Shavers, Foreman, Louis, Tyson - who was the hardest puncher

[StarshipTrooper]

You are pathetic. But ok, Larry Holmes is the gospel, and the most truthful and honest man, so you accept all of his quotes as fact, so lets start with some Holmes quotes. Some facts if you will.

Also Holmes was dropped 3 times by Tyson, who gave him his first knockout loss and within 4 rounds.

What did Holmes say 6 years later after the Tyson fight?

"I still feel that I am in my prime right now but I think my best fights were in my thirties." (Holmes was 38 when he fought Tyson)

Holmes also said, "Fighters today are much bigger, stronger and quicker and not only that but referees, judges and doctors back then were very strict and if your head got busted up the fight would be stopped. "

and

"The guys today are just too strong and back then they would take many hard punches to land one. "

ie. not only are fighters better today, but also it was easier to get a TKO back in the day.

"I don't think Joe Louis could take the punches today fighting in this era. "-Larry Holmes

And you seem quite incapable of distinguishing between Larry's opinions (which, like azzholes, are all full of ****) and Larry making a factual statement comparing the punching power of two opponents who punched him in the face. Maybe when you get to the 5th grade you'll learn to tell the difference.....then again maybe not since it's quite possible you may well be one of those who are born "intellectually challenged"

Poet

[Boogie Nights]

foreman to me looks like he trumps everyone on that list, but who really knows, it really doesnt matter which guy punches harder, because every guy on that list could take anyone out with a single punch.

you cant really measure punching power, if you watch fights and see the other guy consistently putting guys away, he's got power, good enough.

[Die Antwoord]

And you seem quite incapable of distinguishing between Larry's opinions (which, like azzholes, are all full of ****) and Larry making a factual statement comparing the punching power of two opponents who punched him in the face. Maybe when you get to the 5th grade you'll learn to tell the difference.....then again maybe not since it's quite possible you may well be one of those who are born "intellectually challenged"

Poet

Look up definition of the word "opinion"

A factual statement, like he was in his prime 6 years after he fought Tyson? Wouldnt that be a factual statement. You know, understanding how his body was. Wouldnt it be more factual of him to say, "Im in my prime (in 1993)" than to remember how two punchers hit him? Also I dont see you quoting Holmes anywhere...kinda odd. And if Holmes says he was as good as ever in the late 80's...he'd know since its his body...so thats a fact. I mean he clearly would remember how his own body felt and how he was in his prime in the 90's and he had never felt better etc...since he had to live with his body all the time and he was only in the ring with Tyson for 14 minutes. So its clearly more of a fact that Holmes was prime well into his 40's like he said, than Shavers hit harder than Tyson, and if you take that fact and add in that Tyson floored him 3 times and TKO'd him in 4 rounds...I think that factually that means Tyson was the harder hitter. Since its now a fact whatever you say with any type of knowledge. For example if Holmes tasted an apple and a grape and said an apple tasted better, thats a fact according to you.

How about Holmes talking in the late 80's

"You can't put those guys like Marciano or anyone else in with today's class of fighters." Hmm... so that would mean you couldnt put Ali or any of the guys before the fighters of that era in a class with guys like Tyson. Also, Larry Holmes hated Tyson, after facing him he said Tyson would have been a good sparring partner in the 70's...but ok, keep taking Holmes at his word....

Or wouldnt a factual statement be in the 90's saying fighters are bigger and stronger and faster now than before in the 70's... I mean to me thats a factual statement since Holmes fought guys in the 70's and the 90's.

So it sounds like the one quote of Holmes you agree with (which is pure opinion and you have no clue the definition of words but ill play along), is a fact. All other quotes are opinion.

[Die Antwoord]

Who's the internet warrior? Me or the person making idle threats on a boxing forum? :jerk0ff9:

BTW.....I don't need to prove you wrong since just about every respected boxing historian (ie. people who know more about boxing than you do) out there disagrees with you. When one is on the wrong side of the academic consensus then the burden of proof is on YOU.

And just for ****s and giggles Larry Holmes (who fought both) stated catagorically that Shavers was the hardest puncher he ever faced.

Poet

I hope you have friends or family nearby. My guess is you're about to go on suicide watch from this verbal beatdown I am unleashing upon you. Destroying your pitiful arguments like they were nothing.

I want to see your citations of every boxing historian. I see none.

