Do you agree with this top 10 hardest puncher list

Tried to make a top 10, then 20... ended up with 31! If I were to cut it down, who doesn't belong?
1. Sam Langford
2. Bob Fitzsimmons
3. Joe Choynski
4. Jimmy Wilde
5. Julian Jackson
6. Bob Foster
7. Gerald McLellan
8. Earnie Shavers
9. Stanley Ketchel
10. Thomas Hearns
11. Archie Moore
12. Sandy Saddler
13. George Foreman
14. Naseem Hamed
15. Deontay Wilder
16. Ruben Olivares
17. Alexis Arguello
18. Rocky Marciano
19. Danny Lopez
20. Jack Dempsey
21. Curtis Shepherd
22. Terry McGovern
23. Nigel Benn
24. Wilfredo Gomez
25. Felix Trinidad
26. Max Baer
27. Sonny Liston
28. Mike Tyson
29. John L Sullivan
30. Joe Louis
31. Edwin Valero

 

Yes, yes, yes,YES
This is the topic "Top 10 hardest punchers", NoT "Top 10 best knockouters".
Rarely enyone under 200lbs would make it into this list.
This is how the force of the punch is measured:

This content is protected

 

We both know it is not the truth, so when you allege something wrong what was not my statement, by picking up some words, but letting others/ the rest away, when you got hinted several times that it is not correct quoted, then this is intenional and just named a liar, without anything personal, just objective, someone who pretend something what is opposite to reality apart better known, is named a liar, what is a matter of fact.
Actual is what you do her slender or in new age called fake news.

Youself maintained that Wilder has more power than Klitschko, because of his superior doubt (the last one I doubt too). With this statement you are litterally agreeing with my first statement that speed is more important than just mass to create power (although you denied it previously).

Any of these words are a bit different (more or less), that you can't accept this shows you are not as smart as you believe to be.
I have an A grade in English and I have got three LCCI (from the chamber of commerce in London) certificates in writing, speaking and listening, all pass with distinction. I guess I am in my second language better than you in yours...

I think anyone who speaks English well can understand my statement, if you really try to do, but it seems you don't want to, because you are going to take advantage of being in your mother language and more knowledge naturally in it, so you pretend to not understand it to win the argument...
You asked me who can be ranked there instead, but in the very next posting you assume I would be confused, because I replied to it. That is either trying to trick me or youself are rather confused in mind. I is no base of discussion first asking who shall be higher than Duran and Ali; when I answer it could be Louis, Marciano, Johnson...respective Leonard, Gans, Ambers or Armstrong, then you came up with "that was never matter of you debate, you probably confused me with someone else".
Do you attempt to make a fool of me here or do you really can not remember from one day to another?
You are here not nice at all, but you might imagine it. Frollo the judge from Quasimodo also thought he is a good and honest man...

To be a sucessful puncher, you need the technique to develop the power to the opponent (even to the punching bag/ ball). So you can't connect if it doesn't land. Therefore is more than power significant to be a good or great puncher. That is my point and you never dispeoved this.

You claimed that Moore is most impressive in activity, at advanced age. I just bring up Maher, because he was ten time as active and had decent opponents too, why he won even more by knockout (like rows of more than twenty fights). The years were between 1895 and 1898 I think.

 

Nope that is completely wrong.
I addressed your words; now you speak in generalities.
You *did* suggest, then backed off of speed being 2X as important as mass in the force of a punch.
Everyone here-as some have already-can tell you Einstein's famous equasion has zero to do with this matter.

Not only did I never lie on this website once-but you clearly are not being intellectually honest when you ignore what I quoted.
Such as your very words that maintained the upper cut was likely the hardest punch, then completely changed it to "one of the hardest".
There are not that many punches, the latter statement is both a complete abandonment of your position, & since few punches, meaningless. Beyond that it like most every other punch is harder than a jab...

Now trying to penetrate your mangled English, I think you meant to say that I said Wilder hit harder than V. Klitchko (you failed to specify) because of greater speed.
Your basic mistake is thinking that because WILDER generated more of his power with speed-although length helps too-that this implies the opposite of what i said-that this is more important overall.
Nah, people like Foreman, Liston & Butterbean generated a greater share of their power with mass & heavy hands. I do not know who hit hardest among them & Wilder. That does not suggest speed is more important at all, let alone twice as much.

Whatever your degrees mean, nobody on earth will debate that your use of English is very poor.
If you are seriously claiming your English is better than mine you are completely delusional.
And you cannot debate that everyone here can tell you that "biggest" & "hardest" puncher mean absolute force or impact NOT considering factors of skill, speed, volume, combinatons, accuracy...

Now I CAN say that I see what you mean by answering whch boxers you rate higher.
I am sorry I missed your meaning.
However be rational, NOT paranoid: it makes zero sense to be paranoid that I am "pretending" not to understand-or not nice.
You somehow missed the basic logic that if someone writes in such a disjointed way that is so tough to comprehend-& few engage you because of that-they are likely not understanding what you mean, or what you are referring back to!

I need you to show more intellectual rigor about things like this.
Also you are again fighting a GHOST when you say I "never disproved" that technique was important to land & score KOs.
In any efficient, caring discussion or debate you need to pay attention to what the other man says.

In this case: I not only never disagreed, I said the same thing, many times & in many ways!

Regrading Maher: again please listen with care as you would like for yourself.
I write clearly; once more, I am open to considering how Maher could have been better late in his career than Moore.
Although a single year will not do it for me compared to a decade. An we must consider the competition, which tended to be much more spotty then...

But since you made the claim & I have repeatedly ASKED: send me/us the record of who he fought, when, & the results.
This should be an easy cut & paste job for you.
I posted Moore's. I am open to that Maher might have done better. You are supposed to know-show us all.