Overrated Punching Power

Seems more logical to me that a fighter who knocks you out is punching harder than a fighter who only knocks you down.

 

Tyson faced Lewis.
But Lewis wasn't really putting that much effort in knocking Tyson out, though he did.

 

Jersey Joe Walcott said Curtis Sheppard hit harder than Marciano yet Sheppard didn't KO Walcott. Marciano did.

Archie Moore also said Curtis Sheppard hit harder than Marciano yet he didn't manage to knock Moore out but Marciano did.

Lou Nova said Max Baer hit him harder than anybody yet he couldn't KO him.

Max Baer said Max Schmeling hurt him more with 1 punch then Louis did in all the 4 rounds it took to KO Baer. Schemling didn't knock Baer down let alone KO him.

Seems more logical to me that sometimes other things come into play like I already mentioned speed, accuracy, timing, technique, stamina etc. Is it really that hard to wrap your head around that usually the hardest punchers in terms of pure power generally lack in other areas that allow for them to have quick and clean KO's?

 

:rofl:rofl

 

Exactamundo.

So often fans think hitting a heavy bag is the be all and end all of evaluating a fighter. That certainly works when facing the C and B grade fighters and the big hitters highlight reels sure do consist of a lot of those guys. How many brutal ko's against top 10 opposition? How many against top notch defensive fighters? how many against iron chins?

It was so true what Dundee said about Clay in that first Liston bout watching Sonny hit the heavy bag. Maybe nobody else hit the heavy bag as well as Liston---but Angie said impressive, but my guy is not going to stand there like the heavybag. So now technique comes into play and it changes everything with the hitters.

 

You know what all this tells me? It tells me that perhaps fans shouldn't blindly accept everything a fighter says without applying some critical thinking first. Even assuming the fighter is telling (what they perceive to be) the truth, how much credence should be lent to someone who's being brought to the verge of consciousness and over, and sustaining serious brain damage at the time?

Answer: not much.

The brain isn't an objective measuring device. And when it's being rattled about in its skull it's liable to make even more errors of judgment. One of the classic symptoms of concussion is short term memory loss. It's not uncommon for fighters to have no memory of a fight or the rounds leading up to a bad KO.

Marciano caught Walcott about as flush as it's possible to catch someone, and knocked him out about as cleanly as it's possible to KO anyone. How was Walcott supposed to accurately measure the power of Marciano's punch the split second before all consciousness left his body and turned him into a crumpled heap? That he thought Sheppard punched him harder than the Rock may have been due simply to the fact that he was still in a position to experience such things as pain and concussive force. Doesn't mean he was right though, does it?

What is this "pure power" you keep talking about? I have no idea what that means. Power is an amalgam of things, not an isolated attribute. If you knock people out with speed or technique or accuracy or any combination thereof then you have power, no ifs and buts. Unless you're catching guys with sucker punches or sneaky counter shots then a fighter who routinely knocks out his opponents is liable to hit harder than one who doesn't, regardless of how he achieves it. It's pointless to say that Tyson didn't punch harder than Shavers because he was faster and more explosive, or that Lennox was a lesser puncher than Foreman because he lacked the heavy-handedness. Their speed, accuracy, technique etc were part of their power, just as Foreman's and Shavers's heavy hands were a part of theirs.

And if a fighter lacks the required speed, skill or whatever to consistently land heavy shots, as numerous journeymen throughout the ages have, then it's impossible to say anything definitive about their power since they're not landing it cleanly in the first place.

 

This is diverging from the topic at hand.

 

I think you're mixing up the difference between being a very hard puncher and a very good puncher.

A very hard puncher might have all of the power in the world but is not able to really land it.

A very good puncher is able to maximize punch speed, pick a spot and land on that spot, time the punch well so it will do as much damage as possible, and will get full leverage into the punch to get full power out of it.

Comparing Joe Louis and Mike Tyson to Earnie Shavers and George Foreman is perfect for this example.

Louis and Tyson both produced more 1 punch KOs and more crisp fight ending punches than Shavers and Foreman did. This is because they were vastly superior punchers to Foreman and Shavers. They were able to deliver their punches faster, time them better, and deliver them more accurately than Shavers and Foreman would.

