Mike Tyson - The Hardest puncher in History

How was Tyson a hard puncher? He needed 4-8 hands to floor his opponents? If he was the "hardest puncher ever" he wouldn't need more than 1 punch to knock them out.

Not surprising as some of his opponents had 15-25 lbs on him.

 

You clearly are a ****ing re**** if you don't believe Shavers and Wilder hit as hard or harder than Tyson.

Wilder's career isn't even over yet and he's got a better knockout run than Tyson who's title path was all about facing taxi drivers and butchers so don't give me that bull****.

Both Larry Holmes and James Tillis both said Shavers hit harder than Tyson but according to a rodent like you it's all bull****, yet when Frans Botha says Tyson hit harder than Lewis and Wlad it's the gospel truth... You are a pathetic fanboy to say the least...

 

and what fighters beat Wilder yet? Man you are so a ****ing Hater.

Every day when i look in the classic part of this forum and in a Tyson Thread you are here a send a ton off ****.

Whats your inspiration to post trolling **** here every and every day?

 

All through this thread you've come out with nonsensical
arguments to be honest. youre either amusing yourself by talking as much rubbish as you can or you genuinely believe in the stuff you write.

You couldn't even spell 'clearly' right . Normally I wouldn't even mention it but when you're using the word you used... well, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
You've got no idea who hits harder, none of us have. all we can do is compare their resumes and performances and say who was the best at consistently knocking out top opponents.
Including wilder among the hardest hitters in boxing history is laughable.
Name one good fighter he's kayoed. No name one good fighter he's even fought. Theres no evidence to include him. The first halfway decent opponent he met took him the distance. Where's the evidence for this power? Which top chins did he crack?
As for holmes supposedly saying shavers hit harder. If this is even true im not sure of his logic as he was dropped 3 times and knocked out clean by tyson in 4 yet stayed in with shavers all night.
But I wouldn't care if holmes said that Tyson hit harder than shavers, its still unreliable as he'd been concussed both times.

 

Oh sorry, I made a typo. Sorry Mr Dictionary...

I don't care if Wilder is knocking out bums just like Tyson was on his title path, 32 fights and 32 knockouts is some serious going. Tyson couldn't knock out the fat fighting cowboy Tillis who was on a 3 fight losing streak and had been knocked out before.

Wilder knocked out Malik Scott in a WBC TITLE eliminator and went the distance against a WORLD CHAMPION whereas Tyson went the distance twice against JOURNEYMEN before winning a title.

It wasn't just Holmes that said Shavers hit harder, so did the fighting cowboy Tillis. I suppose they are both liars are they?? Maybe I should listen to Pablod instead??

Yeah we all know the Holmes that Tyson fought was the same fighter that fought Shavers, you're a star you are....

 

I hardly know where to start.
Sorry to burst your bubble but malik scott is a bum, no iffs or butts if youll pardon the pun. You must know youre talking rubbish when that's the best you can come up with. Or Maybe you don't.
I don't make my rating of Tyson (or anyone else) based on his weak early opposition but on his whole body of work. And the fact that he kayod a string of fighters at top level.
Holmes and tillis can say what they like, but its no true gauge.
Holmes probably has zero memory of tysons last right hand seeing how he was flat on his back unconscious at the time.
I think whats happening here is were measuring power in different ways. Ive said all im going to say about how I measure it, i'm impartial. But I don't think my method will ever convince you. And you don't even offer a method.
For some reason you have a strong personal bias which makes you talk nonsense to justify it.
Just let it go.

 

And what were the fighters that Tyson knocked out on his title path?? BUMS!!

Let's wait and see what Wilder does in the future but the FACTS are he has a better knockout record than Tyson so far.

Holmes was never unconscious either, infact he got up from Tyson's best right hand. It was Tyson's excellent finishing ability that put Holmes away, a skill that Shavers severely lacked.

It's funny how you've got no answer for Tilliis stating Shavers hit harder, he wasn't knocked out by either fighter so has he got zero memory of the fights??

Tyson is certainly one of the greatest punchers the division has seen but read the OP again, Tyson is not the hardest hitter of all time and most would agree.

 

Oh little Tommy Boy gets angry, he? :yep

 

No need... 2-0. :hi:

 

what do you mean with 2:0?

 

To me of course.... I own your ass. :good

 

lol in what? Talking ****? Yes here you are p4p King:hey

I go home, i wish you a nice evening and the s h i t s :blurp

 

In everything Franz... You're just a Chump....

 

In terms of the discussion - i agree in terms of level of opponents that he knocked out etc and their chins and how often they might have been knocked in their careers and the manner of the KO eg one punch or whatever?

I think this is where youd get an argument From because that were lots of knockouts which looked great but i think the level of opponents were a bit lacking in some if them in comparison with some othe knockout artists victims but it has to be said im never less than amazed by the way he did it an dthe reactions caused - I think considering the opponents involved and their form at the time and there own toughness etc and the way he despatched them thw most impressive knockouts for me were Berbick, Holmes, Golota, he also forced the ref ti stop Ribalta who mustve had an incredible chin and he also made Golota quit with a one punch knockdown that was like a truck aswell - but by the same token these guys werent anywhere near the level of say Marciano knocking out Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles & Archie Moore in terms of levels of opponents but Tyson was amazing it cant really be denied and anyone that does is frankly an idiot with an agenda

 

let's stop the babyish abuse & name calling gentelman.

There are extreme opinions I hope we can all agree must be wrong.

One is that we can know with certainty who hit the hardest.
It is not "immeasurable", but it was not measured.

Another is that KO % equals punching power.
It is one good measure of punching EFFECTIVENESS, which can include a decent or unprecedented level of power, we must take a more granular look at which of many skills necessary for the KO accounted for how much of the effect.

Also the level of competition matters-for judging effectiveness, chin, triangulating how mkuch power was involved...

It is extreme to believe we can have "no idea" who hit harder.
Just as it is absurd to say we know for sure.

Find me a fighter who did NOT fight mostly "bums" for a while early in his career. It is rare even amongst the greats.

Wilder fought "bums" or journeyen at best for much longer than most. In 32 professional fights nobody was ranked, nor deserved to be ranked, even top 30 in the world!

Which does not mean he cannot hit reallky hard, just it is very difficult to knwo just how hard if these guys were relatively or very easy to hit clean, had limited defenses, & generally (or all) had a worse chin than a guy like Stiverne.

Besides that many KOed were not rendered unconscious...

It seems extreme & untenable to both not consider whether it effected a fighter's judgement, or there are biases & agendas involved.

ALSO it is crazy to completely dismiss anything a fighter says. Even IF knocked unconscious, that does not erase the memory of the other blows. The KO blow is likely to be the coup de grace, too much to handle given the punch volume, location & combinations.

Not very different from all the other punches thrown in terms of pure force.

If anything when a guy is hit with imperfect blows, less often, & their opponent still says they hit harder, that should be considered a persuasive piece of evidence.

There should be no hostility to having different opinions.
Nor to trying to isolate the question of pure power from effectiveness.