Mount Rushmore of HW punchers

Ok, so Usyk would be favored to beat Wilder, we both agree on something for once. So we can both agree that knocking out Usyk is MORE impressive than knocking out guys like Molina and Washington.

Wilder may be favored to beat Joshua but Joshua has WAY more credentials as an opponent than ****ing Szpilka or Arreola. Joshua is currently ranked #1 and is a former 2x champion and gold medalist. Stop being obtuse.

Even if the odds say Wilder should be favored over Ruiz, Joyce, etc, those names are SIGNIFICANTLY better than ****ing Duhapaus or Gavern and you know it. Knocking out guys consistently ranked in the top 10 is a more impressive display of power than knocking out guys who are ranked 12th or who were KO'd a bunch of times already.

 

So your list of "elites" Wilder needs to upset is Usyk. And that's it?

You wouldn't favor anyone else? No?

Got it.

I hope they fight. I'll take Wilder by KO.

And I hope he fights Joshua, as well. (Wilder stops him, too.)

Anyone else? Are you still going to be insisting Joyce is an elite if he gets knocked out by Zhang again in a handful of days?

If so, bring on Joyce, too,

Usyk, Joshua, Joyce. Sounds like a nice finish to a career.

 

Of course. But I also remember a thread about four years ago where Wilder had made his seventh successful defense against the undefeated Luis Ortiz and his eighth successful defense against the undefeated Tyson Fury ... and Wilder was about to make a mandatory defense against the once-beaten Breazeale, and people here were picking Breazeale.

And Wilder's manager said the plan is for them to fight Breazeale and then give Luis Ortiz a rematch (because Ortiz was viewed so highly and people thought the first fight was controversial) and then Wilder would defend against Tyson Fury again (because he was viewed so highly by the Brits and their first fight was controversial) ... and the second Wilder-Fury fight would have a rematch clause that either could activate ... meaning there would be three of them ...

And I clearly remember having discussions with people here who said if Wilder defends against Ortiz, Fury and then he fights Breazeale, Ortiz again and Fury again and then FURY a third time ... no one will EVER complain about his record from then on. Ever. Some just thought that was a ridiculously hard schedule and it would never happen.

So, he competed in those series of matches ... even had to go to court to get the last one in ... and it was like they never happened now.

I'm not being OBTUSE when you pose these questions. I just remember others saying "IF Wilder only fought these guys ... that would be great."

But we've already gone through that on this board. Even when he does, people like you come on here and yell, HE NEVER FOUGHT ANYONE.

So, I'm glad you gave some names, but, two years from now, if Wilder has fought Usyk and Joshua and Joyce ... $100 bucks someone jumps on and talks about what bums those guys were Wilder finished his career against.

Same old same old.

I'm just presently surprised Wilder's not in last place in the poll. I remember when people on this board picked everyone to beat him, even Butterbean.

So the tide has definitely turned.

 

Credit for your patience.

 

Yes, because Washingthon, Breazale etc were rated about the same as Joshua, Joyce and Usyk are now before Wilder beat them, right? Ffs. What universe are you living in?

Instead of all of these hypotheticals, why not just admit that Wilder's comp has been weak? Thousands upon thousands of word when all you need is "Yes, Wilder has a thin resume." Six ****ing words.

 

He fought the best fighter in the world three times, floored him four times, and successfully defended his title for the eighth time against him before losing in his 11th defense to the same World champ.

Only on this board is a five-year reign, 10 successful heavyweight title defenses, 13 heavyweight title fights and facing the best in the whole division three times a weak resume.

I don't know what universe you live in if that's weak.

How many times did anyone on that list face the top-rated Ring fighter in the whole division? Who did it more than three times? Does three times suck? (I think Wlad did it all of once.)

If he's slow to cross the finish line, I can see who is coming in last.

 

If he can KO quality heavies like Usyk, Joshua, Ruiz, etc then obviously there's no need to KO guys like Joyce, Whyte, etc to prove a point. I'd be fully supportive of Wilder's credentials as a puncher and would argue with anyone all day if they disagree.

