Top 10 p4p hardest hitters of all time?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Agreed, a knockout with one punch or a large accumulation is still a knockout and still proves someone hits hard, that's why I included Barrera and would include Chavez.

Yeah in a best finishers thread but this is about hardest punchers-not best punchers...MB n Chavez were punchers but not the hardest ever

[Anthony342]

I'd still rank them somewhere, top 10, top 20 maybe.

[Humean]

It would likely be easier to name they ones that were ranked.

Go ahead and name them. You are after all the one that citied these "world title" fights as if that automatically equals to relevance.

Why am I "surely" implying that? Why is it in every thread you're in you're taking someone's comment and saying it implys something they haven't said.

I said "he didn't fight anyone with a great chin so how do we know he's one of the hardest punchers of all time?"

Since when does "fighting no one with a great chin" equal "he only fought people with weak chins"?

I haven't even mentioned the term "weak chin" once.

The fact remains, though, that he's never fougt a fighter with a great chin therefore how can he be considered one of the greatest punchers of all time?

I'm sure some of them were at least reasonably durable but none of them are overly durable and the most durable guy he fought was Antonio Demarco who he didn't even blast out.

Very little basis for someone to be one of the hardest punchers ever at 135.

Well they were world title fights surely it is a plausible assumption that they were world ranked by the respective governing body? I don't think there is any way to know now unless someone has copies of the relevant monthly rankings of the relevant organizations.

Many things can be implied in a sentence and in an argument. For me to make sense of what you were arguing I had to think you must be implying that Valero's opponents didn't have good chins because that is the only way to salvage the sense of your argument. Anyway you are changing the standards again you were saying that valero didn't knock out anyone with a 'good' chin and now it is a 'great' chin. If you haven't got a good chin then you probably have a weak chin? Or at least a modiocre one or average? Whichever way your point seemed to be saying that it was not impressive to be knocking out all the guys he knocked out and was thus not sufficient to be considered a great puncher.

Why not?

He actually stopped Demarco as opposed to him quitting on the stool and faster aswell. And that's the best guy Valero faced.

Or does he need a few more 1 round knock outs of a few more bums?



How can you just tell if he hits hard? Plenty of fighters were knockong over less than stellar opposition until they stepped up.

That's why surely it's common sense that a guy has to prove his ability first?

I didn't dismiss Valero's power I just was waiting for him to prove it legtimate which will never happen now.

What I do know and what's actual fact is his power is unknown at this point and forever will be.

What I can gauge from the Demarco fight however is it likely isn't all that great.

I think it's extremely difficult for YOU to call something else parody when you're here claiming Valero is one of the hardest puncher in the history of the Lightweight division.

You want to know when I consider a fighter to be a P4P great in regards to punching power? Usually when they display the ability to hurt a top tier fighter with a top tier chin.

If you think Valero is one of the hardest punchers of all time based of your eyes and "sparring stories" then what's stopping you from saying Deontay Wilder from being one of the hardest punchers of all time at Heavyweight? Since, Valero's "amazing" run of knocking out bums in Round 1 that you're so impressed by is about the sale caliber as Wilders opponents. And just about everyone he's sparred with say he's a very hard puncher.

Or, maybe he just needs some "world title" fights against mostly unranked fighters and then he'd be on Valero's level.

It's hilarious you're having this view that anyone who doesn't say Valero isn't amongst the hardest punchers of all time is "parody" That in itself is parody.

I'm not dis*****g that you have to 'prove' that you punch hard but your standards of proof are ridiculous. There seems to be more evidence than whether a fighter did or did not knock out a fighter with a known 'good' or 'great' chin when ascertaining a fighter's punching power. Evidence of the following:

1: Simply watching on film the kind of force generated by the punches, in particular the force that punches rock opponents heads, the way punches cause opponents legs to buckle, how often opponents get dropped or even quit in fights against said fighter. You can simply tell much of the time from watching a fighter punch whether or not he punches very hard or not.

2: Then there is the evidence from the record, what percentage of opponents are being knocked out and stopped (100% in Valero's case) and also is there a pattern of very quick stoppage victories, particularly early in their career as that is a very common occurence amongst big punchers. For example knocking out your first 18 opponents in the first round is not normal, you know how we know that it is not normal? Because Valero was the first fighter known to have done it.

