My top 10 HW punchers: 1. Joe Louis 2. Jack Dempsey 3. Rocky Marciano 4. Sonny Liston 5. George Foreman 6. Mike Tyson 7. Ernie Shavers 8. Max Baer 9. Jim Jeffries 10. Lennox Lewis How about you?
Joe Louis is one of the most brutal HW punchers of all time . Absolutely. Did you hear Marciano and Louis share the same sparring partners and all of the sparring partners confessed Marciano possessed more punching power compared to Louis . AMAZING . Goes to show you , the weight does not mean much when it comes to HWs. Marciano was only 188 pounds .
There are numerous attributes to that lead to punching power. Size is but one. There is also the shoulder snap, balance, form, punching technique, and other subtleties. Golovkin needing bigger guys to spar with is a testament to this.
Almost every quote we have on Shavers comes from a fighter whose bout with Shavers we have on film. All of his high profile fights are on film. In other words, everything that we need to judge him is already available. What he did to some no name scrub on an undercard in Shittsville, USA has very little bearing on his overall rating as a puncher, just as Tyson's less high profile knockouts have any bearing on his (Ricardo Spain anyone?). Shavers simply doesn't cut it at any level.
Shavers's reputation as some sort of one punch killer is one of the more irritating bits of BS in the sport, not least because whenever his name is mentioned you know some schmuck is going to repeat one of those tedious quotes from Holmes or Tillis like it's some charming anecdote we're all dying to hear for the hundredth time. Shavers used combinations to set up his knockdowns/knockouts as well. He rarely just winged one out of leftfield like in the Holmes fight.
What are you on about? Of course his 50+ knockouts matter. Not having most of Tysons knockouts on film would definitely take a hit on his legacy as a puncher. Mike Tysons early career knockouts are some of the most iconographic moments of him as a person. And theres a very good reason for that. You just want to shrug those off because it doesn't fit your little argument? Nope. You seem to have this idea that because people like Holmes said Shavers hit hard, that Shavers should have knocked everyone out. But do you realize that punching power can't win you the fight alone? Tyson was a more complete fighter than Shavers.
Shannon Briggs has a load of meaningless stoppages over Z-list opponents. Does anyone seriously rate him as a puncher because of it? Do you? Tyson fought his first name opponents within two years of turning pro. Shavers didn't fight his first name opponent (Young) until four years after he first stepped in the ring. Even so, you could take only Tyson's nineties performances and still come up with a more impressive highlight reel than Shavers's entire career on film. He was simply a more consistently devastating puncher, both technically and in terms of raw power. I don't expect miracles, but I do expect that for such a supposedly devastating puncher Shavers actually show me some in-ring footage to prove it. What we have leaves a hell of a lot to be desired.
Have you seen the Norton stoppage? Just because a fighter uses combinations doesn't mean they are a combination puncher. There is a CLEAR difference between the skill level of Shavers combinations and Tyson's.
I didn't say he was a combination puncher. I said he used combinations in his knockouts. Of course there's a clear divide in quality between Shavers's combinations and Tyson's, but there's a clear divide in everything, including raw power.
So Tyson clearly has more raw power than Shavers? Despite being slower and far less skilled at applying his power Shavers came in at 10 in the Ring's 100 Greatest Punchers of all Time. Tyson came in at 16.