Note from Mike Tyson on most powerful puncher of all time

Foreman didn't land on Ali the way Shavers did.

 

Ain’t that weird. Tyson was a lot shorter and about just as heavy in his prime. If he’s referring to Old Foreman why not say the same about say Lennox who was bigger? I’ll never understand the reasoning of guys saying X hit harder then Y without even facing them. It’s like when Goldman said Bonavena hit harder then Marciano and guys use that as evidence? Like he trained them but without anymore then his word…

 

To quote Norton (basically) who’d have no bias to me as a guy who was splattered by both. “They hit about the same” they say this about Lyle too. Not a world of difference at the top- that’s why Tyson and Louis are the more dangerous guys.

 

No he was 220 lbs. against McNeely. He only hit (precisely) 225 in 2000, & then he was gaining body fat.
Weights in each pro fight & of his opponents: [url]https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/474[/url]

He was likely a 1/2" taller, but that is trivial.
Scale him up even making it an even 6", & even accounting for his greater lean muscle mass (giving him 6 rather than 4.5 lbs. per inch as weight charts suggest), that is still in the mid 250's lean.

Not near 275.
We have no idea that he had any greater bone density than other HWs.
He DID have more lean mass per square inch-in part due to his lower body muscularity.

Tyson had a lot of power, but not as much as the heaviest hitters like several he fought, Bruno, Ruddock & Bonehugger.
But he was much faster & he was better, especially with combinations, & at his best, defense.

 

No, Ali said that live on television.

 

Wilder is clearly way faster than Foreman, it is not just his build.
Young Foreman it is closer.
Tyson averaged a little less than Foreman in their respective primes.
This is due to two reasons: due to lower body muscle, Tyson carried more mass for his height.

But Foreman was also routinely dehydrated in matches due to Sadler's foolhardy beliefs.
You can see-or look up-him over 230 in his first career, still quite lean.

Tyson was not uniquely muscular, but he did have as much overall mass as much bigger men-in terms of height, wingspan, sometimes bone structure, & natural width.
However no need to fetishize size: more is not always better.
But Tyson reached his optimal size & condition early, & no evidence e needed PEDs to do so.

But EVERYONE who fought Shavers-with the possible exception of Norton saying they hit about the same-said Shavers hit harder than anyone they ever fought.
Young. Ali. Ellis. Stander. Caldwell. Tillis. Holmes X2. Cobb. Whoever I forgot...

Tyson is a great student of the game, but did not see "old Shavers".
If you asked him if he was sure boxers he did not see might not have hit harder, I'll bet he would say he did not know.

 

Actually both George and Ali were getting along quite well not too long after the fight in Zaire. Check out numerous interviews featuring the two of them together, they're on youtube.

George alone has said some truly moving things about Ali, time and again. All of these quotes are available for all to find on the internet.

No disrespect, but I'm not sure what sources you're gathering your intel from.

 

Yes the raw numbers don't tell the full story. While it's technically correct 70's Foreman didn't weight that much more than Tyson, he was actually cutting weight to getting that range and likely walking around at 230+. The weight gets distributed differently depending on your frame, the size of your hands, waist, shoulders, etc.

When you actually get a guy whose a very bulky 6'3 with long arms and big fists standing next to a guy whose 5'10 with short arms side by side, they look like they're multiple weight classes apart. For comparison, watch James Smith, Bruno, or Ruddock against Tyson and you'll see how small Tyson looks easily getting grabbed, clinched, and pushed around. Hell, even Hoylfield who isn't as bulky or tall as Foreman had a noticeable edge over Tyson in the physical department. The big difference between Foreman and those guys is he's a 2 fisted threat who would be on the attack immediately refusing to give ground or back up.

The size difference would be even more surprising and apparent if we take 90's Foreman who could enter the ring as high as 260 and he carried the weight very well in terms of muscle distribution and durability. Hoylfield said he was his strongest opponent and it was impossible to move him or back him up which is insane considering he was 42 and he rated him higher than other super heavies like Bowe and Lewis. I think Tyson would be like a brave and strong cape buffalo attempting to fight a rhinoceros, just a really ugly clash where the buffalo is out of his element fighting fire with fire.

 

Thanks, but I do not believe that those 2 striking-one more through speed, the other heavy handed-had a unique sound.
Tyson's motivation is both being gracious, & seeing him fight as an Old Man.

Shavers just slightly above average as a puncher (in terms of power, not skill)?
Might as well just say Michael Jordon was a fairly decent B-baller.

Virtually everyone who saw & fought Shavers agreed.
Not his ability to land flush. Nor combination effectiveness. Nor endurance. Nor chin. Nor finishing ability.
That he was so good in the Golden Era without great skills should also show you he hit Epically.

All the eye-witness testimony, especially those who lost OR defeated him, so no way to explain it away as defending a legacy...
This is very good evidence.