3: The testimony from fighters who have sparred said fighter, what do they say about his power, with more weight placed upon the testimony of world champions and guys who have sparred other seemingly big punchers, as well as testimony from the trainers who feel his power on the pads.

4: Lastly, did he knock out anyone with a chin that is known to be 'good' or 'great'.


You are taking only the 4th piece of evidence as if it alone is what counts and because it is not clear whether Valero did or did not knock out anyone with a 'good' or a 'great' chin you come to the conclusion that he wasn't a big or great puncher. You are not even recognizing the other evidence and are actually wanting to judge very heavily upon one fight (DeMarco), one solitary sample to make a judgment. The idea that Valero's power is 'unknown' is truly ridiculous.

Wilder might well go down as a great puncher, at the moment the biggest reason (that his opposition has also been lesser than Valero up to now is another reason) not to judge him that way is simply that he is active and fairly new on the scene. Valero by contrast has been dead for over 3 years. If you seriously don't think Wilder's punch is likely to knock out the sturdiest of heavyweight chins then I don't know what to say to you.

One last thing about Valero and the 130 and 135 pound divisions. In light of the fullest evidence I don't see that there have been many 130 and 135 pounders in history that I could be confident in saying had more punching power than Valero. Therefore that is why I consider him one of the greatest punchers in the history of the 130 and 135 pound division and by extention p4p. Is he in the top 10 p4p then probably no but then I don't have a top ten p4p in punching power. Valero is not a terrible candidate though if you want to place less emphasis upon the heavyweights.

[IronDanHamza]

Well they were world title fights surely it is a plausible assumption that they were world ranked by the respective governing body? I don't think there is any way to know now unless someone has copies of the relevant monthly rankings of the relevant organizations.

Ranked by the Governing Body perhaps but what does that mean?

Barely any outside of 1 or 2 were in The Ring's Top 10 at the time.

Many things can be implied in a sentence and in an argument. For me to make sense of what you were arguing I had to think you must be implying that Valero's opponents didn't have good chins because that is the only way to salvage the sense of your argument. Anyway you are changing the standards again you were saying that valero didn't knock out anyone with a 'good' chin and now it is a 'great' chin. If you haven't got a good chin then you probably have a weak chin? Or at least a modiocre one or average? Whichever way your point seemed to be saying that it was not impressive to be knocking out all the guys he knocked out and was thus not sufficient to be considered a great puncher.

The only thing my post implied was Valero hasn't proven he's one of the hardest punchers of all time.

That's the only way to salvage sense of my argument?

My argument is pretty simple. I'll try and make it even simpler for you;

Valero has never fought someone with an overly good chin. How can you be considered one of the hardest punchers of all time if you've never even hurt a fighter with a good chin? Like a top level chin.

"If you haven't got a good chin you must have a weak chin"

What a ridiculous thing to say.

That's like saying "Mayweather's not a hard puncher therefore he has no power"

There's a pretty wide scale between bad and good. Not having a good chin doesn't equal a poor chin and vice versa.

Tommy Hearns doesn't have a good chin but he doesn't have a poor chin either.

I didn't once say what Valero did wasn't impressive. Where was that said? Every conversation you're in you're changing what people say.

What Valero did was impressive and he showed that he could certainly punch but he absolutely did not show he was a "great puncher" or "One of the great punchers at 135".

I'm not dis*****g that you have to 'prove' that you punch hard but your standards of proof are ridiculous. There seems to be more evidence than whether a fighter did or did not knock out a fighter with a known 'good' or 'great' chin when ascertaining a fighter's punching power. Evidence of the following:

1: Simply watching on film the kind of force generated by the punches, in particular the force that punches rock opponents heads, the way punches cause opponents legs to buckle, how often opponents get dropped or even quit in fights against said fighter. You can simply tell much of the time from watching a fighter punch whether or not he punches very hard or not.

2: Then there is the evidence from the record, what percentage of opponents are being knocked out and stopped (100% in Valero's case) and also is there a pattern of very quick stoppage victories, particularly early in their career as that is a very common occurence amongst big punchers. For example knocking out your first 18 opponents in the first round is not normal, you know how we know that it is not normal? Because Valero was the first fighter known to have done it.

