The Hardest Punchers of the 90s Ranked from Quotes

Right you realize neither Wlad or Vitali punches bothered Ross Puritty at all right? You realize Corrie Sanders was 37 years old when Wlad fought him so past his prime and 38 when Vitali fought him so past his prime. You do realize Corrie Sanders was knocked out by Hasim Rahman and Nate Tubbs years before Vitali faced him and they both knocked Sanders down and out. You do realize Vitali couldn't knock down a washed up old Sanders right? You do realize when Vitali was knocking out these guys in the early rounds they weren't good fighters he was knocking out right? The only half way decent fighter Vitali knocked out early was a fat Kirk Johnson. You do realize Vitali fought a old overweight Lewis and couldn't knock him down right? Yet Lewis is suppose to have a glass chin and was knocked out by both Hasim Rahman and Oliver McCall with one punch. It took Vitali 10 rounds to stop a old Larry Donald who went down more from fatigue. Vitali took 11 rounds stop overrated padded record Vaughn Bean who he could never put down. Sam Peter was never a good fight. Just a hype job who was knocked won by Jameel McCline yet Vitali landed flush punch after flush punch and I don't believe ever put him down. Vitali couldn't drop a fat past his physical prime Shannon Briggs even though Lennox Lewis was able too knock him down 2 or 3 times and stopped him. Hell a in shape Briggs ran like a woman from 48 year old Foreman. Vitali was never a explosive knockout puncher. He was a throw tons of punches to stop a guy type puncher.

 

Let me get this straight.

Shavers hit Homes constantly?

On what planet did this happen? Holmes shut Shavers out in their first fight. In their rematch he lost maybe two rounds including the one he was dropped in yet Shavers hit him constantly?

Witness the massive one punch knockdown Shavers scored. One single punch.

On top of all this and to state the ridiculously obvious Shavers fought peak Holmes whilst Tyson fought a shell of that version.

We don't even need to mention Tyson is three times the fighter Shavers ever was.

 

Hard not to take note of how many that mention Shavers. But I don't think there's much in it when you reach that level. Foreman, Tyson, Lewis, Wlad, Morrison, Bruno, Ruddock, Tua etc could all hurt any man with a single shot, but the difference was in landing that shot and then finishing.

From what it looks to me, the one that might have even Shavers beat for one punch power is Wilder. That right of his can land anywhere on a man's head and still do damage. Which seemingly shows that the rate of return for power isn't much over 210 lbs. It's more that other factors such as height, reach and strength usually correlates with weight.

 

If Shavers had had Tyson's finishing ability, there's no way that even that prime version of Holmes would have survived.

 

Exactly.

 

Shavers and wilder are obviously top 3 in terms of just sheer destructive raw power but they lack timing, putting punches together, and most importantly finishing ability. People just dont seem to get this and stubbornly stick with their narrative.

Tyson is obviously a waaay better fighter than shavers and he also had amazing hand speed and head movement that allowed him to weave and seamlessly shift from defense to offense and back. Every guy who fought tyson said his erratic hard to predict movement and combination of short sharp/fast/explosive shots is what got them, not just the raw power. Tyson HIMSELF explains this, he sets up the knockouts it isnt just pure arm strength or power:

This content is protected

So in the case of his fight with holmes and comparing it to shavers knockdown, its really not far fetched to imagine shavers having more power but his lack of all the above mentioned traits is what cost him the fight. Shavers had slow feet, poor defense and head movement (making him easy to counter), wasnt a good combination puncher, was a sloppy finisher and didnt have a very good chin or ring iq yet he kod, dopped, or badly rocked nearly every opponent and made them respect his power in spite of all his flaws.

 

Peak Holmes was 210 correct ? Funny how announcers stated how strong Holmes looked around the 228 area?

And you obviously didn't watch the fight if you suggested Holmes shut him out , there were a lot of close rounds...while ignoring both fights were a lot of rounds, TWENTY THREE in fact in hard long fought rounds where Tyson was a mere 4 with actual limited power punches landed ?

Was Holmes that far gone at 37 bc I swore the man at 43 went the distance with Holyfield and have Mercer his first loss ?Lol.

Trying to paint a picture like Holmes wasn't hit against Shavers while doing a winning rounds argument which I didn't bring up ? What a joke.

