I can't see how Holyfield doesn't belong and Tyson does when he was the stronger as proven. Rare we disagree, but i don't think Tyson belongs in the category to be honest. Holyfield outmanouvered him thru sheer strength and he was always tied up a little too easy by a smooth operator. Maybe i am looking at the thread and criteria all wrong.
Tyson was more powerful than Holyfield. But Holyfield was far stronger. The problem with this thread is we are all discussing STRENGTH because (I believe) that was the intention of the thread author, but the word "Powerful" is included in the title and that adds ambiguity. A girder is strong. But you wouldn't call in powerful. A shotgun is powerful. But you couldn't build a skyscraper out of shotgun barrels. Of course, there is plenty of overlap in boxing (and all sports) with demonatrations of power and demonstrations of strength, but there is a distinction. Powerful in boxing would usually be seen as possessing punching power. Strength is holding, standing your ground, resistance to pushes, and pushing, pulling and "bulling" the opponent around (most of which requires some degree of power too, of course). I think demonstrable strength AND power are often both reliant on a lot of TECHNIQUE. Boxers cannot show their strength without using a technically sound stance, for example. They cannot generally exhibit their power without throwing a technically sound punch.
Yes.Strength is slightly different to power. :think Strength in clinches is as fists of fury stated a subset of wrestling technique and involves understanding of balance and leverage. Incidentally,I thought Tyson was harder to put a hold on earlier in his career.Witness his fight with Larry Holmes. He seemed to get more passive in the clinches as his career progressed.
Of the accomplished ones: old Foreman, Tua, Ibeabuchi, Vitaly and perhaps Lewis. Jeffries and Liston were strong for their times, but they cannot compete with weight lifting (steroid taking?) guys that's 30-40 lbs heavier with little flab. People naming Marciano in these circumstances makes me want to remove him from my top 10 out of spite. But since the effect of that probably wouldn't be very devastating I'll refrain from it.
It's not about lifting the most weight. It's about the functional strength here. Guys who lift more than others don't automatically have more raw physicality over other fighters. For example, a lot of World Strongest Men guys don't have record breaking lifts. Especially the GOAT of WSM in Mariusz. If we were talking just pure strength he would lose even againt predecessors like Bill Kaz.
Not sure on the Marciano bit, I seen footage of him tossing bolder/ gaint Rocks around over a hill. Not roll them down, but pick them up and thown over the hill. He at least has earn a hm imo.
P4P he does, but I think it's highly doubtful he would toss SHWs around like old Foreman did. Those 50+ lbs make a difference against muscle bound weight-lifting guys.
We never know for sure, these thosos tricky lightheavyweights were beating the gaints of the day though. But for comparsion, Fraizer failed, in the weight left contest on ABC's world of sports and almost drown in the swimming contest, were Rocky was a pretty good swimmer in his own right for his training.
I heard that Rahman benches over 500, no way George Foreman or James Jeffries could do that. Tua also comes to mind.
Yes, you're right about Paul Anderson..he had a brief boxing career, but had to be the strongest, technically anyway. The thing about Foreman when he fought Norton...Norton had the better build in terms of classic bodybuilding, and their standards, but Foreman was more massive (NOT fat), and looked STRONGER than Norton.
Surprised nobody has at least mentioned Bruno. Now somebody ridicule my post so I can head back to the lounge with my tail between my legs.