3: The testimony from fighters who have sparred said fighter, what do they say about his power, with more weight placed upon the testimony of world champions and guys who have sparred other seemingly big punchers, as well as testimony from the trainers who feel his power on the pads.

4: Lastly, did he knock out anyone with a chin that is known to be 'good' or 'great'.


You are taking only the 4th piece of evidence as if it alone is what counts and because it is not clear whether Valero did or did not knock out anyone with a 'good' or a 'great' chin you come to the conclusion that he wasn't a big or great puncher. You are not even recognizing the other evidence and are actually wanting to judge very heavily upon one fight (DeMarco), one solitary sample to make a judgment. The idea that Valero's power is 'unknown' is truly ridiculous.

Wilder might well go down as a great puncher, at the moment the biggest reason (that his opposition has also been lesser than Valero up to now is another reason) not to judge him that way is simply that he is active and fairly new on the scene. Valero by contrast has been dead for over 3 years. If you seriously don't think Wilder's punch is likely to knock out the sturdiest of heavyweight chins then I don't know what to say to you.

One last thing about Valero and the 130 and 135 pound divisions. In light of the fullest evidence I don't see that there have been many 130 and 135 pounders in history that I could be confident in saying had more punching power than Valero. Therefore that is why I consider him one of the greatest punchers in the history of the 130 and 135 pound division and by extention p4p. Is he in the top 10 p4p then probably no but then I don't have a top ten p4p in punching power. Valero is not a terrible candidate though if you want to place less emphasis upon the heavyweights.

I've not disputed that he could punch. He definitely could punch.

When I say his power is "Unknown" I mean in regards to the great punchers. Which it is.

I'm dis*****g he's a great puncher because he hasn't shown it. It's impossible to be considered a "Great puncher" if the most durable person you've stopped is really not all that durable.

"Watching the punch" is just ****** IMO. You can "watch" plenty of fighters knock over the guys Valero did.

Ali Raymi has knocked out his first 20 opponents in the first round. Is he a great puncher then I assume? I mean, "That's not normal" is it?

Your "Evidence" for Valero being one of the hardest punchers ever at 130-135 is absolutely laughable.

P4P is just a whole different level of ridiculous.

As for Wilder, yeah he can punch obviously but is he one of the great punchers? Of course not or atleast we don't know at this point. He "Might" go down as one, who knows, but at this point we don't know so we can't say it. Much like Valero.

I suppose if he had a few poor title defenses and made Chisora quit on his stool a Round later than Haye did he might just be the hardest puncher ever at HW and possibly P4P

The fact is, Valero never hurt a fighter with an overly good chin. Not even for his time. It's impossible to consider him amongst the hardest puncher of all time and ridiculous to consider him so.

Yeah, of course he can punch. Of course he has power. One of the hardest punchers of all time? Not from what he's shown.

[Humean]

Ranked by the Governing Body perhaps but what does that mean?

Barely any outside of 1 or 2 were in The Ring's Top 10 at the time.

It means they were world ranked like I said, the implication of this being that they weren't bums nor journeymen.

The only thing my post implied was Valero hasn't proven he's one of the hardest punchers of all time.

That's the only way to salvage sense of my argument?

My argument is pretty simple. I'll try and make it even simpler for you;

Valero has never fought someone with an overly good chin. How can you be considered one of the hardest punchers of all time if you've never even hurt a fighter with a good chin? Like a top level chin.

"If you haven't got a good chin you must have a weak chin"

What a ridiculous thing to say.

That's like saying "Mayweather's not a hard puncher therefore he has no power"

There's a pretty wide scale between bad and good. Not having a good chin doesn't equal a poor chin and vice versa.

Tommy Hearns doesn't have a good chin but he doesn't have a poor chin either.

I didn't once say what Valero did wasn't impressive. Where was that said? Every conversation you're in you're changing what people say.

What Valero did was impressive and he showed that he could certainly punch but he absolutely did not show he was a "great puncher" or "One of the great punchers at 135".

