Overrated Big Punchers?

Only man to knock out Ernie Terrell

 

Ernie terrell wasnt the big leagues yet when williams fought him. Besides, Merritt another overrated puncher) stopped him on his feet just like Williams did.

 

Always said the same about Marciano.

I differ with you on Kostya. He was a bit more of a sniper.

 

Yes, I know.

And his second best KO was?

 

You mean in 1974 when Terrell was shot to pieces?

 

Probably number 7 ranked Alex miteff, which it a drop off. Williams Doesn't have quality KO wins but he did knock out a few durable fighters. Alonzo Johnson had been in the ring with Every rated contender you could think of and had never been stopped before. Williams flattened him in 1 round.


Sonny Liston said Williams hit just as hard as him, direct quote. He did not say that about anyone else. shouldn't that count for something?

 

Depends which Marciano you prefer. The pre 1953 Marciano was a one punch knockout artist in the mold of a slugger whom typically threw 40-50 punches a round and tried to knock your head off with his roundhouse overhand right. That beautiful natural right hand you saw Marciano shatter laynes gums with, and make renyolds float in the air, Marciano never threw that punch against after 1953.

Post 1953 Charlie Goldman changed marcianos style. He shortened marcianos punches, improved his punch output. This enables him to become a more skilled fighter but it sacrificed his one punch knockout power.

The post 1952 Marciano became a attrition puncher in the mold of a swarmer who threw 80-100 punches a round. Didn't knock guys out with one punch like he did 51-52, just battered the, into submission.


I try to educate people about the change in marcianos style after 1952 but some don't buy it

 

George Foreman said that Axel Schulz hit him as hard as Ron Lyle.

 

Liston wasn't the only one. Eddie machen said Cleveland Williams hit as hard as Liston.

Now I'm not saying Williams did hit as hard as Liston but the fact that multiple top opponents are comparing his power to listons should speak volumes on how hard he hit when he landed

 

Yes comments of top contenders count...As should Foreman saying that Williams, Lyle & ****ey hit him the hardest ever.

PEOPLE-some here-we MUST have more precision of terms. More intellectual rigor!

HARDEST punchers is NOT the same thing at all as the best or most effective punchers.

So who they KO is a poor measure of pure power.

Since you all must know effectiveness in many other areas mostly determines KOs. Skill aspects like accuracy, volume/workrate, precision, combinations, SPEED maximizes effect when the punch is not rolleed with, braced for or anticipated...Let alone what allows guys to GET to that point, defense & chin to allow possible KOs.

So a Foreman or Marciano, so different in some ways, will not get as much "bang for their buck" as other quicker guys, since they do not have the hand speed.

A prime Tyson with his speed & devestating combinations will be more "efficient" in effect vs. pure force generated...

Though he still hit very hard-I would say a 9 out of 10 on a scale of professional HWs...

I would say all or most all of these guys whose careers overlapped hit harder for ONE PUNCH:

Bonecrusher. Ruddock. Bruno. Morrison. Tua. Old Foreman. Likely Lewis.

Though Tyson & Lewis were easily the BEST of this bunch, & both hit VERY hard..

That does not mean they had quite the pure concussive force of a few lesser fighters.

Anyone have any problem with any of this?

So again: who you KO is a TERRIBLE measure of pure power.

Shavers must hit the hardest of ANYONE over the modern 200 lb. HW limit lb. for lb.: & may well have hit harder than anyone ever.
Lyle, Holmes, Cobb, Tillis (also named Tyson), Norton, Ali, Bugner, & whoever else I forgot or do not know about named him as the hardest hitter.
Even if they fought Foreman!

But he did not have the best KO% vs. the bigger & best HWs: since his endurance, chin & skills-including finishing ability-were not near Top Shelf.


Agreed?
Let us stop confusing power with effective power & overall effectiveness.

 

Fight night really helps the case for this one.

 

Just gauge by what happened

 

Wow so he couldn't KO David Tua, he must be feather-fisted then :nut

 

No do NOT just gague by what happened.
If you boil all of what i said down to what I say, without any actual substantive engagement or disagreement, you completely miss all points.

"What happened" measures effectiveness.
Even that must be taken into COINTEXT: how good was the fighter then & many other factors.

But anyway the question here is punching power.

MANY things go into "what happened", the result.
It is wholly un-scien-terrific (sic) to assume that POWER is even the largest factor in outcomes, especially at the highest level.

WHo is best at getting a guy out of there is very different from who has the most power. it is a horrible measure of that, because there are SO MANY uncontrolled variables.

Speed, combinations, work rate, accuracy, defense, endurance & other things all contribute to being able to win & score KOs.

 

Whose to say none of these are taken into consideration? We can't have a conversation because you want to do everything to a t?