No it was no language problem, you just over-read the parts which had softened it a lot and didn't make it specific. I had several times maintained, it is generalized and rounded, but just shall give a little hint (it is rather a potencia of the mass). So you changed my words, in not quoting everything, which gave it a different meaning and I have before fixed it 2 or three times, just after the first statement (and even in it). At least there was a subject about punchers, particular in Light-Heavyweight maybe too, there he was very often (perhaps most) mentioned, rather than others as Stevenson, Calindez, Kovalew or Michalczewsky. Though Moorer was also very often named, due to his 100% knockout-rate, which supports my original point. But he was a lot less proven. Nobody claims that Moore hit as hard as Marciano as far as I read, apart of you want to suggest I did, which would change my words again and is just not true. On the other hand was Moore at that time around 40. Klitschkos opposition early was not worse than of his brother (who spend many more rounds) and he has a much better knockout-rate than him and especially Lewis. The brother I think not only admit that he is the better one of the two, but maybe also that he is a superior knockouter (as he finished Peter much earlier among others). Possible not in hitting hard, but that is not the only factor for a puncher, as I repeadadly mentioned. If the knockout happens with dozens of hits or one is not decisisve for me, what counts is the success and effect it has. And I mean he could have accomplished some earlier knockouts, like Adamek was already in the first round out of his feet, even Chisora and Byrd were in the first 3 rounds several times stunned and looked finished. He also changed to an arm-puncher due to his injuries, then came the knockouts late. But before when he punched with his whole weight/ body from the shoulder, he stopped like over 90% in the first 2 rounds and had a 100%-knockout-rate. By the way bigger puncher is not the same as harder hitter (puncher); it is mainly estimated by the knockout percentage. As nobody call Hernandez as the biggest puncher in Cruiserweight, because of his 50 or 60% rate, but he hit besides Haye the hardest of his generation in my eyes.
Decent list though. There are more respectable punchers than this list. Especially Cuevas, he is DEFINITELY not top 10. John Mugabi also not top 10. the others are fine.
Ali said he could switch off his light and be in bed before it got dark. Faster than the speed of light or the speed of dark? Anyway, rumour has it that Bundini rigged all of Ali’s lights with sensor delay switches to maintain the delusion and Ali’s big head. Punching any faster than the speed of light, then you might find yourself knocking out your opponent before you’ve even launched your punch. How cool would that be? Tis true, particles that travel at the speed of light are deduced to have no mass - though photons, for example, can still exert force due to their having momentum. E=MC2 is clearly being confused with F=MA. Einstein is turning in his grave right now at the equivalent speed of light.
Disagree on those two. Cuevas is one of very few fighters that actually broke bones with his power shots. He also did it more than once. That left hook may have been "THE" most destructive single punch in welter history. Mugabi ko'ed a bunch of "B" level guys, that while not world beaters or atg's, were very capable and tough as nails. Sometimes it's the way a fighter dominates the "B" level competition that's impressive. He also hurt Hagler more than any fighter he faced. I'll take Mugabi's victims over Mccellean's any day.
Cuevas hit hard really but number 3?? That's just absurd. Regardless of the testimonies he can't have the number 3 spot. Sugar Ray Robinson certainly hits harder. And Danny Lopez number 2? might need to lower it a bit.
No particular order . Just some off the top of my head without focusing in on it. I'm sure they're harder punchers that I missed. I'm sure their some you would miss also. It's also a subjective topic.
You said you amended the words-implying you were innacurate. Being "generalized & rounded" amounts to totally rescinding what you claimed. Which was that E=MC2 shows that in the force of a punch, speed is twice as important as mass. That is completely false. Feel free to cut & paste your original statement., I took nothing out of context. A potential of the mass does not speak to speed being twice as important as mass. If you mean that you completely abandoned that claim, OK. It seemed you were associating punching power with KO rate, when that is a very different thing. You are now saying Moore (you wrote "Moorer" at first) is "very often mentioned". & "perhaps most". You also cited a thread here which i challenged you to lookup & show me where you claimed most said Moore hit the hardest (for his division). Again, I do not think that was the consensus here in any thread. IF there is an ol thread claiming that, just show me, I shall stand corrected. I am not saying that you claim Marciano did not hit harder-but showing you that when the same size, he did. Power is the last thing to go, & I neither think Moore had lost much of any by almost 43(his age against Marciano), or most importantly that he ever hit the hardest for his size. He was EXTRAORDINARY in how his record & performance at adcanced ages: even having moved up to HW, & I see no decine in his average competition, he did BETTER even than his lifetime record of 186-23-10 iin his 40's: I just compute him at 49-4 between 40- 49 years of age! Most wins by TKO/KO. So fighting over 5X a year in his 40's with that kind of record to me is MUCH more impressive than any older boxer, ever. Incredible, I did a thread about him, & he was a great guy personally too. You are arguing against a "Straw Man" if you think I need convincing that Vitali was a better KO artist. I am the one who kept mentioning that many things go into KOs-& it is not "possibly" that Lewis & Wlad hit harder-a new admission for you-it is virtually certain. Vitali did npot have worse opposition "early"-as in you mean to say at the start of both of their careers? I would have to look at when you mean & compare them, but Wlad & Lewis had much better competition overall, & Wla many more fights. What is clearly a language & definitional issue is you distinguishing hardest hitter from "biggest puncher". I agree with what you mean to say-& have been saying all along that force of blows does not = how effective one is. But the words "biggest puncher" themselves *mean* the same thing as hardest hitter: that term cannot rationally be said to indicate effectiveness or results.
