Creating My Own Top 100 Hardest P4P Punchers List

Who might that be ?!

 

That don't mean ****. Boxers back then were way easier to hit. Plus, Jeffries might not have been as accurate.

 

184 lbs Corbett, who was almost 20 lbs heavier than Fitzsimmons.

 

184 lbs is still puny. And Corbett is a weakling compared to modern boxers, he ain't got the same endurance to getting hit.

 

How is it? Isn't it impressive for a MW to knock out 184 lbs fighter? Seriously? We're talking about P4P here, not about HW.

Based on what? Did you test his durability somehow to prove that he wasn't on that level? What does "modern boxer" mean? We have entire spectrum of boxers today - some of them are durable, some of them not so much.

You use illogical points again just to keep believing in your point of view.

 

Which means that they were more durable, given the long fights back then. You can't have it both ways and believe that they were worse defensively, less durable and less powerful at the same time. Were they less inteligent as well? Or did they have thinner bones?

 

To say what JJ said is irrelevant seems a tad harsh IMO, he had fought amongst others, Jeffries, Chyonski, Kecthel, all recognised as heavy/hard punchers No ?
Your point which you seem to rest your case on is, we haven't seen, so therefore we cannot gauge , well we haven't /didn't see the defenders of the Alamo, but we know they must have been brave , so you don't always have to SEE something to appreciate it was so.
To me it amounts to ( as the post asks ) was Fitz a p4p/hard/heavy puncher, well as far as I can ascertain, by reading about his fights, he was really cannot see a counter argument, but you are entitled to your opinion, as am I , keep well buddy, enjoy your posts, chat soon.

 

He fought Jeffries when Jeffries was 6 years past his best and was just making a comeback for the money.
Ketchel was a MW.
Even though he competed with many HWs, Chyonski wouldn't even be a CW by today's standards, he weighed around 175 lb throughout his career.

Yes, those men were brave indeed, but you cannot gouge exactly how brave, that's the point I'm making.

Maybe he was a big puncher, but one cannot say exactly how big.
It's just as with Harry Greb, sure, there are multiple claims how great he was, but without video footage, it's ludicrous to say he's greater than SRR.

 

Actually, you can have it both ways. The fights were long cause they ****ing wrestled more than they hit each other.

 

Not really. Someone like Julian Jackson or

This content is protected

could easily take out a 185 lbs boxer.

Modern boxers are more durable due to better training, nutrition and medical advancements.

 

So people 120 years ago were simple clueless and didn't know how to fight (despite fighting being as old as human species)? You're just unlucky, you'd be a boxing champion of the world back then! We all are far more evolved than our grandparents, right?

 

Yeah and they are top tier punchers in the history. If you want to tell me that Fitzsimmons is only as powerful as Jackson, then I'm not too far from your take.

How can you train your durability? What modern techniques do fighters use to enchance their durability?

 

Yes we are more evolved. Humans are way smarter now. We have also evolved a bit physically, the average height is bigger now compared to then.
Of course, the quality of life has improved a lot, and this is one of the main reasons. People now also have access to more information, that's why we are smarter.
So, if we take a 5 year old kid (who went on to become a boxer) and brought him to the modern era, teach him modern boxing techniques and trained him properly, he might turn out to be world class in this era, but as things stand, the standard of his era was poorer.

 

Until we find footage, we cannot assess whether he hit as hard or not as them. But, given by how poor his punching technique looks, I'm pretty confident to say he didn't.

Go to a gym and you shall see.

 

That's all I needed to know about your opinion, thank you