My top 55 heavyweight punchers

Marciano-Frazier:

Excellent food-for-thought analysis

I was responding to some of the criticism, but I agree that quality of opposition is more important than size of opposition.

On Moore, you left off Bivins, whom Moore knocked out 3 times, and Bivins suffered only 5 knockouts in his whole career against brutal competition.

 

It is not a verry productive comparison anyway.

Their styles are about as diferent as is possible and so are their career profiles in terms of the competition they fought and the circumstances.

 

I think you may be right, but we are chewing on a number of larger questions.

1. Does a consistent display of power against second-tier or worse opposition necessarily indicate power against top level oppositon?

2. Does a lack of consistent power against second-tier or worse oppostion necessarily indicate a lack of power against top level opposition?

3. Which is more important, a high percentage of knockouts, generally reflecting consistent power against lesser opposition, or knockouts over elite opposition?

I think the answer to the first two is no, and knockouts of elite opposition is more important. Some agree and some disagree and that is what the debate has been about.

Bob Satterfield might be a better example than Walcott to illustrate my side of the debate.

 

Are we still playing by the same rules? If so, then why don't you tell me which one of Walcott's best opponents were more difficult to knockout than Larry Holmes or Muhammad Ali? And While you're at it, why don't you tell me which one of Walcott's opponents had their jaw broken like Ali did?

And why exactly do you think that is?

Technically, we could have ended this debate with the above quote, but your creative juices has given us the luxery of yet another sequal which is:

]

Do you really think the playing fields were that uneven? It was typically the norm of Walcott's period for figters to turn pro with liittle or no amateur experience, and to hold jobs on the side while taking fights on short notice. He wasn't the only one. That being said, how was he anymore disadavantaged than the fighter standing accross the ring from him? On the flipside, Norton came from an era where he played football in the services and had a small amateur career, yet turned pro and faced many fighters who were well trained, had amateur backgrounds, and quality trainers. How was he any different from those guys? Its not like Walcott worked in a factory, had no amateur experience, no good trainers, and fought princes who were groomed to be champions while Norton was a stallion in the stable facing drug store clerks. Your observations are correct to some degree, but are rather one sided.

Again, you continue to build your argument by comparing the best of Norton's opponents to Walcott's. Walcott did not CONSISTANTLY floor or ko men who were NATURAL ALL TIME GREAT HEAVYWEIGHTS. His best knockout wins came against men who were under 200 lbs and were in no way shape or form comparable to that of Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, or Jimmy Young.

All of a sudden the durability of a man's chin which survived the power of Foreman, Liston, Frazier, and Shavers is irrelevant by your estimation, but the ability to KO men who were naturally lightheavyweights or less is. Interesting. As for the bone density of ALi's chin, I'm not sure that it was more solid than that of his peers, but lets just say that Norton penetrated it better than Walcott could against a 180 lb Charles, in his first two meetings with him, which were losses.

LOL, Earnie Shavers was commonly credited as being one of the hardest punchers of all time. Could Walcott have done better than Shavers? Kevin Isaac was a 200+ pound, undefeated prospect when he floored Holmes in his 7th pro fight. walcott was beaten by 177 lb Henry Taylor in his 7th pro bout, and ko'd by 188 lb El Ettore in his 13th bout.

See how selection bias works?

I agree, it is a moot point given that Walcott would not dust Cobb, Ali, Holmes, Young or anyone that Norton couldn't dust.

First of all, Norton's best Ko was not Bobick. Secondly, you have yet to tell me who Walcott floored, hurt or beat who was better or more durable than Muhammad Ali or Larry Holmes. If this is the best that you can do, then you seriously have to go back to trolling 101.

Here we go again,

Charles and Johnson were naturally lightheavyweights who were regularly floored or beaten by other lightheavyweights. Also, heres another little tid bit about Walcott's win over Harold Johnson- Walcott won the fight by KO when Johnson fell to the floor untouched, and was later revealed to have an injured vertebral disk, meaning that no one really knows if this loss was really caused by Walcott's ability as a puncher.

.

This whole argument should have been summed up by YOUR quote in pink.

 

I thought the same thing before re-reading the original post and criteria. I suggest reading it again.