Theres an ESPN article by Graham Houston from 2007 on the hardest hitters...a very knowledgeable boxing historian...ie. someone who knows much more than you and paid for their opinion, unlike you. So looks like the burden of proof is on you amateur. Ill cite it once I reach 15 posts.


Shavers comes in 6th...Tyson 1st. Louis 3rd and Foreman 4th.

[Die Antwoord]

And to continue with exposing you as an internet warrior coward condesending piece of trash...Why would Larry Holmes say Shavers hit harder? Why? I mean how could that help his legacy?

Oh yeah...he beat shavers...so if he says Shavers was better than Tyson and hit harder andhe took Shavers's punches...then its like saying "in my prime I easily could take Tyson's." Of course no one would ever quote Holmes since he also said he was in his prime at 240 lbs and in his 40s and he was KO'd once in his career and it was by Tyson...never KO'ed even in the 14 years after Tyson he continued his career...but yep, I have no right to my opinion because Holmes said so. I'll remember that if you ever try to argue someone who retired before 1990 was better than Tyson or Holyfield or any of those guys.

[res]

The General feeling is that Foreman or Shavers was the hardest punchers in Heavyweight History but did they really punch as hard as Joe Louis or Mike Tyson.. Foreman & Shavers never fought the quality of opponents which Louis & Tyson fought and KOd.. who in your opinion and why, is the Hardest puncher of the four fighter

Foreman never had the quality of opponents Tyson had?!

I'd rank Norton and Frazier over everyone Tyson ever fought and beat (as hevyweights).

[Trenchant]

It would be really hard to rank those guys in order. But if I had to, I guess in effective accurate power not counting anything else like size or anything, I'd say Louis, Tyson, Foreman, Shavers, that's with accuracy and effective use of there power. One punch power would go like Shavers, Tyson, Foreman, Louis.
I'd also like to say that Larry Holmes is actually a pretty intelligent guy for being hit in the head thousands of times and I think those quotes are taken out of context except for the one about Shaver being the hardest puncher he faced. Also in the Tyson fight Larry actually did pretty good but he got his arm caught on the ropes when Tyson came in to land the finishing blow, you can clearly see Holmes's arm get caught as he tried to catch Tyson coming in and then boom "down goes Holmes". Larry still probably would have lost but he who knows if that hadnt of happened, it could have turned into a good fight.

[StarshipTrooper]

I hope you have friends or family nearby. My guess is you're about to go on suicide watch from this verbal beatdown I am unleashing upon you. Destroying your pitiful arguments like they were nothing.

I want to see your citations of every boxing historian. I see none.

Theres an ESPN article by Graham Houston from 2007 on the hardest hitters...a very knowledgeable boxing historian...ie. someone who knows much more than you and paid for their opinion, unlike you. So looks like the burden of proof is on you amateur. Ill cite it once I reach 15 posts.


Shavers comes in 6th...Tyson 1st. Louis 3rd and Foreman 4th.

Nice tactic of waiting until AFTER logged off and went to bed to make a reply.....not. Regardless Junior, you might want to try actually READING the article you cite before claim it as a source.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/box...ory?id=3168817

You see Junior I actually took the liberty of reading it this morning and it's pretty clear from the text that despite how the article is titled he's talking about who the greatest puncher is not who's the hardest puncher.....A different animal altogether and one in which punching power is just ONE factor involved. BTW, Ring Magazine already did that getting a consensus of SEVERAL boxing historians and they ranked Louis as the greatest puncher.
Like I said, you might want to try and actually READ your souce before you cite it.

As for your "opinions" let me introduce you to some cold hard facts: If by some odd chance you actually go to college you're going to find that the professors aren't going to give a rat's azz about your opinions. They want factual answers from you arrived at by solid, logical reasoning; when they want your opinion they'll give it to you.

Now, as I said earlier, since it's YOU who are disputing the consensus view of the boxing historians the burden of proof is on YOU. So far all you've managed to do is quote Holmes from his "grumpy old man" stage of life and cite a source that you didn't bother to read. That's NOT meating the burden of proof. You're going to have to do better than that if you don't want an F on your paper Junior.

