More powerful puncher p4p: FOSTER or HEARNS?

I don't give too much merit to a 22 year old man beating an 18 year old in a 3 round match. Henry Tillman once did the same thing to a much younger Mike Tyson in the amateurs. They fought in the pro ring about 6 years later.....Look at what happened.

 

i think hearns just edges by being able to carry his power from welter to LHW but it is close and i havent saw alot of Foster but i ahve saw abit.

 

I'd give it to Tommy too, for being able to carry his power from 147 up to 190, although it was never the same at that higher weight obviously.

 

I voted for Hearns, almost solely on the basis that his power stuck with him better as he moved up in weight, because otherwise there's little to separate them. (Afterall, on the one hand you have a guy starting at Welter and KOing cruisers, while Foster, although one of the hardest hitting light heavies of all time, got treated like a rag doll against most of the heavyweights he fought).

 

But surely among light heavyweights Foster hit harder?

 

Well yes obviously, but he was a natural LHW, whereas Hearns was naturally a WW.

 

for me Foster was the bigger puncher some of his kos are just brutal,Like Mcgrain said guys looked dead after he decked them,his knockouts of Rondon,Tiger and Quarry are some of the most brutal kos ive ever seen.

and i dont think its not fair picking Hearns ahead of Foster based on the fact that Hearns carried his power to higher weights.its much harder for a LHW to carry his punch up to HW than is for a WW to carry his to MW. also Hearns as a MW and above wasnt as big a puncher as he was at WW.

 

Hearn's had the ability to cut weight extremely well. He was literally nearly a MW, naturally. Of course his power was going to be frightening, he was huge against his lower weights competition.

His P4P power was also frightening but you've got to consider that Foster simply couldn't cut or gain weight like Hearn's.

 

i meant it wasnt fair to Foster i forgot to put the "not" before fair :rofl

i agree with what you said.

 

Russell?

 

The hooper in your avatar needs to see a chiropractor. atsch

 

Thomas Hearns hit harder, PFP. Foster didn't do a "James Shuler" or a "Dennis Andries" on any heavyweights...but that's not to say he wouldn't level light heavys with MORE explosive effectiveness than Tommy.

BTW - "PFP" is a grand waste of time. It's akin to smoking pot and measuring the texture of various cheeses. A waste of time and in no way objective.

 

I'm going with Tommy Hearns. I think the person who's asking "Why couldn't he knock Leonard out" shouldn't penalize Tommy for that. Leonard was difficult to stop and Hearns carried his power up better than Foster did. I mean who else could knock out Roberto Duran like that, nobody that's who.

 

Leonard was a defensively cute fighter though, and he did manage to turn his head at the last moment when taking many of Tommy's shots. Also, Hearns didn't really land any decent combinations on Leonard as a result of SRL's lateral movement and good footwork.

IMO Foster literally hit harder (because he was bigger) but Hearns hit harder in a P4P sense.