Weak is not equivalent to non-existent is it? Thus what I said was not like your Mayweather analogy at all. I'm not changing what you or others are saying, i'm drawing out what is implied in the arguments you are making. What matters to your argument is that Valero had to knock out someone with a 'good' chin to even be considered a great puncher. You said he didn't do that, that implies that everyone Valero knocked out had less than good chins. It is hardly incorrect to say that if some fighter does not have a good chin that he has a weak chin. Sure there is a spectrum but it is your argument that somehow needs to pinpoint the appropriate point in the spectrum to count. 'Weak', 'average' 'mediocre' whatever you want to say the important part of your argument is that relative to 'good' chins all of Valero's opponents were found wanting.

What was implied by what you have been saying is that what Valero did was not impressive, surely if you really thought it was impressive that you would acknowledge it as evidence towards Valero having great power. So which is it?

I've not disputed that he could punch. He definitely could punch.

When I say his power is "Unknown" I mean in regards to the great punchers. Which it is.

I'm dis*****g he's a great puncher because he hasn't shown it. It's impossible to be considered a "Great puncher" if the most durable person you've stopped is really not all that durable.

"Watching the punch" is just ****** IMO. You can "watch" plenty of fighters knock over the guys Valero did.

Ali Raymi has knocked out his first 20 opponents in the first round. Is he a great puncher then I assume? I mean, "That's not normal" is it?

Your "Evidence" for Valero being one of the hardest punchers ever at 130-135 is absolutely laughable.

P4P is just a whole different level of ridiculous.

As for Wilder, yeah he can punch obviously but is he one of the great punchers? Of course not or atleast we don't know at this point. He "Might" go down as one, who knows, but at this point we don't know so we can't say it. Much like Valero.

I suppose if he had a few poor title defenses and made Chisora quit on his stool a Round later than Haye did he might just be the hardest puncher ever at HW and possibly P4P

The fact is, Valero never hurt a fighter with an overly good chin. Not even for his time. It's impossible to consider him amongst the hardest puncher of all time and ridiculous to consider him so.

Yeah, of course he can punch. Of course he has power. One of the hardest punchers of all time? Not from what he's shown.

You have to take together each piece of evidence and put it together as a whole. The way you are talking it would be like evaluating all the various pieces of evidence in court and dismissing what all the evidence together leads you to because each individual piece of evidence isn't fully compelling, which it never is. Take your criterium for example, first you have to posit who does satisfy your criteria for a 'good chin' (this suffers from the exact same problem as evaluating a good puncher) which might be difficult enough at the best of times and a lot more difficult if you are ignorant of the majority of fighters (which we all are) but then you have to judge whether a particular fight is telling the whole story or not. For it to be more convincing you would need to have perhaps a few fighters that you recognize as having 'good chins' in order for it to satisfy your original criterium. Fortunately you can look at other pieces of evidence as well rather than have to go through all this.

[IronDanHamza]

It means they were world ranked like I said, the implication of this being that they weren't bums nor journeymen.

Being ranked by a Sactioning body doesn't make you "World ranked" that's like saying Amir Khan is "World ranked" at 147 at the moment and was before he'd even had a fight there.

Not everyone he defended his titles against were bums (Some were) but the guy's he knocked out at the start of his career were.

Both of his reigns both at 130 and 135 were extremely underwhelming on the grand scale of things.

Weak is not equivalent to non-existent is it? Thus what I said was not like your Mayweather analogy at all. I'm not changing what you or others are saying, i'm drawing out what is implied in the arguments you are making. What matters to your argument is that Valero had to knock out someone with a 'good' chin to even be considered a great puncher. You said he didn't do that, that implies that everyone Valero knocked out had less than good chins. It is hardly incorrect to say that if some fighter does not have a good chin that he has a weak chin. Sure there is a spectrum but it is your argument that somehow needs to pinpoint the appropriate point in the spectrum to count. 'Weak', 'average' 'mediocre' whatever you want to say the important part of your argument is that relative to 'good' chins all of Valero's opponents were found wanting.

You're just babbling about nothing.

This is what I said - "Valero has not fought someone with a good chin"

That doesn't mean anything but exactly that. Not "He only fought glass chins" or anything else that's not saying what I've said.