PS. Man up and tell us who's alt you are: It's pretty obvious and no doubt your previous incarnation was banned hence the alt

Poet

[Die Antwoord]

It would be really hard to rank those guys in order. But if I had to, I guess in effective accurate power not counting anything else like size or anything, I'd say Louis, Tyson, Foreman, Shavers, that's with accuracy and effective use of there power. One punch power would go like Shavers, Tyson, Foreman, Louis.
I'd also like to say that Larry Holmes is actually a pretty intelligent guy for being hit in the head thousands of times and I think those quotes are taken out of context except for the one about Shaver being the hardest puncher he faced. Also in the Tyson fight Larry actually did pretty good but he got his arm caught on the ropes when Tyson came in to land the finishing blow, you can clearly see Holmes's arm get caught as he tried to catch Tyson coming in and then boom "down goes Holmes". Larry still probably would have lost but he who knows if that hadnt of happened, it could have turned into a good fight.

So all the quotes, the 9 quotes I cited were all out of context. How is it out of context to say, "Joe Louis could not take the punches todays fighters throw?" What context could make that have any different meaning? Unless he said, "im about to lie...Joe Loui could not take the punches todays fighters throw. etc..."

OH and saying Holmes got screwed because his arm got caught...Holmes went down 3 times in the 4th. It wasnt like one hit sent him down. Tyson knocked him out cold, had to get ring doctors in to check on him and help him up. Tyson had lost a round, the third, just barely but I score it for Holmes, and he was mad and came out and he killed Holmes. Thats like, not debatable. I didnt know there were people who think Holmes stood a chance against that version of Mike Tyson. I figured that debate ended in 1988.


In fact most of the "academic" world, which I looked up seems to think Tyson did punch harder than Shavers. In fact many of the "experts" dont rank Shavers in the top 5. Now you will say they suck, and that the guys who do are the true experts etc...but you wont cite them because chances are theyve also said something like, "Floyd Mayweather is the GOAT" and then your argument, like the Holmes argument is out the window. But I guess you could be like this guy im quoting who says "Every Larry Holmes quote but the one I like, is out of context."

I see how this board works now though, after reading through a few of the other posts. Theres like a clear majority of jackasses, who like to team up on anyone with an opinion other than their own. "You think Tyson punches harder than Shavers...listen little boy, this is an adult discussion for people who know what theyre talking about."

Im going to the main board, have fun coming up with new topics and discussions when you run off everyone who has a different opinion and condesend people who actually box and write about boxing. Questions comparing fighters from different era's or fighters in their prime or who hit harder, are all opinions. You could have a tug of war to see whose right, but you guys cant handle differing opinions. You cant prove who would win, its debate, but condesension and personal attacks...after my first post...thats just trash.

[StarshipTrooper]

So all the quotes, the 9 quotes I cited were all out of context. How is it out of context to say, "Joe Louis could not take the punches todays fighters throw?" What context could make that have any different meaning? Unless he said, "im about to lie...Joe Loui could not take the punches todays fighters throw. etc..."

OH and saying Holmes got screwed because his arm got caught...Holmes went down 3 times in the 4th. It wasnt like one hit sent him down. Tyson knocked him out cold, had to get ring doctors in to check on him and help him up. Tyson had lost a round, the third, just barely but I score it for Holmes, and he was mad and came out and he killed Holmes. Thats like, not debatable. I didnt know there were people who think Holmes stood a chance against that version of Mike Tyson. I figured that debate ended in 1988.

In fact most of the "academic" world, which I looked up seems to think Tyson did punch harder than Shavers. In fact many of the "experts" dont rank Shavers in the top 5. Now you will say they suck, and that the guys who do are the true experts etc...but you wont cite them because chances are theyve also said something like, "Floyd Mayweather is the GOAT" and then your argument, like the Holmes argument is out the window. But I guess you could be like this guy im quoting who says "Every Larry Holmes quote but the one I like, is out of context."

I see how this board works now though, after reading through a few of the other posts. Theres like a clear majority of jackasses, who like to team up on anyone with an opinion other than their own. "You think Tyson punches harder than Shavers...listen little boy, this is an adult discussion for people who know what theyre talking about."

Im going to the main board, have fun coming up with new topics and discussions when you run off everyone who has a different opinion and condesend people who actually box and write about boxing. Questions comparing fighters from different era's or fighters in their prime or who hit harder, are all opinions. You could have a tug of war to see whose right, but you guys cant handle differing opinions. You cant prove who would win, its debate, but condesension and personal attacks...after my first post...thats just trash.