Watching them knock people out, you'd think that Louis and Tyson were much harder punchers than Foreman and Shavers, when we all know this is not at all the case. Louis and Tyson were far superior punchers than Foreman and Shavers which enabled them to produce more brutal and more decisive knockouts.

Watch many of the big shots Shavers landed. Most of the time the oponent saw it coming and was able to roll with it, block it (or at least partially block it), or brace for it. Now watch many of the big shots that Tyson or Louis landed. The oponent usually did not see it comming and it caught them by surprise; obviously not giving them time to prepare for the punch. Such small differences can be the difference between a knockout and simply a hard punch that hurt but did not do any big damage.

I'm still willing to believe the words of multiple fighters who all came to the same conclusion of who punched harder than who.

Ali, Lyle, and Norton all said that Shavers punched harder than Foreman. I believe them.

Tillis and Holmes both said that Shavers punched harder than Tyson. I believe them. Holmes did say, however, that even though Shavers was the harder puncher, Tyson was the sharpest puncher. There is a big difference.

Holyfield and Briggs both said that Foreman hit them harder than anyone. I believe them.

Moore and Walcott both said that Curtis Sheppard hit harder than Marciano. I believe them.

When fighters have fought numerous hard punchers and come to the same conclusion about who hit them hardest, chances are they know better than anyone else who did indeed punch harder. They can tell more than any film does.

 

Throw Young in there as well.

 

Ernie Shavers, could only ko guys who stood right in front of him like stiffs.

 

Look at bills reply to see what I'm talking about, like he said there's a difference between a good puncher and a hard puncher. Also Walcott fought Marciano for 14 rounds all togethor and got hit all over so I think he'd have a fair grasp of just how hard he hit. The KO's didn't wipe Walcott's memory of the fights, if it did he would've said so like Herold Graham said about his fight with Jackson. When everybody is saying the same thing (That Shavers is the hardest puncher) it's pretty stupid to disregard it.

If you've ever sparred you'd know sometimes you cant judge based solely on ring performance how hard a guy hits.

 

That has nothing to do with his enormous power, though.

From personal experience, I would prefer to fight a guy who hits hard but the power is more thudding than fight a guy who doesn't have the same sheer force but his punches are sharper. There is a distinct difference and often times it's the sharp punchers who produce the highlight reel KOs. Obviously there is still a lot of power behind the shots, but imo it's the sharpness of the punches that really make a fighter dangerous.

Louis, Tyson, and Hearns were all sharp punchers and the 3 of them have produced some of the most devastating knockouts ever. Obviously the raw power is there too, but I think it was less of the raw power that actually resulted in the knock outs.

 

Ray Mercer had overated power.

 

I'm well aware of the differences between a good puncher and a hard puncher, but too much is being made of Shavers's lack of boxing prowess here to fudge the issue that he doesn't have that many really impressive knockouts. And don't tell me he didn't have plenty of opportunity to get them, given some of the opponents he faced. This isn't some random bum like Demetrice King we're talking about. Shavers had the ability to catch plenty of good fighters clean on the jaw with flush money shots. He simply didn't have the power to turn their lights off with those shots the way truly top class power punchers like Tua, Cuevas and Julian Jackson did.

You're free to believe anyone you want (though I hope you're aware that Shannon Briggs has claimed both Foreman and Vitali Klitschko as the hardest puncher he's ever fought on two separate occasions). Me, I've already said what I think about fighters' quotes; I'll add that I think they have some worth when it comes time to assessing a fighter's more intangible qualities, but they can't and shouldn't be used as a substitute for in-ring footage. A fighter has insight that an observer doesn't have, but the same is true in reverse as well, and an observer has the luxury of seeing things with an unbiased and unemotional eye; if he didn't then all the boxing historians and commentators of the world would be out of a job and forums like this would be worthless.

 

From all the quotes I'd say it's safe to say that Shavers was the most painful puncher ever (or at least of the 70s), but I'm not willing to believe that he was the hardest, given his lack of impressive stoppages.