P.S Shavers scored the knockdown late through ACCUMULATION but I guess we don't add up punches either...it was actually Tyson Stopping Holmes and knocking him down with one shot hits. Good to know you still on that crack! Lol

 

On its own, opponent testimony about power is unreliable, but when multiple opponents say the same thing, you have to take it seriously.

In the case of Shavers, the weight of opponent testimony becomes overwhelming!

It almost seems like Williams, Liston, Foreman, Lyle, and Cooney were category A, and Shavers was the only category A+ that there has ever been!

 

Collins, DeWitt and Chris Eubank all said Benn hit them hardest 'by far' in post fight interviews.

Since then, however, DeWitt has backtracked and said Benn didn't hit him hardest...

 

Anywhere between 210-215 was Holmes peak weight. As he started to slide.

So the commentators saying Holmes looked strong at 225 3/4 means something? He was still peak? He was still close to peak? Holmes was undeniably declining in 84, well past his prime by Spinks and further away from it by Tyson time. A bit of excess flab around the middle doesn't do anything to change that.

Ok what rounds did Shavers win in the first fight? Also what rounds did he win in the rematch discounting the KD round and one other i mentioned. Holmes lost one round on one single card in the first fight. He took the odd single heavy punch in the main.

Again, Shavers was fighting PEAK Holmes and Tyson an old one.

Holmes was 38 when he fought Tyson. He was 42 when he fought Holyfield and Mercer.

Going the distance with Holyfield (in a fight he never ever looked like winning) and spoiling a win over Mercer has nothing to do with him not being miles past his best. He was a shell of what he was more than a decade previously. It says as much about Mercer as it does about Holmes.

Trying to claim Tyson knocking out a past it 38yo Holmes when Shavers didn't knock out a peak Holmes in two fights means Tyson is a harder hitter is beyond a joke, way beyond it actually.

Is James Toney a bigger puncher than Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson?
Is Tim Puller a bigger puncher than Tommy Morrison?

Only someone on crack could try and convey Tyson being a bigger puncher because he stopped Old Holmes and Shavers didn't stop peak Holmes. That's crack worthy if anything ever was.

On the credit side Tyson showed he had immense power against Holmes, absolutely. Holmes still took a fantastic punch. Even more so it showed Tyson was an enormously talented offensive force. Holmes was still wily, awkward and ridiculously hard to get out of there despite being over the hill but Tyson did it incredibly well with a combination of huge power and the ability to find a home for it.

It was a fine win. It doesn't however automatically equal him being a harder puncher than Shavers. Not in a million years.

For what it's worth Tyson's raw power has become a bit underrated over the years imo in favor of his slashing handspeed and ability to put combinations together and find openings. He really did have mind boggling raw power to go along with his all round offensive skill.

 

When ypu need to make that many qualifiers for that many performances, your argument has lost muster.

The sheer preponderance of results defeats your argument to paint them to the contrary.

 

You been here for 13 years and have yet to make a intelligent point. Shouldn't you be make threads about how 150 pound fighters like Bob Fitzsimmons couldn't beat Lennox Lewis, George Foreman, Mike Tyson and others?

 

Wilder has yet to knockout anybody who wasn't pushing 70 or just bad. Tye Field was a bigger puncher than Wilder. Fields was just a worse boxer. Which is saying a lot.

 

No fighter who fought both Foreman and Tyson have stated Tyson punched harder. No fighter who fought both Tommy Morrison and Tyson have stated Tyson punched harder. Tyson isn't a top 3 puncher. I don't even know if he is top 10. Knocking out a old out of shape Larry Holmes and blown up 180 pound Michael Spinks doesn't equate to being one of the hardest punchers in boxing history.

 

The only thing we can go on are fighters own testimonies, but the vast majority always tend to mention a fighter they beat which makes me somewhat suspicious. I guess we'll never know for sure but i do believe fighters who are consistent in their claims. I once asked Tillis who hit the hardest of shavers, tyson and bruno and he said without a doubt shavers, but then he beat shavers so that brings me back to my first point. I know im in the minority here but im gonna stick my chin out anyway and say im not 100% sold on Bruno being mentioned in the same breath as some of these guys. Ive no doubt he could bang to a certain degree, but apart from the Coetzee beer money fight ive yet to see a demonstration of this huge power against a top opponent