Who hit harder? Corrie Sanders or Earnie Shavers

Rahman has contradicted himself in interviews over who hit him the hardest. I remember reading at one point that he said Lewis hit him the hardest.

It stands to reason as well that if a punch knocks you cold, it's unlikely that you'll remember too much about how hard it was.

Sanders was a very fast, jolting puncher who threw shots from unusual angles. He has a lot of early knockouts on his record when he caught people cold, but his punches had noticeably less effect after a few rounds. He was a very dangerous fighter, but from the available evidence punch-for-punch doesn't appear to an exceptionally hard hitter. If he hit half as hard as some on this thread are claiming, there is no way a vulnerable fighter like Rahman would take dozens of flush shots and outlast him.

Shavers was all power - there are very few if any world class heavyweights who were as reliant on their punch as Shavers was. That he bombed out two champions in a round, and twice came close to winning the big one against vastly superior boxers, speaks volumes about how exceptional his power was.

 

This is a heavyweight in great shape:

This content is protected

This isn't:

This content is protected

 

You think Helenius is one of the hardest punchers ever?

 

britardistan is a strange place

 

Yes I do. You can keep waiting and waiting for a boxer under 6'1 and a shade over 200 pounds to prove me wrong in the coming years, but you are sadly mistaken. There is a reason why big boxers are dominating.

 

shavers is from the old school..so he wins if its true are not..

 

Shavers hit harder than any fighter from his own era, Foreman included (the same Foreman who later became one of the better punchers in the 90's heavyweight division, despite being in his 40's.) Shavers was a slugger -- he relied on a massive punch and aggression to run you over.

Sanders relied on speed, an awkward southpaw style, and his own counterpunching ability. Yes, he hit hard. Yes, he laid a lot of guys out using these tactics. He did not, however, hit hard enough to make a living by steamrolling guys. Shavers did.

Now as to who would win in a fight...much better question. The Klitschko fans have a much better case there. Sanders had the height, reach, counterpunching ability, and handspeed on Shavers. Neither was particularly durable or had great stamina. I'd tentatively pick Sanders, but worry about Shavers' southpaw-killing right.

 

Two big boxers being the best right now doesn't mean you can make sweeping statements like "big boxers are dominating". Especially not when the biggest heavyweight of all-time lost easily to a former cruiserweight, who had him on ***** St..

But you said Helenius is one of the hardest punchers of all-time, so you know very little about boxing. There is no point in talking to you.

 

The heavyweight champion's of the world have been getting bigger and bigger as time passes and the avg size increases.

All the great fighters of the past and present have had a size advantage and if not a serious skill advantage .

Size matters in boxing. Because bigger men hit harder and can take a better shot in general.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chIurKnmX60[/ame]

 

Stupid question! How can you compare the hardest puncher in the HWD like Shavers with that so-so fighter? Tyson or Marciano should be compared with Chavers.

 

Who cares If Shavers hit harder or not? Shavers was a talentless B-level who fought with his hands down swing wild. He couldn't even go 30 seconds with an overweight, over-the-hill Jerry Quarry.......

 

Very true. Klitschko land is like living inside of the bubble. These Klit fans only pretend that Sanders was an ATG KO artists because they are ashamed that he KO'd Wlad and rocked Vitali.

 

Sanders

 

No, the hardest hitter of all time is SNV but this is not what this thread is about.