doez Zhang hit harder than George Foreman ?

There is such a thing as winning by decision. ATG fighters aren't measured by their power.

 

Thing is, Tyson (using him as an example instead of Carnera or Valuev, since they can be argued to often diminish their power with subpar body mechanics) is a fighting man, traning boxing since he was a lad. He is clearly extremely well trained, be it squared or angled stance, ourthodox or southpaw movement, inside or outside. He knows how to punch, but weight and size have, I reckon, less or simply equal impact, as some other qualities fighters are born with (athelticism aside, typically characteristics related to the skeleton, hips, shoulders.) Liston, Shavers, Foreman all had those heavy, heavy hands. You get hit and there is no power lost during the transfer, and worse yet, the point of impact is like a concrete. Had an Ukrainian boy train with me once. Smaller, mediocre power generation, less technical, but his hands felt like rocks; jarring to get hit by.

Jack Blackburn, Angelo Dundee, Cus D'Amato, and countless other stated that majority of the aptitude for punching you are solely born with. Shavers and Liston in particular (Frazier and Tyson as well) had no business hitting as hard as they did if height and weight were such a deciding factor.

Increasing weight definitely increases power, especially among the huge crop of fighters that is more standard in their genetics, to put it like that. We are however discussing exceptional individuals emerging through the history of boxing, and there is plentiful evidence of weight and height not being a 100% reliable argument for one fighter superiority over another as far as power and whiskers go. Foreman is extraoridinary enough for me to warrant detailed discussion going beyond just pounds. The man has serious knockouts and inhuman accolades and opinions as far as his power goes.

 

Frazier was not a bloated SMW, come on now. He had visible abs at 205lbs. He'd probably be shredded at 190-195. I see no way he could have ever made 168. 175, shredded and dehydrated to all hell? Maybe.

 

drop the pipe

 

Zhang went from being a gatekeeper to an ATG in 2 fights

 

Look at this blog: [url]https://www.heavyweightblog.com/[/url]

That guy compared the average weight of their respective competition and showed KO percentages at certain weight etc. In short all arrows pointed at the most logical direction. Bigger is better. Both chin and power are way worse at higher weights. You cant say Joshua has a worse chin than Ali. Thats like saying Ali had a worse chin than Kell Brooks.

 

I can, I am.

Just to reiterate my three main points from the previous monologues I spewed:

a) Size is a decent and reliable metric to predict punching power and durability among large groups of fighters. It is an obvious and undeniable way to divide the competitors into divisions, and to ensure fair competition and safety. Size matters, weight divisions are there for a reason.

b) Generalization is a fallacious way of dismissing punching power and chins of smaller men when discussing the cream of the crop of an over century old sport. Inches and weight are not a reliable and definite argument when discussing individual cases as demonstrated countless times through the history.

From George Chuvalo, Randall Cobb, Ray Mercer, Oliver McCall, Mike Tyson all having granite chin in spite of their size and when compared to bigger men, to the likes of Earnie Shavers, Sonny Liston, Max Baer, or Deontay Wilder (he has inches, but is much lighter than many boxers of his fellow era) possessing aptitude and punching power they should not have if size was such a doomingly determining factor. Similarly the 5'2 Barbados Demon was notoriously murderous puncher even when outweight. He never scaled more than 148lbs, but was hurting middleweights, light-heavyweights, and even heavyweights of the early 20th century, demolishing Joe Choynski while being outweight 173 to 137 pounds. Similarly thirty years late Toy Pitbull Mickey Walker would get in the ring with heavyweights and remaing competitive (typically giving up 30lbs, coming in at around 170, while his opponents fought at around 200. He beat, drew, or went the distance with the likes of Jack Sharkey, Johny Risko, Paolino Uzcudun, or King Levinsky, so no 3rd rate pseudo-boxers.)

