Explain to me that why Tyson hit harder than Shavers ?

I don't get the personal attacks from you on this subject? Regarding Foreman, the guy won Olympic gold and was a heavyweight champion in two of the toughest era's in boxing history. He may have a had an ugly style but in his later career, he was very intelligent fighter on top of his raw power and strength. If anything the guy is massively underrated since no one ever did what he did and likely never will. He is the sports oldest living heavyweight champion and is a credit to sport. I will gladly jump up and down defending a guy Big George.

 

Ok gotcha, everyone Foreman beat was bad, but he lost anytime he faced someone good. He kept winning due to sheer luck and good cherry picking.

Just say you're a hater and leave it at that because you can make these same brain dead arguments for any boxer's resume.

 

I have consistently said Tyson had good one punch power, just not the very best. Way too many opponents are consistent in their testimony that it was the speed, combinations, or odd angles that took them out. And many opponents name other people besides Tyson as being the one who hit them the hardest.

I rate Tyson's raw power an 7-8/10. I don't see how that's me diminishing or underrating him. Combine that with great timing, accuracy, and speed and he is one of the most effective hitters ever.

If he really had this numbingly 10/10 raw power he wouldn't even need such crispy fancy combos and speed and people would be getting decapitated. Lots of guys got off the floor to beat him or hold on and survive.

 

Lots of guys?

 

I fail to see how someone getting knocked out registers to them as getting hit with a lesser punch than simply getting knocked down. How does that work?

 

Lots of people were.

Where are all these decapitated opponents on Shavers's resume?

 

Poor choice of words, was in a rush.

 

You didn't read my post correctly.

I was saying that if he had 10/10 raw power combined with blazing hand speed and accuracy he'd be decapitating people. Every opponent would immediately say he was the hardest hitter.

Shavers didn't have even 50% of Tyson's speed, accuracy, or talent,all he had was raw power, yet they have similar KO%

 

On the money- he had good managing.

 

As a man I have nothing but admiration but his reputation in the 70s is grossly overrated.

 

There is a video on YouTube that Holmes explains his thoughts. He was much older when he lost to Tyson versus when Shavers dropped him. He goes on to explain how Tyson's speed was his biggest issue. I would post the video but I can't figure out how to do it from this new phone.

 

We're talking prime

And a badly faded Shavers felled a prime Tillis face first with a single right hand. Tillis barely beat the count. Tyson was only able to score a flash knock down against Tillis. Shavers had Holmes on ***** street with a single right hand. Holmes went down as if shot. This was an absolutely prime Holmes. Tyson had to beat on an old Holmes before getting him out of there

 

You do realize Frazier was the betting favorite and most people wrote Foreman off?

Norton was also considered a potentially good test due to his stamina and ring IQ. It's only in hindsight that people are all of a sudden saying these were easy wins and that they were ripe for the taking.

Name all these fighters in the 70's Foreman's management carefully avoided?

 

Tillis also said (quite emphatically) that Shavers hit much harder than Tyson.

 

When Tyson dropped Tillis it was a flash knockdown, he was off balance and his legs were in a bad position.