Whenever your hear the word invincible and "aura of invincibility" it is almost always associated with a puncher who has an aggressive crowd pleasing style that, historically, has never lived up to the billing of "he can rule as long as he wants" When you look at HW Champions in particular the fighters that give the appearance of having a LONG and dominant reign seldom hold the belt longer than thier boxer or boxer puncher counter parts who seem ordinary as in not superhuman. Look at Foreman, Then look at Holmes. Look at Liston, Then look at Ali. Look at Tyson Then look at Lewis. Are 1 punch fighters inherently flawed? Has there been fighters who can break the mold.
What I think is almost inherant in being a huge puncher is a difficulty/unwillingness to adapt. Even Louis wasn't great at dapting DURING a fight. I suppose a great puncher is bred on the thinking that "even if I'm getting outboxed, I have the punch to end it at any time". And many times they do, but there's always times when it won't be enough. Fighters who doesn't have a devastating punch must learn to adapt instead. Just look how they lost their titles: Liston punched himself out chasing Clay/Ali around and didn't change tactics one bit (except maybe the liniment thing), Foreman punched himself out on a stationary Ali without making on adaption, Tyson just continued walking into Douglas's jabs, uppercuts and counter rights etc. They all showed zero adaption, and that cost them.
Basically, you need to be a well-rounded performer to transcend. Sugar Ray Robinson, a boxer/puncher, is considered the greatest pound-for-pound fighter of them all for that very reason. The more tools you have, the more you can last on top. You bring up a great point, because a huge punch puts butts in seats, the fear factor in opponents' hearts, and money in the bank. But in the end it is one of many necessary tools. Balance is the key. A dynamite puncher has to come forward, relying on the gifts of youth: speed, explosive snap, durability, unrelenting enthusiasm, to overcome an opponent's defenses. This does not bode well for longevity. This is not a stylistic flaw but physics. A boxer can afford to wait and counter, thus grounded in a couple of the basic tenets in all combat arts: hitting without getting hit and using your opponent's momentum against him, which do not demand massive energy outbursts. As Bokaj mentions, mentality is key, as well: when you can "magically" knock men over, you are a super macho in your own eyes and the world's, and tend to neglect other aspects of fighting. Too many times, come crunch time, you suddenly find yourself wanting and end up shocked, as Liston, Foreman and Tyson discovered. This is not a stylistic flaw but a mental makeup one. It's the playground bully syndrome and the cutting-corners syndrome. I think this styles thing is like physical attractiveness in women. You need enough here and there, but there is no foolproof template for success and the spectrum is infinite. Even the stylist needs some heft, lest he be overrun. The best fighters will always blend punch with boxing skills and have a good head on the shoulders, as the Sugar man did.
So is it ever possible for a come forward puncher or slugger to break the mold and live up to the hype?
I don't think Marciano was as revered in his prime in the same manner that Liston, Foreman, Tyson was.... I don't think that people saw him as invincible. Foreman was given that distinction. So was Tyson. Marciano, not really.
