On a more serious note, Foreman MUST have hit a lot harder than Liston, common opponents' testimony to the contrary or no. Take one look at each man's boxing technique. Liston was technically proficient. Foreman was awful. Even as a pure puncher, his shots sometimes lacked leverage. And in the 90s, Foreman was also unbelievably slow, and hadn't really blossomed into the wily technician that his promoters claim he'd become. Foreman won by clubbing better boxers into the canvas; he didn't rely on footwork, technically sound punching mechanics, high accuracy, good positioning, etc. to nearly the degree that Liston did, because he didn't have Liston's skill. Yes, Foreman was better than a lot of journeymen as a technician, but he's on the far left end of the bell curve compared to the post-Louis champions. Liston's success is explicable without once-in-a-lifetime physical abilities. Foreman's isn't.
Marciano might make that list if it was p4p, but in absolute terms, Foreman, Liston, Wlad and Ernie in some order.
that is about right. It is true of Dempsey & Frazier too. I think Shavers at ~ 21- & as another genetic freak is about the mininum size-helped by long arms & huge hands-where someone might hit as hard or potentially more so than anyone. Always some confuse skill, knockout & overall ability with pure punching power. A guy miight hit as hard an any, but not have the talent to do as well or score KOs in proprtioon to his power. These guys might have hit as hard as Foreman Shavers & Liston. Galento, Butterbean, Ruddock, Morrison (PEDs), Smith, Tua. There are a few builds & ways to achieve this power. I think the compact 5' 9" is about the mininum to hit about as hard as the others. You can also be very tall & long. Or somewhere in the middle but with disproportionate "clubs" of arms & hands. Not being pumped by bodybuilding or PEDs, but natural thickness & lever length & hand size. Theoretically the 6.5' & up guys with much bulk may welkl have more theoretical power than all. Maybe a 7' or so guy could hit the hardest, but they are SO relatively rare that there not be an individual who does boxing or has the native striking force ability. I could be wrong but i have had Shavers as likely #1 in pure force despite not being over 6' 210 lbs. Due not only to the testimony of nearly all who faced him & commented on it, + his great KO results when he did win. That he did not do nearly as well against the best & biggest opponents is not really evidenc ethat his power was overrated. If you are (at least at world class level0 lacking in boxing skill, acuracy, chin & endurance you will often fall short despite whatever power you have.
I would agree. I would like to see Stiverne land on Wlad,I think it might lead to a changing of the guard.
Stiverne counters really wellÂ… and he hits like a ton of bricks. That would be bad news for Waldo or any other heavy. Still, Waldo is extremely seamless these days.
I don't. 190lbs or no, there are not many fighters who numb their opponents the way Marciano did, even if they are not particularly big heavyweights.
I don't buy those tests. It's not like the Bureau of Weights and Measures has a standard for those devices. There are many variables that come to mind.
Marciano's power was a bit more in the attrition category than many would like to admit. Rewatched Walcott I a few months back and was a bit surprised to see how many rights, quite a few flush, that Marciano landed against a fresher Walcott (and one not coming forward off the ropes) before administering the doleful decimal to the old guy at the end. Walcott got tired and Marciano's punches in volume helped him , in large part, to get that way.