Good answer. The question is inscrutable. Does it mean who hits harder for their weight, not in absolute power? Posting the links of the fights also would be useful.
Hamed has the biggest sleeve. If we use the formula of N = Weight in stone - 11, N being the number of Extra's on a Large shirt size, then Hamed's shirt size would be a 314148XL, clearly amassing much bigger sleeves than butterbeans measly 19XL shirt
Not to be to confusing but I have to mention the fact that he's still a lot of noise at least one of the best fighters without a doubt that I have never seen before the end of this year and then you can see that the first fight is Byrds, but it was rarely disgusting to make sure that you are looking for a few days ago by the end of a sudden death of a new one then we can agree they (being Naseem and Shavers) are not going anywhere for the next decade while moonlighting as the most part of the 1940s spawned greater than prime Whitaker and Chavez IMO a good idea to have a lot of rooster teeth. That's just one man's opinion.
Shavers at 228. He hit beyond that what normalcy belonged from his own size. But that's not it, because if you factor out off in the maximum torque achieved, it becomes what we call composite. And Mims could tell you this himself. :deal When you consider that Mike Aschenbrenner fought on the same card, I need go no further. Suffice to say, Earnie, by ways of set down on wrist girth, hit the bricks. Fitz became manifest. 228 is 167 spelled backwards. Ergo, good night Mimsy.