 

This is true, and the other two stoppages were one early on in his career to the monstrous-punching heavyweight Lem Franklin (who deserves consideration for a top-55-all-time-puncher list himself, by the way), and one to Ezzard Charles. Bivins has a strong track record for durability, even against numerous heavyweight punchers, so Moore knocking him out three times is a big boost to his career knockout credentials. That said, Walcott did have Bivins down for an eight-count during their one and only meeting, and Walcott knocked out Charles and Sheppard, who Moore failed to knock out, I think Walcott had the better knockdown over Marciano (slightly longer count, looked to be less due to balance than Moore's), and Walcott stopped Johnson in three (Johnson collapsed from a back injury, but it was still indirectly caused by Walcott punching Johnson and knocking him down the previous round), while Moore stopped him only once in five fights, that being in the 14th round. Then again, of course, in addition to the stoppages over Bivins, who did, afterall, go the distance with Walcott, Moore did score three knockdowns over iron-jawed (against light heavyweights and heavyweights) Maxim in one of their matches, while I don't believe Walcott ever had him in serious trouble during his fights with him.

Walcott and Moore had (I believe- it's possible they both fought some journeymen I overlooked) six common opponents: Bivins, Charles, Sheppard, Johnson, Marciano and Maxim- this is an all-star list of fighters, every one of them a definite ranked contender of the era, with five of them being future hall-of-famers, and most of them guys who were well known for their elusiveness and/or durability. Overall, Walcott is 8-5 (3 KOs) against them, with Moore at 13-6 (4 KOs). Their knockout percentages are very similar, with Walcott's being about 2% higher.

As I said before, what really impresses me about Walcott is the way he was consistently able to hurt and knock down elite fighters with a single shot, and usually in the early rounds. Walcott fought three generally-recognized top 20 all-time heavyweights, and knocked them all down, every time as the result of a single, jolting shot in the first half of the fight. That is serious elite-level punching power; very, very few fighters can match that.

However, I do overall regard Moore as a harder hitter than Walcott, though he was less effective against elite heavyweights. Curtis "the Hatchetman" Sheppard, who fought both Walcott and Moore (along with a host of other top heavyweights), considered Moore the hardest hitter he ever fought. Tiger Ted Lowry, who had 140+ fights and faced a virtual roll-call of the top heavyweights of the late '40s and early '50s, also called Moore the hardest hitter he ever fought. Marciano, who fought both Moore and Walcott, made conflicting statements about who hit him harder, but also ranked Moore way up there in terms of power.

And getting back to the Norton comparison, Moore has a higher knockout percentage at heavyweight, a higher knockout percentage even against 200+ pound heavyweights, and a better resume of knockouts over name heavyweights than Norton, so I don't see where that one is even seriously debatable. Moore is easily the harder hitter. Walcott is a bit more confusing of a situation to sort out, given the conflicting evidence, but I think his sheer consistent results against top-flight opposition speak for themselves.

 

Why don't you tell me which opponent Norton ever knocked down who was as durable or as good as Louis, Marciano, Charles, Bivins or Johnson?

No, because those things don't at all constitute the total sum of the evidence to judge a fighter's power, and you know it.

It wasn't unusual for a fighter to be disadvantaged, yes, but it's hardly as though everyone was- that's silly. Walcott was matched up again and again and again against established contenders and prospects who had management backing and professional training, often on short notice and in their backyards, and who were oftenmuchmore experienced than he was. Tiger Jack Fox, Al Ettore, Roy Lazer, George Brothers, Abe Simon, etc. were established contenders and prospects who had HUGE unfair advantages over Walcott when he fought them.

He didn't fight well-trained, experienced, quality fighters until later in his career when he himself was a well-off, well-managed and well-trained fighter. Walcott did not have the same opportunity.

Yes, it is.

I didn't say anything that extreme, but it is certainly true that, prior to his fight with Ali when he already had 30 professional fights and was well-trained, well-managed and groomed for a championship, Norton did not face any real high-risk opposition. This is worlds apart from what Walcott went through.

Yes, he did. Louis and Marciano are almost universally-regarded as belonging in the top 10 of all time at heavyweight, and Walcott floored them a total of four times, all in the early rounds and all with single shots.

Not necessarily knockouts, but Walcott knocked down and hurt guys who were a heck of a lot better than anyone Norton ever floored. In fact, Norton never knocked down anyone either as durable or as good as a Marciano, Louis, Bivins or Johnson.

No, that is not what I said- you're twisting my meaning, and I think you know it.What I indicated was that breaking Ali's jaw is not specifically more impressive than breaking someone else's jaw; he didn't have magic, super-strong bones.

I consider a "dusting" to mean actually stopping someone by knocking them down; Norton's best stoppage is over Quarry- who, ironically, was smallish and a natural sub-200-pounder himself- but that was a gradual bludgeoning, not a "dusting." His best actual knockout is his blow-out over the glass-jawed Bobick. That doesn't even begin to stack up with Walcott's resume.