We literally have 6 and a half of an inch Andryi Rudenko go the distance with Zhang while taking some jarring shots from him. We have Wilder demonstrate immense power while being a stickman of the division, and we have wafer chins of Gerald Washington, Daniel Dubois, Robert Helenius, and Anthony Joshua (AJ actually can take a shot better than the rest of those big boys, but still not nearly well enough as his size and weight would indicate.) Wladimir and Vitali being comparable in size superheavyweights were like night and day when it came to chin and to an extent OHKO power (though Vitali was still a hard puncher.) Individual examples can be debated, but my points stands.

c) Hence, when discussing the top historical figures, particular scrutiny and broader point of view is needed. It is not enough to throw around one of the factors determining weigh and power. The whole picture is needed.

As for the article: there is nothing groundbreaking in it. Heck, I agree with size being generally a major indicator. I agree that current increase in average size would completely change the landscape of 70's heavyweight boxing, with only the true elite being able to thrive. The likes of Ellis, Quarry, Patterson, or Bonavena would have no interest consistently spending their career in modern heavyweight, even if they could be competitive, or even grab a strap.

That being said, I disagree with anyone saying somebody hits harder than all-time great puncher (top 5 in almost any single list on the planet) while typing a single sentence post detailing their weight and height. miniq of all people actually made a valid point about power generation and form making Zhang more effective in translating his size into power.

I find it baffling how beyond the scientific and purported objectivity of the article you find tears in form of statements like: "Modern fans do not doubt that Ali's era was "Teh Golden Age" while the all modern eras are "ridiculously void of any talent" or "these are the ingredients of what I call "nostalgia delusion" or cherry on top: an article named How modern fans would complain about Ali’s opponents? which consists of author projecting his own anger against a fantasy strawman. Breaking news: Ali had his critics through his entire damn career. Especially when he picked the likes of Richard Dunn, Chuck Wepner, or Juegner Blin. He had to work his arse off to sell those fights, and he sold his soul and health winning all the critics over with actual trials. What the post fails to mention is that:

a) Fighters of Ali's era and before were capable of fighting ridiculously often, fighting in less fractured, more focused divisions with a single belt. After a three year break Ali fought Quarry, Bonavena, Frazier, Elis, and Mathis in a span of a year or so. After beating Foreman, in a period of 365 days he went in the ring with Bugner, Frazier, and Lyle. So on and so on. Spots and lossess on their records (especially depression era fighters) would skewer and diminish the records as seen through the mathematics of said article, in spite of those records belonging to great, great fighters.


b) Modern matchmaking can be more picky, risk-averse, and record padding, though it could this way in other eras as well. Comeback Foreman said it best: early on in his second outing, he was looking for muscular, tough looking guys whose chins he saw would not hold up. Educated historians and boxing fans always look past the pumped up undefeated record, and pay respect to a true fighting men. Ali taking on everybody available painted the heavyweight landscape, and his rivals being bold and not shy of risking their records further cemented his own greatness, as they displayed theirs.

And just for the record, I am not one to critize Wladimir's resume. In fact I find it extremely admirable that he came back stronger than ever after people, his own brother included, told him to consider quitting the sport, dominating another decade after already being formidable in the ending years of the 90's (only skipping Valuev I reckon, but he was beaten by his two victims in Haye and Chagaev, a cruiserweight and a 6'1 heavyweight, ironically.)

 

It's not unlikely that Zhang hits harder than Foreman. Force in physics terms is just mass and speed. Force in boxing terms, or "power" is just mass, speed and technique.

Zhang is 60lbs heavier than Foreman whilst having ridiculously fast hands for someone his weight and decent punch mechanics. Zhang is probably one of the hardest punchers in boxing history.

People don't like acknowledging this because acknowledging any modern boxer can be superior in anyway whatsoever to any old timer upsets people. Exhibit A being every single god damn Rocky Marciano thread.

That's not to say Zhang is better than Foreman or anything, but thinking it's unreasonable that a 280lbs with fast hands has more power than a 220lbs man just shows a ridiculous amount of bias.

 

Your opinion is worthless.

 

Good riddance.

It should be a perma ban.

 

You’re either a troll or a simpleton.

Which is it?

 

Another post where I’m telling you to be serious.

 

Him weighing more doesn’t automatically mean he hits harder.

Otherwise Valuev would be the hardest hitter of all time.