Who hits hardest at 135 pounds shot for shot?

I'll take R.D. overall.... It must be him..... Duran was a beast at 135.... Besides, Ed Rosario never proved he could whack like a mule kicks above 140 pounds like Duran later proved he could do.... The only way a dude like Duran could shake SRL and TKO Davey Moore as well as floor Iran Barkley between 147 to 160 pounds is if he were a monster puncher at 135 to begin with.... Duran rules...

MR.BILL:hat

 

Gans had about a 50 percent knockout ratio, and Jenkins was in the 40s.

Cue the historians to explain away all those non-knockout fights.

 

It doesn't take a historian to understand that there isn't necessarily a correlation between raw force and finishing ability or KO percentage(which is a result of several different factors).

 

Jenkins had 51 KO's out of 73 wins. That's about 70%.

Gans had 100 out of 145 wins. That's about the same.

Nice math, Isaac Newton.

 

Umm, that's wins. Not total fights. They presumably were allowed to throw their numbing power shots at the guys they lost to, but somehow didn't manage to knock them out.

I guess the draws that went the distance don't count either. And do newspaper decisions count or not?

So if I go 1-100 and win my fight by knockout and everyone else goes the distance with me, I'm a great puncher? Reallly?

 

A big puncher isn't necessarily a great fighter. And yes, when you're counting knockout percentage you should do so with wins only. I don't give a flying **** what it's typically based on. What the **** is the point of including losses in assessing your KO percentage?! ****ing OBVIOUSLY you didn't knock them out in the losses, because you lost the ****ing fight! It should be based on how many of your wins came by knockout.

This really doesn't even have **** all to do with who was the best fighter, just who the bigger punchers were. Then when you throw in other variables like quality of opposition, general style, etc. things tend to get muddled.

Total ****ing fights. The **** is that ****?

 

Oh yeah, this point. Unless I've been sniffin' glue and forgot, I'm pretty sure you're the one who brought up KO percentages in the first place. Anyone with half a brain knows how misleading they can be.

 

muhammad ali was a harder puncher (60.66%) than bob satterfield (KO 44.3%) herp a derp

 

Charlie White

 

The answer to this question is Rosario. Pac's power is largely based on speed, and angles, and hitting guys with shots they dont see. Duran was EXTREMELY heavy handed, but usually punished guys to the body before destroying them upstairs. Rosario, on the other hand, could knock a guy dead with one punch. And with either hand.

Chapo truly had freakish power for a lightweight.

 

Duran put on weight better than Rosario. He had trouble making weight as early as the mid 1970's. Rosario was the harder puncher at 135, but Duran fought well at higher weights and was comfortable there. Also I don't think Rosario weighed over 200 pounds between fights in his fighting days.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHGmX64ERcI[/ame] check this fight with Bramble out.. At 1:47 left of round 2, Rosario lands the first punch which really rocked Bramble and for the next minute hits him with punch after punch. Never before had anyone beaten Bramble so easily and convincing. Rosario was just too strong and accurate for Bramble.

 

Brandon rios!!

 

Kendall Holt=Feather fist :deal

 

What the **** is this **** ? power should bail 1 out from a loss , isn't it ?
I don't give a **** what u n boxrec base your "KO" percentage upon .
Telling stoppage percentage should be the legitimate stoppages (i.e : unlike Ali , Hopkins , Zivic , Saddler , etc) out of all fights against relevant opponents (i.e. : not bums) . Also , if 1 cares about power he can count KDs vs top opponents and this way 1 can c the worth of McCline , Cream and today I discovered : Lloyd Marshall , another underrated puncha.