Valero fought plenty of guys who didn't have glass chins I've never said otherwise.

He just never fought anyone with a good chin. Or overly good chin.

Of course he has to do that to be considered a great puncher. How can you know if someone's a great puncher when the most durable person he's stopped, isn't that durable.

Let's look at the Demarco fight again. Because that's the best fighter he had and also the most durable. Demarco can take his share of punchs.

Valero didn't even look like a monster puncher in that fight.

Demarco's a durable guy but he's not that durable. If Valero's one of the hardest punchers of all time he shouldn't need to have to bash Demarco's head in round after round before he quits.

What was implied by what you have been saying is that what Valero did was not impressive, surely if you really thought it was impressive that you would acknowledge it as evidence towards Valero having great power. So which is it?

What??? Does that honestly make sense in your mind?

Valero was definitely impressive. He showed that he could definitely punch.

Me saying this somehow equals to evidence that he has great power????

How on Earth have you landed on that conclusion??

So, being impressed by a fighter equals them being great now?

I'm impressed by a lot of fighters I don't consider them "Great".

All I have "Implied" is Valero isn't one of the hardest punchers of all time. That's it. Because he's not shown that in his fights.

Nothing I have said implies Valero wasn't impressive in his career.

You have to take together each piece of evidence and put it together as a whole. The way you are talking it would be like evaluating all the various pieces of evidence in court and dismissing what all the evidence together leads you to because each individual piece of evidence isn't fully compelling, which it never is. Take your criterium for example, first you have to posit who does satisfy your criteria for a 'good chin' (this suffers from the exact same problem as evaluating a good puncher) which might be difficult enough at the best of times and a lot more difficult if you are ignorant of the majority of fighters (which we all are) but then you have to judge whether a particular fight is telling the whole story or not. For it to be more convincing you would need to have perhaps a few fighters that you recognize as having 'good chins' in order for it to satisfy your original criterium. Fortunately you can look at other pieces of evidence as well rather than have to go through all this.

Stop with the nonsense. This isn't a Court Room, it's nothing alike.

If Valero didn't die he'd have continued fighting and likely come across some real durable top level guys and we would have seen if his power would have done to those guys then and only then can we have a discussion about Valero being one of the hardest punchers ever at certain weights.

At the time of his death, he hadn't.

[IronDanHamza]

It means they were world ranked like I said, the implication of this being that they weren't bums nor journeymen.

Being ranked by a Sactioning body doesn't make you "World ranked" that's like saying Amir Khan is "World ranked" at 147 at the moment and was before he'd even had a fight there.

Not everyone he defended his titles against were bums (Some were) but the guy's he knocked out at the start of his career were.

Both of his reigns both at 130 and 135 were extremely underwhelming.

Weak is not equivalent to non-existent is it? Thus what I said was not like your Mayweather analogy at all. I'm not changing what you or others are saying, i'm drawing out what is implied in the arguments you are making. What matters to your argument is that Valero had to knock out someone with a 'good' chin to even be considered a great puncher. You said he didn't do that, that implies that everyone Valero knocked out had less than good chins. It is hardly incorrect to say that if some fighter does not have a good chin that he has a weak chin. Sure there is a spectrum but it is your argument that somehow needs to pinpoint the appropriate point in the spectrum to count. 'Weak', 'average' 'mediocre' whatever you want to say the important part of your argument is that relative to 'good' chins all of Valero's opponents were found wanting.

You're just babbling about nothing.

This is what I said - "Valero has not fought someone with a good chin"

That doesn't mean anything but exactly that. Not "He only fought glass chins" or anything else that's not saying what I've said.

Valero fought plenty of guys who didn't have glass chins I've never said otherwise.

He just never fought anyone with a good chin. Or overly good chin.

Of course he has to do that to be considered a great puncher. How can you know if someone's a great puncher when the most durable person he's stopped, isn't that durable.

Let's look at the Demarco fight again. Because that's the best fighter he had and also the most durable. Demarco can take his share of punchs.

Valero didn't even look like a monster puncher in that fight.

Demarco's a durable guy but he's not that durable. If Valero's one of the hardest punchers of all time he shouldn't need to have to bash Demarco's head in round after round before he quits.

