Did Liston hit harder than George Foreman?

There's no once and for all obviously. There's not much between them. The consensus would be Foreman but it's pretty close. For me Sonny would have blown out Frazier and Norton reasonably quickly as well. Sonny's blows are usually a bit more compact FWIW.

 

Them and all the top punchers are the same. The analogy I like is choosing which gun to be shot in the head with, after a certain point the calibre isn’t going to matter.

 

Liston was more accurate and purposeful with his combinations. Foreman was the better ring general. At the end of the day it's hard to debate who cracked harder (as if there is a way to measure it precisely decades later), but the debate as to how the puncher applied his attribute through space and time remains a gift.

 

As JT1 said, their's not much between them. Gun to my head, I'll go for Liston though as every common opponent who faced them both said Liston hit harder. It must be said though, nobody faced prime versions of them both, only an old Liston, and a green Foreman.

Both are in my top 5 H2H at heavy.

 

Foreman hits harder - Sonny hits better - cleaner punching technique at all ranges, seems to have more snap, but then again, I don't see many fighters clean Moorer's clock with the right hand Foreman landed, in the manner he landed it.

Foreman was likely an underrated finisher and due to the size and durability of some of Liston's victims, he could arguably be a somewhat overrated hitter.

 

He was at his time compared to Joe Louis in term of finishing ability, and is to this day mentioned along the likes of JCC as one of the greatest masters of ring geometry. I don't think he is underrated in that regard.

 

Definitely agree Liston's punches were more compact, pinpoint & quicker. George's were more clubbing & would move guys out of position, or move them into a position he could capitalize on, which to me falls under 'ring generalship' as pointed out in a previous post.

Overall though I gotta give it to Big George. I'm surprised he never literally tore someone's head clean off, like jettisoned away from their body and into the back rows.

 

Hmmm, in my many years here, it's often been read as if Big George was a slow, unfit, big puncher who missed loads of punches and had no plan B.

What I mean by underrated is that many claim all you had to do with George is get past 5 or 6 rounds - firstly, you have to get past 5 or 6 rounds and that's what I meant by underrated finisher - George could hurt with every punch and once he had a man rattled and on the defensive, if he were in the right mindframe, it wouldn't necessarily end well. Even if you survived through 6 or 7, the punishment he dished and his ability to absorb punishment and land any one of his bombs, it's a difficult obstacle to overcome.

 

Not. Foreman hit harder by half a percent.

 

The uneducated opinion on George Foreman misses the entirety of forceful nuance of his style, though to be fair he wasn't known for his plan B. Given the % of his early knockouts, he didn't need to have one, though to his credit he was the only man to stop the slick Gregorio Peralta, in the 10th round no less. A feat the likes of Lyle and Bonavena couldn't replicate.

All in all Foreman is rightfully one of the greatest finishers in the history of the sport. In his prime only the defensive wizards went the distance against him.

 

This content is protected

 

Its not just about how hard someone hits it has alot to do with speed and placement.
Foreman probably hit as hard as anyone in history, but i consider Liston the better puncher.

Foreman with his tremendous strength and power clubbed guys for the most part.
Obviously if he hit a guy on the chin with something he doesnt see(moorer) the guy goes to sleep but that was rare.

Guys like Tyson, Lewis and even wilder are much more likely to land a quick one on the chin that may or may not have less force but are more dangerous for that reason.

 

Liston was more accurate and had the cleaner combinations (although he could also swing pretty wide, but not as recklessly as his successor). Foreman had more raw power and the stats to prove it battering guys across two different eras. Norman Mailler also said Foreman visibly did more damage to heavybags. If Foreman's a 10, Liston's a 9 but it sort of cancels out due to Liston's superior technique.

 

I won’t make a vote like that. Impossible to tell who hit harder. And they were both different kinds of hitters anyway. Both guys had a lot of power