally athletic. That all adds up to big, big power.

 

dream dream dreammm

 

What's the point of power then? Are you saying that given the choice its worth choosing to have power that only works on soft opposition? I assume most would prefer having the ability to use power against all kinds of opposition. You dont need power to beat soft opposition. Having spectacular power at top level has to be a better kind of power than only having spectacular power at the lower end surely?

 

But what use is that power if it was not effective against the higher level of fighter?

 

Comparing eras directly isn't really fair. Before 1960, under-200 lbs heavyweights was fairly common. The fighters of the modern era (1960's/70's - present) are bigger, faster, and hit harder. They are also, generally speaking, better skilled and more athletic. The only things the old-timers have, if anything, over modern fighters, or that can be fairly assessed and compared imo is heart and chin. There are only a select few greats from the old days that could compete with the legends of the modern era. This isn't meant as a rip on the old-timers, with all do respect to their greatness, it's simply the evolution of sport.

 

Simple. It gives you a better chance of hurting and potentially stopping an opponent when you land. It doesn't increase your chances of landing those shots in the first place. That's the domain of skill, technique, determination, and so on.

But where did I talk about power that only works on soft opposition? Power is indiscriminate. Any old hard hitting journeyman could potentially knock out a world class fighter if he landed right. The chances of them actually doing so, of course, are minuscule due to the vast gulf in talent, experience, athleticism, and so on. Fighters don't magically become tougher the higher they rise in the ranks, but they do become a lot more adept at avoiding fight ending shots from lesser talents. Likewise, a fighter who's consistently able to hurt or stop high level competition isn't necessarily a harder puncher than one who demolishes ham n eggers on a regular basis, but they're obviously a better fighter.

Power is not inextricably tied in with ability to stop great fighters. It's merely one attribute among many.