Tyson hit harder than Foreman and Earnie Shavers

[MiguelNG]

GGG hits harder that them 3. just kiding i think foreman hitted harder than Tyson and ernie but tyson hited with more speed, technique, timing and accuracy so he was overall a better puncher but not the strongest or most powerfull.

[joseph5620]

Stewart went the distance with Foreman, Tyson threw Stewart like ragdoll in the first round. Savarese the same.

I assumed it was obvious that I'm not talking about Foreman in his forties.

[jiopsi]

I assumed it was obvious that I'm not talking about Foreman in his forties.

Still not good example.

Tillis was a step-up fighter for Tyson, Tillis had fought some of the best names around so obviously he had an advantage there. It was experienced fighter vs "green" fighter.

Kind of like Foreman Peralta I, in which Peralta took some almighty blows, yet wasn't even knocked down, unlike Tillis against Tyson.

[elfag]

Foreman's opponents would be in agony and stumbling around, but still on their feet until he finished them off. And Chuvalo said that he wasn't hurt by Foreman and the ref stopped the fight too soon.

Tyson would obliterate his opponents and they would be on the canvas completely disoriented and semi conscious.

You could survive a big shot from Foreman, but if Tyson caught you, you were done. The speed of his punches allowed him to hit with more force than Foreman or Shavers. Tyson was so powerful that pain wouldn't even register in his opponents, they would just drop after being concussed.

That is power.

Everyone says that when they get stopped. Chuvalo was curled up in the corner taking shots to the body repeatedly and not throwing back. If he wasnt hurt, he would throw back or move or do something.

[Ben Bolt]

I believe Tyson’s KO-strength was speed, Foreman’s was increased damaging and Earnie’s was one-punch power. Whatever, the guys delivered, didn’t they?

[jiopsi]

I also think Foreman's and Shaver's KO ratio is more inflated for fighting against pushovers.

Where as Tyson fought with only 6 fighters who had lost more (or equal) fights than won, Foreman fought 21 and Shaver's remarkable 28 such fighters.

[joseph5620]

Still not good example.

Tillis was a step-up fighter for Tyson, Tillis had fought some of the best names around so obviously he had an advantage there. It was experienced fighter vs "green" fighter.

Kind of like Foreman Peralta I, in which Peralta took some almighty blows, yet wasn't even knocked down, unlike Tillis against Tyson.

Either way Foreman knocked out better opponents and that will never change. And he was still doing it in his forties which is a testament to how powerful he was.

[joseph5620]

I also think Foreman's and Shaver's KO ratio is more inflated for fighting against pushovers.

Where as Tyson fought with only 6 fighters who had lost more (or equal) fights than won, Foreman fought 21 and Shaver's remarkable 28 such fighters.

Please. Frazier is better than anybody Tyson ever knocked out. So was Norton. Tyson doesn't even have any knockouts over any heavyweights any better than Lyle.

[jiopsi]

Either way Foreman knocked out better opponents and that will never change. And he was still doing it in his forties which is a testament to how powerful he was.

Not on average, and that's kind of telling when Tyson's prime was so short, and didn't never even hit his potential.

Frazier was made for bomber like Foreman, so again using such narrow example of hypothetical situation doesn't really work. Put Prime Frazier against prime Tyson and it's lights out in a similar fashion for Frazier. Mike was stronger, faster, two handed version of Frazier, with better defense.

[Scott9945]

Please. Frazier is better than anybody Tyson ever knocked out. So was Norton. Tyson doesn't even have any knockouts over any heavyweights any better than Lyle.

This is the truth.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^