I have no idea why it took you 2 days and 4 pages to arrive at the common sense conclusion that stopping elite opponents raises a boxer's credentials as a puncher more than simply stopping random fringe contenders and journeymen.

 

Tyson never even met Liston.

For the record, Tyson said Foreman hit harder than himself if we're using quotes of people who didn't fight either guy. Eddie Futch put Foreman and Liston as roughly even in power. If I recall correctly, Steward has Foreman as the most impressive boxer in terms of raw power. Holyfield had Foreman above Lewis, Bowe, Mercer, etc (and that was an ancient Foreman).

Oh and then there's Norman Mailler who watched the careers of both Liston and Foreman and said Foreman was clearly the harder puncher and mentioned Liston by name comparing how they look on the heavybag. I could go on.

So, no, sorry we'll just have to disagree that Liston>>>Foreman>>>Old Foreman>>>giant 90's heavy weights. Liston's career and the eye test doesn't remotely suggest that to me, nor do several quotes from fighters and trainers I can pull up.

For the record, I think Liston was the more effective puncher and a cleaner finisher than Foreman and pretty close in brute physical strength. I don't usually like giving numbers since there's so many factors when it comes to punching power, but if Foreman's a 10, Liston is no lower than 9.

Liston beat more ranked contenders (quantity) but Foreman's best signature wins are superior (quality). Frazier and Norton are better than Patterson and Machen to me.

I could see Patterson beating Norton, Lyle (very dangerous fight), Ledoux, or Peralta, but Frazier is whooping his ass every day of the week and twice on Sunday. If we're talking about the 90's, Moorer has a very good chance of beating Patterson.

Williams isn't sweeping ****.

 

Thanks.

I have to be since I work with actual children.

 

A fine analogy. We all know how ridiculously over the top children can get with their heroes.

 

I've explained for what seems like a thousand times in this thread that knocking out and beating the guys you're supposed to knock out and beat comes first and foremost.

Losing and failing to stop **** fighters year after year, and getting defeated by ridiculous longshot underdogs doesn't prove you're the hardest puncher ever ... TO ME.

Why you totally ignore those things is lost on me.

To me, Shavers' win over Ellis is totally negated by his loss to Bob Stallings. How did a prime Shavers lose to that complete nobody with a losing record? And why did Shavers continue to lose and fail to stop complete nobodies throughout his career?

If you knock out a name one day and a hopeless loser with a losing record beats you the next, then, to me, you aren't the hardest puncher.

If just stopping elite fighters was the sole basis of who is the hardest puncher, Muhammad Ali would be the hardest punching heavyweight hands down.

He stopped Foreman, Frazier, Liston twice, Quarry twice, Ellis, Lyle, Patterson twice, Moore, and had Shavers out on his feet at the end.

But that's NOT how people rate the hardest punchers, even though you insist it is.

Because Ali wasn't a one-punch KO artist. And he failed to stop a lot of fighters with questionable or bad chins. And a couple of them even beat him.

Wilder winning the title, knocking out a laundry list of title challengers, holding a title for five years, wasting everyone else, and only losing to one fighter who also happened to be the best fighter in the division, is a better example of being the consummate power puncher than anyone on that list.

All the other failed to stop guys they were supposed to stop. All the others lost to big underdogs they were supposed to squash.

If we're rating the hardest puncher, you can't lose those.

Beating Usyk will only be huge for those of you who haven't caught up yet.

The people who recognize Wilder for what he is won't be shocked at all if Usyk ends the fight flat on his face.

That's where he's supposed to end up against the hardest puncher ever.

 

You misunderstood me. A trainer who saw Liston, Tyson, and Foreman fight (Johnny Tocco) said Liston hit the hardest.

I don't doubt that? I agree.

So that would suggest both are in the same company no? Which contradicts your belief.

Incorrect. Steward actually picked Wlad. Emanuel Steward, said “he’s the most accurate, single-punch knockout guy I have seen. A guy can be completely fine, not hurt, and Wladimir can put his lights out with one shot.”
Holyfield had Foreman above Lewis, Bowe, Mercer, etc (and that was an ancient Foreman).

