Bigger one punch power? Shavers vs Tyson

What a load of gibberish. Clear case of advanced Shavers nuthuggery.

Shavers caught Holmes as flush as you like.

Your nonsense about Holmes being unconscious for a few seconds is beyond comical.

 

That was a slip.

So you're saying you know more than the ref who was standing right next to them? After posts of deferring blindly to the opinions of fighters like Holmes and Tillis to prop up your case I find that more than a bit ironic.

 

Aaaaaand, we're back to the start again.

 

Tyson and Marciano were comparable in power and Shavers was also a 10 their delivery may have been different but Shavers power was formidable. I think the superiority for Tyson & Marciano came in other areas

 

When did I insult you when it wasn't a direct response to one of your insults?
My first interaction with you was a post where you called me names.

 

All of your points are irrelevant to punching power though.
Why does the strongest puncher have to be the most successful one?

 

Ref's are standing right next to a fighter 100% of the time when they make a wrong call or miss something. I can watch videos where a ref is making the wrong call and clearly see what the right one was.

 

How old was Shavers again when he fought the guys I mentioned?

Shavers didn't do much at the top level because he lacked other skills and attributes. Punching power isn't what makes a good fighter. You are putting too much stock into how hard a fighter hits. On a general boxing level I have noticed that when some guys who fought at the top of their divisions are asked who hit them the hardest they a lot of the times say some unknown guy. Just goes to prove how little punching power plays into it.

 

Like the below, pulled from a great article just linked in another thread. It echoes what many have been trying to get through -


At his best, Tyson had a viciously simple style: He would engage his opponent's attention with a punch and quickly follow up, and the opponent would soon be sliding down a ring rope from the damaging flurry. But there are no flurries anymore, just the single punch. "Tyson used to stun you with those quick deliveries, the quickest since Joe Louis," says Futch. "But the value of his punch was realized in combination. He'd finish you off after he stunned you. Now he's looking to hit home runs all the time."

 

I hope you mean on a P4P level, because objectively they weren't even in the same ballpark.

It depends how you define success. I consider David Tua to be the hardest punching boxer in history but he was hardly the most successful in a general career sense. His success came from the fact that when he hit you more often than not you were out for the count. In that respect he was an extremely successful power puncher, even though his limitations in other areas let him down at the highest levels.

Most freakish power punchers are lacking in other areas that prevent them from achieving great success, but the very least you can expect of them is for that power to count when it can be successfully deployed.

And I can watch videos where a fighter gets his lights put out and where he merely gets knocked down and know who's delivering the harder punch without having to consult the fighter's opinion on the matter.

Just for the record though, what shot exactly was it that put Cobb down? The only angle I saw of it was with Cobb's back to the camera and I don't recall there being any replay.

I know punching power isn't the be all and end all of a fighter's arsenal. I never said it was. I'm really not ragging on Shavers's inability to hack it at the top level when comparing him to Tyson. I'm limiting myself purely to those instances where he was able to catch and hurt his opponents and judging him on that basis. He didn't really hack it there either.

I don't think what a fighter has to say necessarily proves anything, for the reasons I gave earlier. It's an extra bit of information one can use when deciding a tricky issue that could swing both ways, not a gamechanger in itself. Video evidence remains the gold standard in that regard.

Look at the last line. Did Tyson's power drop off here, or was he still getting one punch knockouts (albeit against lesser opposition)?

 

Fair play. The man's entitled to his opinions, same as the rest of us.

 

Okay. So if you think Tua was the hardest puncher in history, than that contradicts the way you look at resumes to compare power between Tyson and Shavers.

Testimonials from other boxers isn't a perfect way to figure out who hits harder than who. But it's a hell of a lot better than comparing ring success.

Ring success encompasses so many other variables.
Asking someone "Who hit you the hardest," is a very poignant, specific, and direct question.

 

Then the difference between Shavers and Tyson is that Tyson was able to finish the job after stunning high level opponents.

 

The shot that put Cobb down was a left hook.

I don't see how you say that Shavers didn't hack it when it came to catching and hurting his opponents. The man had 68/74 KO's you cannot say he didn't hack it there.

A fighter's word can be taken pretty far when it comes to how hard they were hit. If I wanted to know how hard Sonny Liston hit I'm going to ask someone who was punched by him not watch tape. The power of a punch is so insignificant when it comes to landing the knockout punch. A fighter can hit repeatedly with 100% power over and over but if their accuracy is off then that won't mean **** compared to a 50% power shot landing perfectly. That's why the chin is known as the sweet spot. You don't have to hit hard to trigger it.