Sit Down Earnie Shavers ... Deontay Wilder is the best puncher the division has ever produced

Ah c'mon Dubblechin. You are too good a poster to confuse or conflate best & hardest puncher.
It is possible a guy may get Koed & not recall the hardest shot. But it is often the more effective puncher.
BOTH Wilder & Shavers are limited fighters.
But Shavers did not have very good endurance, Wilder does.
And Wilder with his length & speed is very good at eventually accurately landing the right hand flush.
Despite his dubious boxing skills.

You know well that KO's-like say RBI's or runs scored or wins for a pitcher...Are only partially a matter of power.
There is also the context of who they fight when. And other things that *they* do, including volume/accuracy/if the punch is seen/rolled with/combinations/chin/endurance/heart.style match ups..That put them in the position to KO a man.

IF pure power equaled, say, how soon you get a guy out of there, then the fighters who KOed Wilder's common opponents earlier hit harder.
They did not hit harder than Wilder.
That Shavers could not hit some guys flush enough, or was not a good enough finisher to even beat them does not mean he does not "hit hard enough" to beat them.
Take the common opponent of him & Foreman Lyle.
Foreman beating Lyle does *not* mean he hit harder than Shavers.
Besides any differences in quality Lyle may have had on that particular day...
Foreman just had the chin to withstand a being dropped a couple of times.
Shavers did not. And he would tend to gas earlier.

Still, you overcompensated in noting the problems of Shavers.
Fighting through the golden age of the HWs, '69-'77, at one point he had a record of 45-2, then 54-5-1. Just before he lost a close fight with Ali-gassing at the end.
And almost every victory was a KO or a TKO.
For all his limitations he was a World Class fighter.

Wilder really has skipped fighting the best guys around. Fought almost no top 10 fighters. Did not beat the one he did, a long moribund hard living Fury.
He also obtained-or softened guys up for-the KO through some illegal & rabbit punches.

He does hit very hard indeed.
But who he fought & how he KOed them does not reflect he is the hardest striker ever.

 

KO2 over Joe Fraizer who was coming off of one of the greatest wins in the history of the division) after dropping him 6 times, also KO2 over Ken Norton who then went on to give Ali and Holmes fits.

That’s way more successful than 10 title defences over 9 fighters noone will remember. (People will remember Fury, but Wilder hasn’t beaten him as of yet.)

 

Way to twist and make Jimmy Young sound like a journeyman. If I hadn’t seen your other posts and known that you were very knowledgeable with HW history, I’d think you were a boxrec warrior.

 

I don't know where you're going with this.

Both were great punchers. But you can't knock out everybody. You know that.

Some guys are durable, some guys just try and survive, and if you come up against a good fighter, you can't always land your perfect shot.

You also have to look at the circumstances.

Again, you're criticising George for not knocking someone out who was 1 of 3 opponents in a 12 day period.

Again, you're criticising George for not knocking out somebody whilst he was 46 years of age.

Why didn't Wilder crush Stiverne with ease the first time?

Why didn't he crush Fury, instead of getting a gift draw?

Again, unless you're going to analyse what happened when both guys landed their perfectly timed shots, it's a pointless debate.

Anybody can spin stats in their favour.

 

Wow!

Unbelievable!

10 defences in 5 years?

What have been his biggest wins?

He got a gift draw in his biggest fight.

 

And?

We can do this all night.

Basically, you want to criticise George for not knocking out all of his opponents without allowing for circumstances, but then when I question why Wilder didn't do it, you come at me with reasons which you want me to respect.

It's pointless.

 

Just stop.

It's becoming so tiresome.

This is what Bailey does.

Again, anybody can spin stats to suit their agenda.

So what if Fury outweighed him by 50 pounds?

Fury was out of shape and he'd been inactive.

If Foreman had failed to knock Fury out, you'd be saying how Fury had no power and had been knocked down by a CW etc.

The reason why Wilder didn't knock Fury out is because he couldn't land his right hand flush. And that's because it's not always possible to do so.

Your sarcasm is so ignorant it's ridiculous.

Let's see Wilder fight 3 opponents in 12 days.

Let's see Wilder have 80 fights.

Let's see Wilder have a 10 year hiatus before coming back and mixing it with elite guys like Evander whilst he's in his 40's.

Mike Tyson was more devastating than Wilder. What do you think he'd have done with Wilder's opposition?

You keep saying Wilder is the best puncher of all time. Yet there's a difference between being the best puncher and the most powerful.

 

Bore off.

You don't even want to debate.

Excuse?

Fighting 3 guys in 12 days?

Not knocking out a guy after having almost 80 fights at 47 years of age?

Laughable.

Hey, Wlad couldn't knock Fury down, but Cunningham could. So I guess Cunningham was a better puncher than Wlad, yeah?

Look how you're bigging Fury up to suit your agenda. An inactive fighter who had only fought 2 tune ups in 3 years. A recovering alcoholic and drug user who had to shed 10 stone after having mental health issues. A fighter who wasn't at his best. Yet Wilder couldn't knock him out and Fury was robbed of a win. But instead of being honest and saying that the reason Wilder didn't knock him out is because he couldn't land his perfect shot, you start trying to justify it by listing factors as to why it wasn't possible. Yet when I try and do that, you say I'm making excuses. So what you're saying is: You can give reasons, yet I can't.

You're a joker.

You want me to take into account that Wilder was outweighed by 50 pounds, yet you won't take into account that in one of the fights you've mentioned, George was almost 50 years old. SMH.

I can't even be bothered to carry this on.

You're criticising George but are bigging up Wilder despite the fact that he hasn't done much.

George beat up Frazier and Norton when he was prime, then came back to win a version of the HW title at 45 years of age.

Wilder has made on average 2 defences a year, of a belt that was won from a fat, C level fighter in Stiverne, who only won the vacant belt against Chris Arreola.

In his biggest fight to date, he got a gift draw against a non punching HW who wasn't at his best.

He's the greatest puncher of all time though, right?

I'll let you debate with the others now. I'm done.

 

Fury was in great shape for Wilder?

Yeah, of course he was.

I've never even mentioned a Fury-Foreman fight, but yeah, Foreman not being able to knock those guys out who you've listed, is obviously crystal clear proof that he wouldn't have been able to have knocked Fury out too.

I despair.

Go and debate with someone else.