Mike Tyson - The Hardest puncher in History

I was not talking about punches that do not land Seamus. By definition you need to hit csomething so force could theoretically be measured. Whether a punch could be harder through thin air is possible, but not what is meant, & impossible to measure anyway.

Of course effective power is most important by far.
But we are discussing who could hit the hardest.
Yes, at a fairground, or in tis case, who did in the ring.

Yes Pablod, I meant to say it equals force.
Still I do not see how this could reflect true power.
You must agree that Foreman hit at least near the very hardest ever. His biggest punches were SLOW, & his mass not extraordinary. How could he & so many others like Liston generate tremndous impacts that were NOT due to great placement or comibinations or shots that were not seen due to speed-how can they show such outliar pure force-when endless others threw faster & had more mass?

I did NOT say it does not matter if a fighter is terrible OR I am not interested in quality & skill!
I said it does not matter for the question at hand.

Again yup you could set up that PSI measurement.
Though the ability to hit amongst the hardest & BE a world class fighter, which Shavers for all his flaws was, also is meaningful.

Now as for those fist sizes...Some are listed differently elsewhere, like Tyson 12" vs. lewis, & I doubt he had bigger fists than Lewis. Shavers reportedly had very large hands, I cannot find it in a tale of the tape, please link it if you can find it. Sjavers listed as high as 15", but all these are vulnerable to mistakes & exaggerations.

I SAID short & long limbs could delover devastating blows.
You could make an argument that hand size does not matter from the sizes listed. But I doubt it has no impact in HELPING, even if some like Galento could hit very hard with small hands.
There are many routes to power.

I never would indicate size is the primary thing. Strength IS more important, but what is MEANT by strength is also subtle, many ways to measure it. All the top hitters could not lift nearly as much as the top lifters of their time, let alone the steroid monserts of today. Natural strength & bone structure helps, it has been noted how those like Shavers & Foreman LOOk much larger than actual their heights & weights.

Execution, combo punching, crucial.
You do occasionally have great hitters who are not that strong, like ****ey. Foreman had him up w/Lyle & Williams as tops, & ****ey was wasjed up & KOPed by Big George in 2 then.

 

proof of shavers fist size notice ali's,(not a great puncher)fist is larger! -- http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...d9NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CosDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3622,3848707 -- please put on your glasses,i said tyson was 13"! not 12" here is the tape measurements of lewis and Klitschko
lennox lewis:
Height - 6'5''
Weight - 249lbs
Reach - 84''
Chest - 44 1/2''
Waist - 34 1/2''
Biceps - 17 1/4''
Neck - 18 3/4''
Wrist - 8''
Calf - 18 1/4''
Thigh - 27 1/2''
Fist - 12''(smaller than tyson's)
Forearm - 15''

Vitali Klitschko

Height - 6'8''
Weight - 245lbs
Reach - 78''
Chest - 46''
Waist - 36''
Biceps - 17 1/2''
Neck - 18 1/4''
Wrist - 7 1/2''
Calf - 17''
Thigh - 23''
Fist - 11''(smaller than every heavyweight puncher i can think of!)
Forearm - 17''______so hand size means nothing in regards to power nor does height or arm length.

 

There were a couple of men who had more superior punching power than Iron Mike .

Liston knocked people out with his jab alone .

A jab ???

A jab is not supposed to knock an opponent out .

That's extraordinary power right there .

 

Frank thanks for the additional stats.
yet it is you who needs to put on your glasses, or just read more carefully.
I did not say you said Tyson had a 13' fist. i said it is listed elsewhere as 12", like against Lewis. (Tale of the Tape).

Klitchko is so big but has a small fist for a HW? Maybe...But these things are often inaccurate.

Also, you pointing to several examples where a guy with whatever smaller proportions hits very hard does not prove that something like hand size makes no difference.

You are making a basic error. Unless i said it was DETERMINISTIC, it is bad reasoning, because i just said it tends to be an advantage, all other things being equal. things are not always equal.

Also you have a basic misapprehension abouts statistical arguments You use individual cases to try to disprove what I indicate is more commonly true, not nearly universal.

Let's take something we KNOW. Men are significantly taller, heavier & stronger than woman overall. there is a fairly strong correlation.

Of course we could name innumerable men smaller & even weaker than many woman.

Those xamples are meaningless to contest the undeniable correlation. Unless someone foolishly claimed men are always or nearly always bigger & stronger than woman, regardless of bnutrition, age or training. Which is false.

 

I could argue that im the hardest puncher in history. You ask me how many quality heavies i've kayoed. And I tell you none but you should see me on the heavy bag.

 

Come on then which quality heavyweights did your hero Tyson knockout??

 

Spinks, Thomas, Tubbs, Berbick, Williams, Ruddock, Seldon, Bruno and Biggs were all ranked in Ring's top 10 the year he KO'd them. Is that not quality enough?

 

Oh so now Ruddock and Bruno were knockouts??

I'm sure they weren't..

 

I guess you are correct. Bruno and Ruddock actually won those three stoppages. I will amend the records.

 

And only Ruddock made it past round 7.

 

The records there for you to look yourself.
Disappointing all this 'your hero' stuff.
We are men, not old women.

 

Well who are you trying to discredit by mocking the gentlemens post?? Tyson was a big hitter but there's been a handful of champs and contenders that hit harder.

 

no ones being mocked weve been chatting about if for days. im not saying tysons the hardest hitter, I say hes the most effective ive seen at knocking people out, because that's all we can ever say about anyone. You disagree with my picking tyson? fine, but talk to me with records and performances and facts and convince me with reason.

 

At his peak, Tyson was a great knockout artist. He put high quality guys, top contenders and champions, away emphatically. Not quite everyone, not quite every style. Power was an important component in this equation. With other attributes and exquisite technique, he applied this power as well as any heavyweight ever.

If you just want to compartmentalize the power component of the equation, go ahead, but in a vacuum it is rather meaningless.

 

No simply look at his knockout percentage compared to other top fighters and you'll see he's not the best..,