Who Hit Harder Lennox Lewis or Sonny Liston

No. It's going to be extremley hard to get this across, I can't put it any more simply than I have already really but for one more go

How hard a fighter does punching has no relationship to the size of his opponent. A 300lb fighter hitting a 120lb fighter, hits just as hard as the 300lb fighter hitting a 310lb fighter.

That's it, that's all, and "you know phsyics" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Where you're confused is you want to claim that Lewis hits harder because he is bigger. But the post you quote doesn't have any relationship to the weight of Lewis or the weight of Liston. JUST:

A 300lb fighter hitting a 120lb fighter, hits just as hard as the 300lb fighter hitting a 310lb fighter.

The average weights of Liston's opponents gives NO information about how hard he punched. The average weight of Lewis's opponents give NO information about how hard he punched.

 

Yes, I cover this off in the post you quoted.

"It does create an imbalance in evidence, but all this means is that this isn't suitable evidence for drawing conclusions."

This is also why I call Lewis "more proven" in my first post in this thread.

The rush by certain folks to conclude that Lewis hit harder because Liston's opponents were smaller remains absurd despite all this.

I disagree with you that there is "no way to compare punchers at all" without comparing the relative sizes of their opponents completely.

 

I have to point out that at no time have I said that knocking out more durable fighters "doesn't count". But it doesn't necessarily follow that a fighter that has knocked out fighters at an average weight of 240lbs is stopping more durable opponents than those knocked out at fighters at an average weight of 220lbs. Much, much more important will be, for example, the length of time they spent boxing the elite. Someone who spends forty fights taking on elite opposition will find it harder to come by stoppage wins than someone who spends six fights taking on elite opposition, for example. It's far more complex than presented.

Also - I have to say - this is an example of your moving the goalposts. After agreeing you're mistaken (I think) with your "but physics" post, you've now moved the goalposts to include "more durable fighters" alongside "bigger" as if it was either a) established that this was definitively the case or b) are trying to claim that i've claimed that knocking out more durable fighters doesn't prove superior power, which isn't the case. Note that, for as far as your time on the forum goes, it will always look mor like b). But anyway.

I'll give some non-complex examples on a non-exhaustive list.

1 - Actually measuring punching power There are devices that do this. It's how we know that Wlad hit harder than Rocky, probably, exclusive to other evidence.

2 - My favourite for outliers, fighter testimony. Interestingly, for extreme outliers, they're very nicely spaced and not big. Sam Langford probably has the most enthusiastic fighter testimony, light for a heavyweight. Joe Louis came along a few decades later, average for a heavyweight. Shavers a few decades later, probably about average for a heavyweight. Then Wilder, light for a heavyweight. Just interesting, because they are freaks, but it does slightly undermine the biggest guys biggest punchers argument IMO. Anyway, I'd guess Wlad hits slightly harder than Lewis based on fighter testimony, for example and that's worthwhile.

3- Durability of opponent. Should always, always be treated separately from size of opponent. Cracking unique chins is absolutely an indicator of power. Bob Foster is my favourite here - his era was weak but bizarrely stacked with elite chins than were hard to crack and a huge indicator of his power.

4 - Level of opposition. Experienced, primed opponents are the hardest to KO. If a fighter sustains his KO % (or something like it) out of domestic level into world-class, this is a good indicator of punch power.

5 - Punch comparison. You know what a good punch looks and sounds like, how do experienced, primed opponents with good chins react to similar punches from similar opponents? This is a good point to at which to tie in size, if it's possible, there may be some sort of overlap (so for Louis for example you could look at how Carnera, Buddy, Max, Galento and Simon respond to Joe's punches and compare them to how they line up against similarly experienced/sized Wladimir opponents punch vs punch).

6 - How is all of this affected by the rules? For example, modern fighters are far more likely to score a cheaper stoppage than fighters pre-1990 (and 1990 more than 1940 etc.). On the other hand, 2026 boxers have significantly heavier gloves than those boxing in 1910, and there is a difference (not huge) on delivery depending upon the size of the glove (you also have to give reverse credit for punch resistance). Note the difference between 10oz gloves and no gloves is significant, but as soon as you introduce a glove (Excluding skin), the difference diminishes fast.

All of these are flawed, either to the same extent as "look at the weights" or approaching that, so you want to use it to group data, not to direct your thinking, and see where it leads you. "Look at the weights" is seductive because it is extremely easy - log on to Boxrec, look at the weights, make your claim, make people work against your claim, which is hard to do because it requires attention to detail and conscientiousness and this is just a hobby for most people who are posting here from work or home with other commitments. But it is lazy IMO and even worse, as an isolated claim, useless or something like it. If I was listing these criteria (not exhaustive) from best to worst i'd probably put "just size" at the bottom.

 

No, I'm seperating the perfect amount. I'm bang on about that, and very happy with it. You're maybe the purest modernist on the forum, so not only is your making this claim expected, it's also a delight to me given what i'm after. But it doesn't matter anyway, because you can look into durability of your big opponents, and do work on it if you want. Bigger guys are likely to have an edge in durability a given % of the time it's just the case of working out who is who on a case by case basis.

What do you mean "Even"? Of course they're both incredibly important.

I haven't said size is irrelevant - i've said it's relevant. I've listed it as a criteria that matters. If you've missed that receive the assurance here: size is a factor in determining durability.

I didn't say I treated it as the least meaningful, but the least meaningful in isolation versus the ones that I listed, which is not an exhaustive list. But it could easily be fourth most meaningful or third, or sixth of the seventh discussed. I wouldn't get hung up on it, put it that way.