Yes E=MC2 suggests nothing about the relative merits of speed vs. mass or what ingrediants makes a harder punch, & how. But in boxing terms, the force transmitted also depends upon effeciently transmitting that mass-through both using the core muscles in an effective kinetic chain, & even genetic factors such as thickness of bone structure save energy as in transmitting it well to the target. The mass of the striking hand matters too, club someone with a Foreman-esque fist it causes more impact, all other things being equal... I know you is a big smartestest (sic) at this stuff...So how can a massless particle accomplish any momentum? The definition of shich normally depending upon some mass or substance to provide an big or 'lil 'mo! I understand that unless there is wormhole or undiscovered technology, you approach aquiring the mass of the universe to get vert close TO the speed of light. Not that a Ko could come before a punch was launched, but certainly anything moving near that fast, we would detect no movement at all by the naked eye. By the way, I revise my BP estimate to 290, since after a machine set to failure & no warmup I got a decline press with 2 plates for 10.
Maybe you didn't understood it or have missed my reply to your response; but I pointed mass get transformed into energy, when it reaches light-speed. So my statement was just shorter and more exact than what you copy pasted of mine. There was nothing new of what you wrote here, but you used my words.
No I just made it more picturesc, that you can understand how it works. I never claimed that this is exact, but I did the opposite and pointed in every post here, it is just a very general estimation. You won't turn my words around, you can try as hard as you could, but I don't let you do it!. And no you overlooked my statement again or you have trouble with reading; I mentioned both Moore and Moorer, as both are named as best puncher in the division, but for Moore exist more evidence, while Moorer is very often named because of his knockout-rate (100%). It were most likely several thread in this section where this was pointed. Can you nam a better puncher in this weight-class? To compare Moore with Marciano (who might be pound for pound top 5 puncher too), is like to compare apples with pears; when you move up in weight-classes your punches ususally have not the same effect than in lower, despite you are not full grown. Look at Jones, he was in Middleweight rather a puncher than in the Heavyweight. Moore was clearly past his best too and even Foreman went often the distance in his fourties, Hopkins like the last 10 years of his career (who was a big hitter). I think Foreman had more than 5 fights per year in his early fourties, but it doesn't matter and has not relation to this subject/ is off topic. No he had not worse opposition, he stopped Louis Monaco, Dick Ryan (the first who went 5 rounds with him) and Mario Schieser among others before Hide. Sullivan was the first who went more than 5 rounds with him. Though he had 20 fights less, which says nothing about quality, particular as he has the much better winning-rate. Maybe he didn't fight 10 boxers like Jennings and Wach, but also very rare any Leopai or Pianeta. There is nothing certain, it is just imagination. It is certain that he landed more often knockouts and that is what counts. The effect/ result is significant not something what you see in your fantasy or dreams. Nobody would call Rubinstein a better player than Karpov, although he had probably a much more beautiful performance (Rubinsteins' Imortal match). He has with Sanders and Hide arguable better wins than his brother in the whole career. If you accomplish it with many or one punch is not important, just that you get a knockout is it. But trust me he hit with single blows some opponents down. These were very painful and not easy to take. He hit several levels harder than Fury or Usyk. I think he is even a superior puncher than Deontray Wilder, as he is more muscular and natural bigger. A lot of the power comes from the legs, you need a pretty steady stand for the feet to make pressure. But Wilder has rather thin legs as Harris and maybe Crawford; them look like sticks.
I am sorry I did not know you meant Moorer too, understand with much butchering of English I could not tell. We can only guess what you meant by "picturesc". But you are not just disagreeing; you are claiming absent evidence I am purposely distorting your words. I never do this-to anyone, in any context. You should not assume bad intentions. But others have mentioned how E=MC2 has absolutely no relevance-even in a general sense-to wither the calculation of power in a sport, or to a claim that speed has twice the impact or effect as mass. Pugguy also described how the equation is confused with another basic formula of Isaac Newton... You are imprecise or do not comprehend some things I keep saying. You shifted to "better puncher". I was always addressing the original theses: that Moore is the HARDEST puncher, or that many here said that-or most on a certain thread or survey. Again, feel free to look this up: I do not think that was ever the consensus! Possibly the best in terms of results? Certainly. Moorer almost certainly hit harder, & the other candidate that springs to mind is Foster. Some others who could easily make LHW today with rehydration hit harder. I AGREE with you that folks do not punch as hard relative to division when they move up. Moore had lost very little by the time he fough Marciano-maybe nothing in terms of power. But I am saying that at any weight, Moore never was the hardest puncher. Pretty hard & extremely skilled, but not as much force as the biggest hitters. Like Tyson-who hit harder in absolute terms-whose combinations, accuracy & speed made the impact of his punches *greater* than his absolute power. Sorry you are mistaken about Foreman: he only fought over 5 times a year between 20-22 + when he was 38. Moore *averaged* 5 & a 1/2 fights a year from 40 until he retired, when slightly older than Foreman. He also had almost exactly 2 & a 1/2 times as many fights as Foreman as a professional. Also unlike Foreman I am aware of him avoiding no fighters, at any age. Scroll down to the bottom for his record by year & his precise age during each fight: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Foreman[/url] I suggest you start a thread about who had better opposition, & MORE World Class boxers-even if you make the case only for Vitali, & make no effort to be impartial, it will be hard to find anyone who agrees Vitali faced better competition. While I downgrade Wlad for excess holding (& benefitting from biased officiating), I cannot see Vitali had better competition. Start a thread on it! I agree that Vitali when he sat down on his punches hit harder than Usyk & Fury. How much more, I do not know. But you have regressed to saying "better" puncher again when comparing him to Wilder. He is a much better fighter. But if you mean to say he hit harder: no way on earth. Also size & muscularity is just one general correlation to power. If it meant everything, massive weightlifters would hit the hardest, & they never do. Some folks produce superb power for their division with leverage & natural abilities-like Wilder & hearns below MW.