What was implied by what you have been saying is that what Valero did was not impressive, surely if you really thought it was impressive that you would acknowledge it as evidence towards Valero having great power. So which is it?

What??? Does that honestly make sense in your mind?

Valero was definitely impressive. He showed that he could definitely punch.

Me saying this somehow equals to evidence that he has great power????

How on Earth have you landed on that conclusion??

So, being impressed by a fighter equals them being great now?

I'm impressed by a lot of fighters I don't consider them "Great".

All I have "Implied" is Valero isn't one of the hardest punchers of all time. That's it. Because he's not shown that in his fights.

Nothing I have said implies Valero wasn't impressive in his career.

Stopping 27 of 27 opponents is definitely impressive and he showed in the Demarco fight especially that he's impressive.

Impressive doesn't equal great believe it or not.

You have to take together each piece of evidence and put it together as a whole. The way you are talking it would be like evaluating all the various pieces of evidence in court and dismissing what all the evidence together leads you to because each individual piece of evidence isn't fully compelling, which it never is. Take your criterium for example, first you have to posit who does satisfy your criteria for a 'good chin' (this suffers from the exact same problem as evaluating a good puncher) which might be difficult enough at the best of times and a lot more difficult if you are ignorant of the majority of fighters (which we all are) but then you have to judge whether a particular fight is telling the whole story or not. For it to be more convincing you would need to have perhaps a few fighters that you recognize as having 'good chins' in order for it to satisfy your original criterium. Fortunately you can look at other pieces of evidence as well rather than have to go through all this.

Stop with the nonsense. This isn't a Court Room, it's nothing alike.

If Valero didn't die he'd have continued fighting and likely come across some real durable top level guys and we would have seen if his power would have done to those guys then and only then can we have a discussion about Valero being one of the hardest punchers ever at certain weights.

At the time of his death, he hadn't.

[Humean]

Being ranked by a Sactioning body doesn't make you "World ranked" that's like saying Amir Khan is "World ranked" at 147 at the moment and was before he'd even had a fight there.

Actually it does, that is exactly what world ranked means.

Not everyone he defended his titles against were bums (Some were) but the guy's he knocked out at the start of his career were.

Both of his reigns both at 130 and 135 were extremely underwhelming on the grand scale of things.

I certainly do not deny any of this

You're just babbling about nothing.

This is what I said - "Valero has not fought someone with a good chin"

That doesn't mean anything but exactly that. Not "He only fought glass chins" or anything else that's not saying what I've said.

Valero fought plenty of guys who didn't have glass chins I've never said otherwise.

He just never fought anyone with a good chin. Or overly good chin.

Of course he has to do that to be considered a great puncher. How can you know if someone's a great puncher when the most durable person he's stopped, isn't that durable.

Let's look at the Demarco fight again. Because that's the best fighter he had and also the most durable. Demarco can take his share of punchs.

Valero didn't even look like a monster puncher in that fight.

Demarco's a durable guy but he's not that durable. If Valero's one of the hardest punchers of all time he shouldn't need to have to bash Demarco's head in round after round before he quits.

The things you are saying are getting more ridiculous by the minute, did every bona fide great puncher in history knock out everyone early? Here is a challenge, think about all the 130 and 135 fighters in history you are confident in saying were bigger punchers than Valero. Then look and see whether they had fights where they didn't knock out guys who were not known to have 'good' or 'great' chins until late or didn't stop them at all. I very much doubt you will fail to find any that didn't have one, but probably more than one, like that and yet that wouldn't be reason for you to doubt how hard they punched would it? Valero committed suicide just when the bigger fights were likely to happen, that is unfortunate for the evaluation of his power but luckily there is other evidence.

What??? Does that honestly make sense in your mind?

Valero was definitely impressive. He showed that he could definitely punch.

Me saying this somehow equals to evidence that he has great power????

How on Earth have you landed on that conclusion??

So, being impressed by a fighter equals them being great now?

I'm impressed by a lot of fighters I don't consider them "Great".

All I have "Implied" is Valero isn't one of the hardest punchers of all time. That's it. Because he's not shown that in his fights.