Marciano was knocked down less often than either Ali or Holmes and they were floored by lesser punchers than he was during their careers, and Marciano is the only man in this discussion who was never stopped in his professional career- in fact, he was never stopped in any fight of any kind, even amateur. Walcott dealt him the first knockdown of his career one minute into the first round- this is a much more impressive display of power than any Norton ever put on.

Now I'm a troll? We can have our disagreements, but please don't start into unmerited insults. I am arguing based on facts and about boxing. I've said nothing personal and have directly addressed your arguments- if that's trolling, then everyone on this forum should be banned. Unless your definition of "trolling" is "debating against my viewpoint."

Charles was never beaten at light heavyweight. The fact that Charles and Johnson were natural light heavyweights does not constitute reason for ignoring them as evidence; both of them fought numerous full-sized heavyweights and consistently showed themselves to be both capable and reliable in standing up against them, hence the reason that they were elite heavyweights of the era themselves.

Walcott had just knocked Johnson down the previous round, and the report indicated that Johnson had injured his back from the fall. This isn't a clean knockout, but it still certainly shows power and is a better stoppage than any Norton has aside from Quarry (who was smallish himself and was bludgeoned into a stoppage on his feet).

So fighting generally better top opponents proves you hit harder?!:huh No, as I said: although Norton's best opponents were GENERALLY better and more durable than Walcott's, they were not ALL better or ALL more durable than ALL of Walcott's, and since that is not the case, the fact remains that Walcott displayed much more elite-level power EVEN AGAINST EQUALLY-DURABLE/GOOD OPPONENTS,

 

I also think Lem Franklin is a very strong candidate. His final record was 32-13-1 with 2 NC in 48 fights. He scored 28 knockouts, including top five men Lee Savold, Jimmy Bivins, Curtis Sheppard, and big Abe Simon, plus a slew of gatekeeper types--Tony Musto, Perk Daniels, Willie Reddish, Eddie Blunt, and Altus Allen.

 

Yes, Franklin completely fell apart at the end of his career (leading to his tragic death, in fact), but he had a run in there where he was scoring knockout after knockout and positively decapitating numerous credible opponents. During 1940-42, Franklin went 20-0 with 18 knockouts (and one NC that was a fight in which Franklin knocked his opponent down five times in two rounds, but the referee ruled the match a No Contest), including knockouts over Bivins, who was a durable top fighter, Sheppard, who was rather seldom stopped himself and was a respected contender, Simon, who was a behemoth contender and who seemed plenty durable in his fights with Louis, and several solid fringe contenders.

Another is Earl "the Hooded Terror" Walls, who had a run in '52-54 in which he went 15-0 (14 KOs) and established a reputation as a monstrous puncher by annihilating guys like Rex Layne, Tommy Harrison and Joe Kahut in the first two rounds.

And, in fact, I think Franklin, Walls and their ilk are examples of why a "top 55 heavyweight punchers" list is ultimately fruitless- there are just dozens and dozens of guys, some who come immediately to mind and some who don't, who have possessed absolutely devastating power in the heavyweight division, and it's simply impossible to sort through them all and objectively pick out the 55 who hit the hardest.

In my honest opinion, Walcott probably wasn't one of the 55 hardest hitters in the history of the heavyweight division- and I don't think Norton was either, or Moorer, Witherspoon, or any of a number of other fighters on that list. And I don't think I could make a "55 hardest punchers" list myself that would be more accurate than this one. We can say who we think hit the very, very hardest based on their results at the absolute top of the list, but even those guys may only have produced their results because they hit extremely hard and had supplementing skills which allowed them to have success at a level that got them noticed, while other guys who hit even harder than they did, but lacked the skill to get to the top, may have been present at the same time as they were. It isn't all that uncommon for a boxer to remark that some unknown journeyman he fought early in his career hit him harder than anyone else he ever fought. And even not among the unknown journeymen, it's impossible to know with any great degree of accuracy, without using some more precise measure, who hit harder between two guys who fought entirely different opponents 50 years apart.

 

Marciano Frazier makes good sense about the journeymen etc and I just want to throw in a couple of other names, Billy Stift, Jack Doyle and esp. Tony Galento.

 

This is a replacement for an mistaken post:

Well, what about Bernardo Mercado. He scored 29 ko's in 39 fights, including Earnie Shavers and Trevor Berbick.

 

I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but if i have to choose from those names, my votes go to Walcott and Galento. I must say i've never seen Franklin, Choynski (except for sparring with a shot Jeffries), Sheppard and Killen on film though.

 

Tommy Gomez?