Britain's biggest ever puncher?

Wouldn't the experience of having to fight though a deeper pool of talent (a lot more active fighters) usually over 100 times in a career, every few weeks agianst different styles confer an advantage over the guys who make an entire career out of 30 fights and get into the ring twice a year to face opponents they specifically prepare for?

 

Jimmy Wilde is the definition of a p4p puncher at that size compared to his opponents. That gives him an edge over anyone else in these discussions.

 

dealdeal:deal

 

Of the modern era p4p I think you have to give it to Naz

 

The answer is Wilde guys regardless of what you think about technique pre war post war etc etc there are numerous sources citing his ability to knock men out who outweighed him by up to 50 pounds.

 

i think he is that hard a puncher...but the definition of a knockout is different now. a guy who just couldn't continue after a battering, where as nowadays a guy getting sparked out is being knocked out.

wilde is the winner regardless

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Nah, I've just gone through it so many times. Anyone who still thinks boxing can be measured in the same way is off their head IMO:good

 

It's difficult comparing the eras. How would Naz have fared pre-war? He had genuine KO dynamite in both hands and it's not unfeasible that he could have achieved what Wilde did in the same era.

 

Yes of course it does but it still doesn't mean that their single punch maximum output would be higher as a result. If anything it would detract from that because they were never properly rested.

 

Agreed. Relatively speaking he was a monster. . . and as I conceded it is feasible that you get one exception to the normal rules of nature but generally speaking modern athletes are stronger and faster, thus have harder punches. Much easier to compare them against their own ere though rather thna cross era.

 

Naz and Lewis

 

Not talking about boxing performance as a whole here we're on about single maximum power output (albeit affected by style). Humans have evolved and got stronger and faster with time (if we're talking about the last couple of years anyway). Nothing to suggest otherwise.

Different ball game if we're talking about relative to their era or competition but my point was based around physical human ability which science supports every step of the way.

Relative to his time it's a valid pick.

 

Well there has'nt been a welterweight more faster, fitter and powerful than Sugar Ray Robinson since his retirement,
,only Hearn (power) and Leonard (speed) have a case and their from the 80's and that 30 years ago



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7C-ihyCWjs[/ame]



There has'nt been a flyweight more powerful of puncher than Benny Lynch since his retirememt.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj2X6-xOMVo[/ame]




There has'nt been a combination of power and speed of a Joe Louis since his retirement, maybe Mike Tyson has a case, but again a product of the 80's



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPIoyH6c8PI&feature=related[/ame]

 

Sugarsean - you've got no way of proving that by means of metrics. All we have to go on is performance against opposition at the time. Measurable records state that humans have got stronger and faster over time (note this is more relavant to single maximum output than to skill combinations). That doesn't mean that boxers now are better than they were then but some of you guys with rose tinted views of eras gone by need to accept the facts of evolution. Not for a minute saying that the fighters you point to weren't the best there's been but science supports my argument. You have nothing to support yours but opinion based upon relative performance. Single maximum output has increased in humans as we have evolved (again speaking about the last couple of hundred years, not thousands).