Nothing I have said implies Valero wasn't impressive in his career.

My thinking is that if you are a rational person that by seeing Valero's achievements in respect to his power (the 18 straight first round knockouts, the 27 knockout wins out of 27, the 8 world title fights and 8 world title knockout wins) would be ample evidence to you to suggest that Valero was a great puncher.

Stop with the nonsense. This isn't a Court Room, it's nothing alike.

If Valero didn't die he'd have continued fighting and likely come across some real durable top level guys and we would have seen if his power would have done to those guys then and only then can we have a discussion about Valero being one of the hardest punchers ever at certain weights.

At the time of his death, he hadn't.

The reasoning and balancing of evidence that is necessary in a court room in no different than the reasoning and balancing of evidence elsewhere in life.
The question of who is a great puncher or the hardest hitter is about determining who hit the hardest. How can you not see that your criterium is limited and that you are avoiding all other evidence? Is it deliberate? I'm not sure if I even believe that you believe this, as if you ever watched a fight and refused to acknowledge whether a fighter was a big puncher until he knocked out X on your list of fighters with good chins.

[jackson8]

Duran as a lightweight should make the list.

[IronDanHamza]

Actually it does, that is exactly what world ranked means.

No, it doesn't.

"World ranked" means Top 10 in the world not Top 10 by a sanctioning body.

Again, that's like saying Amir Khan is world ranked at 147 which he obviously isn't.

The things you are saying are getting more ridiculous by the minute, did every bona fide great puncher in history knock out everyone early? Here is a challenge, think about all the 130 and 135 fighters in history you are confident in saying were bigger punchers than Valero. Then look and see whether they had fights where they didn't knock out guys who were not known to have 'good' or 'great' chins until late or didn't stop them at all. I very much doubt you will fail to find any that didn't have one, but probably more than one, like that and yet that wouldn't be reason for you to doubt how hard they punched would it? Valero committed suicide just when the bigger fights were likely to happen, that is unfortunate for the evaluation of his power but luckily there is other evidence.

I've not changed anything I've said

I didn't say you have to knock guys out early. You're not going to knock a really durable guy out early or even at all.

But Demarco's not really that durable is he. I'd expect one of the hardest punchers of all time to stop Demarco if they couldn't miss him and were pounding him for 8 or whatever rounds it was.

"Other evidence" Yeah, "It looks powerful!" "He has as many 1 round KO's as Ali Raymi" solid evidence.

Every puncher I consider great has hurt or stopped a top level guy that's also very durable.

That's just a basic need IMO for someone to be considered a "Great puncher"

My thinking is that if you are a rational person that by seeing Valero's achievements in respect to his power (the 18 straight first round knockouts, the 27 knockout wins out of 27, the 8 world title fights and 8 world title knockout wins) would be ample evidence to you to suggest that Valero was a great puncher.

"Your thinking" is getting more ridiculous by the minute.

That's not "Ample" evidence, that's just numbers. Plenty of people have numbers it doesn't make them "Great punchers".

The reasoning and balancing of evidence that is necessary in a court room in no different than the reasoning and balancing of evidence elsewhere in life.
The question of who is a great puncher or the hardest hitter is about determining who hit the hardest. How can you not see that your criterium is limited and that you are avoiding all other evidence? Is it deliberate? I'm not sure if I even believe that you believe this, as if you ever watched a fight and refused to acknowledge whether a fighter was a big puncher until he knocked out X on your list of fighters with good chins.

You're again changing it, I never said Valero's not a big puncher.

You can see if someone can punch from watching them.

I can see Valero can punch, I can see Curtis Stevens can punch, I can see that Deontay Wilder can punch. I can see that Broner can punch.

You can't "see" if someone's a "great" puncher.

That's what's being disputed here, the term "great". Not if Valero is a big puncher or not.

All the "evidence" you're claiming to have is almost meaningless other than Sparring partners saying he can punch but sparring is a whole different game we've heard plenty of head scratching stories from sparring partners.

The only "Evidence" you're missing is the actual "Evidence" that matters in regards to how to show a fighter is a "great" puncher.

The others are just things you're adding to help your ridiculous argument that Valero is one of the hardest punchers of all time.