Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by The Wanderer, Jan 16, 2009.
You can't make comparisons like that, you'd end up going round in circles.
I would pick Cuevas for hardest-hitting. Hearns had more one-punch K.O's, but I feel that was because he often landed cleaner due to his handspeed and superior technique.
Hearns was the more devastating single puncher. He was very sharp and accurate aswell.
Maybe, hard to decipher.
Joe Louis said SRR was the hardest 147 hitter he ever saw till Hearns come along.
based on record ithas to be robinson but its hard to gauge who was the hardest and most powerful
Hearns hit harder than SRR (just about IMO) and had better handspeed, but he didn't have SRR's experience, stamina, durability, ring generalship and a whole number of intangiables, IMO.
One thing that people rarely consider about SRR is that after the death of Doyle, it's likely that SRR actually held back a bit of his natural power in the ring, not to the extent that Charles did with Baroudi, but somewhat.
I understand what your saying, but if everyone agrees that the same three or four fighters are the hardest hitters, why would they name anyone else?
Agreed all round. We both say Hearns hit harder and i agree SRR backed off a little post Doyle.
All this just goes to show what a fighter Hearns was when you consider that he was almost unboxeable. Wonder if I've just invented a new word.
Maybe, but i'd take the "e" out :smoke
if jake lamotta let hearns hit him as much as he let robinson hit him he woulda been worst off then ali!
when i did this thread last year in gf,it was unanimous for hearns.
Strictly looking at the second-tier fighters that lacked the talent and efficiency to be compared outright to the likes of Hearns and Tito, i think Jones and Jose Luis Lopez were the best pure hitters, at least from the past 30 to 40 years.