You should go on. You've mentioned one person who stated Liston's power was inferior to Foreman..... compared to 4 who say Liston hit harder, 3 of whom have actually been hit by both.

I don't understand why it's so unfathomable to you Liston can hit harder than these "giant" 90s heavyweights just because he was smaller. Wilder was the same size as Liston when he gave his best effort against Fury. Shavers was smaller than Liston.

Fair.

Frazier was better than anyone Liston beat, but Norton wasn't imo. He certainly wasn't better than Patterson, and you could argue he wasn't even better than Machen.

Of the opponents you listed, "Frazier+Lyle+Norton+Chuvalo+Peralta", with the exception of Frazier and likely Peralta as I'd stated, I'd favor Williams over the rest. Especially Norton and Chuvalo.

 

Except it doesn't. I don't hold the words of a trainer who didn't even train Liston or Foreman above the words of their own trainers or fighters who fought/sparred with them. In fact quotes aren't my primary criteria for judging power, the eye test and quality of opposition are #1-2 imo. I was simply using your criteria to play devil's advocate and show that the quote game doesn't only favor Liston.

He's specifically talking about clean, accurate, 1-punch KO power. Nowhere in that quote is he saying that he hits harder than every single HW he's ever seen in terms of raw power alone. Accuracy, technique, timing, etc can make a guy with 8/10 power far more dangerous than a guy with 10/10. I'm not saying Wladmir's an 8, but you get my point.

I actually have Wladmir on my top 4 so it makes no difference. And I don't put quotes as the end all be all.

Wepner seems full of it since Foreman stopped him sooner when he was as green as fresh grass. And quotes only means so much...we had a thread a few months ago where a guy sparred with Frazier and said he hit harder than Foreman which is obviously nonsensical and easy to debunk. Quotes are supplementary evidence, not primary source when evaluating power.

That actually isn't true. Wilder is significantly taller and more athletic than Liston with a completely different lean build and fast twitch muscle. Simply looking at the scales isn't wise. Wilders freakish Tommy Hearns style body and unorthodox technique help him produce crazy power.

Shavers smaller than Liston? Basically the exact same size. 6'0 vs 6'1, similar reach, huge hands, stocky build, both usually hovering around 210 or so.

I never said Liston can't hit harder than the 90's heavies. My point is if we're using your logic where quotes are primary evidence then Liston's power scales absurdly high. You're basically saying he hits 3-4x harder than Lewis, Bowe, Tua, etc when athletes in the 90's were finding ways to becoming stronger, faster, more explosive all while often being anywhere from 15-25 lbs heavier than Liston (functional muscle, not just fat) and having good technique. Doesn't make any sense at all. I have eyes. Liston did not hit 4x harder than the hardest punchers of an entire decade. I don't even think prime Foreman did and he's in my top 4. Liston would've literally been straight murdering people every other fight like Ivan Drago if he hit that hard.

Never said Norton was better than everyone Liston beat. I was comparing best wins to best win, 2nd best to 2nd best, etc. Norton would probably be Foreman's 2nd best in the 70's and Machen is probably Liston's. I think Norton was overall better than Machen and would beat him 7/10 (but Machen has the edge in fundamentals, defense, and foot speed).

And you can think that if you want. I certainly don't see anything in Williams record or footage indicating that I should confidently bet 1 cent he'd go undefeated in that lineup. He literally could lose to every one of those fighters and it wouldn't shock me. I'm not saying Williams is worse than all of them, just that nothing stands out in his skill set or ability to make me think he's a whole level above them and that's kind of what you're suggesting if you think he sweeps Foreman's opponents minus Frazier.

 

The one currently Ring ranked opponent he's KO'd is Ortiz and of course that is weak as hell compared to most of the other guys to choose from. (His overall comp also of course, but that matters less for this discussion.)

Just give it up.

 

1) Louis, 2) Dempsey, 3) Liston, 4) Foreman, 5) Marciano, 6) Tyson, 7) Shavers,8) Cooney, 9) Baer, 10) Satterfield, 11) Ruddock (that mf 'er was BAD).