Why not? Chris Byrd said it was basically common knowledge among boxers of his generation that DaVarryl Williamson was the hardest puncher around. (And although Byrd claimed Williamson never hit him, he picked him as the hardest puncher he'd faced despite going up against both Klitschkos, Ibeabuchi, the Tuaman, etc...) Al Mitchell is in the HOF, worked with tons of amateurs, and described Williamson at 27 as the hardest puncher he'd seen. Williamson racked up a decent knockout percentage in the pro ranks, too, despite Mitchell describing him as lacking in skill. Okay, I know what you're thinking: Williamson is neither particularly good nor particularly famous. But so what? Why would the hardest punching contender of all time have to be particularly good? I invite you to cite the facts necessary to laugh this thread out of its delusion. NEXT WEEK: Mike DeJohn is the hardest puncher of all time.
So I remember him well from the USA amateur program and he had a rep as a brutal puncher. I won't go as far to say he is the greatest puncher of all-time or even in that ball park but I will say his right hand was appropriately named a touch of sleep. He could crack with that overhand right. All in all he under performed as a pro considering how much talent and power he had.
You're forgetting his nickname too - Touch of Sleep. I agree with OP that the hardest puncher ever could possibly be someone that wasn't that good, though it's much more fun to guess that trait with someone where there is at least lots of footage and some fanfare. For example the fastest thrower of a baseball ever was probably a guy named Steve Dalkowski. He never made it to the major leagues.
I remember reading Byrd say that .. I also remembered the very strange ending to his fight with Wlad which could have been his Klitschko's third decisive loss in close fashion and the ned of his career ...