Can a case be made for Tyson being the hardest hitting heavyweight of all time?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Executioner, Aug 19, 2007.


  1. Executioner

    Executioner Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,587
    8
    Apr 22, 2006
    what do you think?:think seeing as though how devastating he was in his prime. Shavers gets a whole lot of praise for being #1, but yet his KO ratio over top fighters sucks.
     
  2. My dinner with Conteh

    My dinner with Conteh Tending Bepi Ros' grave again Full Member

    12,059
    3,559
    Dec 18, 2004

    Tyson was generally better at hitting those top fighters cleanly, that's all.
     
  3. My dinner with Conteh

    My dinner with Conteh Tending Bepi Ros' grave again Full Member

    12,059
    3,559
    Dec 18, 2004
    By the way, I do think Tyson belongs up there with Shavers and a few others.
     
  4. Guido

    Guido ESB Addict Full Member

    291
    2
    Nov 19, 2004
    I never saw Tyson punch a man off the floor the way Foreman did to Frazier, and the way he seemed to effortlessly push Michael Moorer with that right hand, for a 10-count KO.

    Foreman will always be the hardest hitting heavyweight of all time to me, with Shavers coming in a close 2nd, and Joe Louis winning 3rd (he had the same speed/power as Tyson, but worked it much better).
     
  5. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,942
    24,873
    Jan 3, 2007
    Yes, I think a reasonable case can be made, although it will never be written in stone. Tyson's power had a more devastating effect on top raters than that of Foreman's, Shavers, Baer's, Liston's or Frazier's. In 62 pro fights, Trevor Berbick was only KO'd twice, and the first time came in only his 11th pro fight. Against Tyson however, he was a well seasoned fighter coming off of some of his best career wins, and look at how badly Mike demolished him. Who could ever forget Tubbs stumbling across the ring after Tyson nailed him, or The bloodied face of Frank Bruno, who had gone rounds with a number of vicious punchers prior to meeting Mike. What's more, is that most punchers are known for their rights or their lefts, Their overhand punches, uppercuts or whatever. Tyson hurt you with whatever he hit you with, and frankly, I believe this to be the key difference.
     
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,773
    47,620
    Mar 21, 2007
    This is probably not true.

    This may be true. That would be my take on the thing.
     
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,773
    47,620
    Mar 21, 2007
    :good
     
  8. Duodenum

    Duodenum Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,604
    288
    Apr 18, 2007
    No, not from my perspective. Tillis, Green, Smith, Tucker, Douglas, Ruddock II, Holyfield I & II were the first eight matches of his I watched, and he scored a grand total of four knockdowns with no stoppage wins.

    Tyson could take a punch. Shavers wasn't particularly durable. He had to do it all with his power alone most fights, not having Tyson's speed or shortness of delivery.

    I keep going back to what Leroy Caldwell said. "Shavers hit harder than Foreman and Lyle combined." Ali stated on camera after he retired that Shavers was the hardest puncher he'd ever been hit by, and Larry Holmes concurred, as did Ken Norton. That some boxing fans still rate Foreman's punching power over Earnie's still mystifies me. (Certainly George has the most formidable combination of physical strength and muscular endurance in boxing history, but has any common opponent of both Shavers and Foreman ever given George the edge in punching power?)
     
  9. robert ungurean

    robert ungurean Богдан Philadelphia Full Member

    16,163
    15,148
    Jun 9, 2007
    He is one of the top few no doubt.
     
  10. Marnoff

    Marnoff Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,227
    27
    Feb 14, 2006
    You could certainly make the case, thuogh there are a few others who also have a claim.
     
  11. ironchamp

    ironchamp Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,365
    1,032
    Sep 5, 2004
    I think what gives Tyson any claim is the fact that he didnt need a particular punch to get the job done. It could have been any punch be it the left hook, straight right, uppercut, etc...
     
  12. DamonD

    DamonD Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,285
    39
    Nov 19, 2004
    It's Tyson's speed combined with his power that made him so deadly.
    One punch alone, I would not put him at the very top of the tree (just very high up on it).
     
  13. justaboxingfan

    justaboxingfan Member Full Member

    394
    1
    Jan 6, 2007
    Good point:good I would add that his skills played an important role as well. Shavers and Tyson may have had similar raw strength, but Tyson's boxing skills allowed him to incorporate them into his fights which would explain Shavers low KO rate amongst higher opposition.

    In that respect, a case can be made for Lennox Lewis, specifically his right overhand.
     
  14. Beebs

    Beebs Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,226
    5
    Feb 21, 2007
    You can make the case, I don't think its true, but you can make the case simply because it is such an impossible thing to prove with certainty.

    He definitely hit hard and put them in the right places, but I think he is behind Foreman and Liston at the very best
     
  15. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,942
    24,873
    Jan 3, 2007
    You're not exactly listing the man's best performances either. Tillis, and Green fought Tyson when he was 19 years old? Smith clinched his way to the scorecards. Tucker was a durable heavyweight who wasn't KO'd by anybody until he was maybe 37. The Holyfield fights came when both men were shot. Douglas was the worst performance of the guy's career. The man had 44 KO's in 50 wins. I'm sure you can produce better examples.