Comparing power between eras

You said quality of opposition is not important when assessing power. It absolutely is important because some fighters can only utilize their power at or up to a level. Its still power but it absolutely is not universal or unconditional power because that power is restricted. It may scientifically register or be measured as equal but how in championship conditions can it be measured as equal? Its like saying a non competitive shadow boxer has smooth silky skills without witnessing him in a combat situation.

Having boxed I can tell you being a great puncher depends entirely on being able to connect correctly in a combat situation. Fighters with huge power competing out of their class or comfort zone will not connect correctly. And that wont be just down to the skills of the other man. The other man might have less skill! Its down to the way the better fighters react quicker, think faster and have a better accuracy at executing an opening. He will beat you to the punch and take away your leverage and space to manoeuvre without using any more skill, power or technique. They have a better temperament and wont fluster or become disheartened within an exchange. In other words the greater power will not tell.

To have great power it has to tell ...and it has to tell at the greatest level. Thats why the greatest punchers are the ones that can make their power tell at any level.

 

It's very true overall.

Guys like Louis, Liston, Tyson, and Foreman were simply able to consistently land their hardest punches at the right time far more than guys like Williams, Bruno, and Shavers.

It doesn't make them harder punchers, it makes them better punchers who are more dangerous.

 

I agree with you, it's just that they were better at landing them.

 

Exactly my point. The better puncher is always the one who can make his punch tell whatever the situation, regardless of the level of opposition. They land more consistently not because they hit harder, have better technique or are necessarily faster but because they react faster, can sense what comes back at them, can capitalise on the slightest opening by thinking an extra move ahead and staying calmer. The accuracy and space that the greater fighter finds makes him the greater puncher. The ability to hit a man blind creates the spectacular KO so taking out better fighters counts for more.

 

Then you're not comparing power, you're comparing effectiveness at landing damaging shots.

 

Yes i am. I am comparing the power, taking it on board and deciding its good power then comparing that to the power of landing it. having the power to land is kind of crucial dont you think?

Hitting a man blind creates the KO every bit as much as the power in itself. It is the difference between the receiver of the blow being able to brace himself in time.

If the better fighters are bracing themselves in time then they are not going to sleep. Great fighters are the ones who can "one time" world class fighters. They,re better punchers. It is not technique it is the instinct to pull the trigger at the right moment. For power to be worth anything it has to be effective.

 

Foreman said Liston was able to back him up with a jab? And you believe this? Foreman also said he was afraid of 190 pound Jerry Quarry. He claimed to be afraid of Norton. Foreman will say anything you want him to say. I doubt Liston could back Foreman up with anything.

 

Great point. Agreed.

 

Of course it's crucial. Power alone is a useless attribute. But if that's what you're setting out to measure (estimate is probably a better word) then you need to isolate it as a variable. A fighter with average power but pinpoint accuracy and wicked combination skills is not necessarily a hard puncher in the pure sense; he's merely very good at landing his shots, and doing so often.

If you want to argue about that be my guest, but we'd be arguing about different things.

It does bring up an interesting point, though, which is: how do you most accurately measure "pure power" in a fighter whose other attributes are so lacking? A KO can come in many forms, and a fast pinpoint counter puncher has just as much chance of causing a one punch KO as a brute monster who telegraphs his shots from half a continent away. I guess that's where testimonies come into play, though no man is anywhere close to being a 100% objective measure.

It's certainly telling, though, when a fighter is still able to hurt someone with a shot which they can see coming, and do so repeatedly, even without landing that cleanly. That's power, to me. The KO alone should not be the benchmark, unless it's especially brutal IMO.