Top 10 p4p hardest hitters of all time?

[Humean]

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.

It does mean that, the ring magazine rankings are not 'official', each sanctioning bodies rankings are, as incomplete and ridiculous as they often are. As I said the importance of me originally saying 'world ranked' was to draw attention that they weren't journeymen and bums Valero was fighting in his world title fights. I was not suggesting or implying anything more or less than that.

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.

I'm sorry if DeMarco doesn't pass your test for durability, not that I can see much reason for him to fail that test, he has been stopped by only two fighters, Valero and Broner, if you would actually look at other evidence you would come to the conclusion that this is not much of an argument against DeMarco's durability.

"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"


"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".

I'm sorry but why can't you understand the point about taking each piece of evdence and putting them all together? I'm not saying that each separate piece of evidence taken alone is sufficient to say that Valero is a big and great puncher.

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.

I know what you are saying now, your argument is even weaker than my reformulation of it. You recognize that Valero is a big puncher but he is not a great puncher because he did not stop a fighter or fighter's with the chins you deem credibly durable enough to say he was a great puncher.

I'm not sure how you cannot see how silly this is.

To use an analogy I used earlier, is there not more than one way to tell that it is raining outside? Can you not know that it is raining outside until you stand outside and feel the rain hit you? Or are you only satisfied it is raining when you can see the rain out of your window? Or if the weatherman tells you that it is raining? Now if you think that knocking out a guy that you deem to have a good chin is the best evidence then fine, although I don't really agree with that, but you cannot deny there is also other evidence and when you add all this evidence together it gives weight to a particular conclusion.

[IronDanHamza]

It does mean that, the ring magazine rankings are not 'official', each sanctioning bodies rankings are, as incomplete and ridiculous as they often are. As I said the importance of me originally saying 'world ranked' was to draw attention that they weren't journeymen and bums Valero was fighting in his world title fights. I was not suggesting or implying anything more or less than that.

The Ring Magazine have been go-to rankings for years.

The sanctioning bodies rankings are almost meaningless being ranked in the Top 10 with a sanctioning body doesn't make you "World ranked" other than on Paper which I suppose helps your laughable argument.

If sanctioning bodies are how you consider a guy a world ranked fighter than the guy Klitschko is fighting next would be considered "World ranked".

Like I said in the other post, Amir Khan was "World ranked" at 147 before he'd even had a fight at 147

I'm sorry if DeMarco doesn't pass your test for durability, not that I can see much reason for him to fail that test, he has been stopped by only two fighters, Valero and Broner, if you would actually look at other evidence you would come to the conclusion that this is not much of an argument against DeMarco's durability.

Demarco is a durable guy. He's just not that durable.

I'm sorry but why can't you understand the point about taking each piece of evdence and putting them all together? I'm not saying that each separate piece of evidence taken alone is sufficient to say that Valero is a big and great puncher.

So basing off your "evidence" then (Watching the punch and has the guy got a lot of KO's ) then Wilder and Broner ARE great punchers then. Especially Broner.

Is it fair to say that you think Broner is one of the greatest punchers of all time at both 130 and 135?

I mean, all the "evidence" is clearly there.

He looks like a hard puncher. Check.

He knocked out almost everyone he fought at 130 and 135 and a lot of those were early. Check

Sparring partner's say that he's a hard puncher. Check.

Therefore the "Evidence" suggest he's one of the greatest punchers at 130 and 135 in history. That's fair, yes?

He also legitimately stopped Demarco something one of the hardest punchers ever couldn't do and a round earlier.

Let's not forget he stopped Gavin Rees (Only stopped twice including Broner therefore must be durable) and quite a few guys that I'd say were better than the guys Valero fought

I know what you are saying now, your argument is even weaker than my reformulation of it. You recognize that Valero is a big puncher but he is not a great puncher because he did not stop a fighter or fighter's with the chins you deem credibly durable enough to say he was a great puncher.

I'm not sure how you cannot see how silly this is.

To use an analogy I used earlier, is there not more than one way to tell that it is raining outside? Can you not know that it is raining outside until you stand outside and feel the rain hit you? Or are you only satisfied it is raining when you can see the rain out of your window? Or if the weatherman tells you that it is raining? Now if you think that knocking out a guy that you deem to have a good chin is the best evidence then fine, although I don't really agree with that, but you cannot deny there is also other evidence and when you add all this evidence together it gives weight to a particular conclusion.

I'm sure in your mind, you genuinely think that this is a good comparison.

I don't know if that' sad or funny.

[Humean]

The Ring Magazine have been go-to rankings for years.

The sanctioning bodies rankings are almost meaningless being ranked in the Top 10 with a sanctioning body doesn't make you "World ranked" other than on Paper which I suppose helps your laughable argument.

If sanctioning bodies are how you consider a guy a world ranked fighter than the guy Klitschko is fighting next would be considered "World ranked".

Like I said in the other post, Amir Khan was "World ranked" at 147 before he'd even had a fight at 147

I already explained the reasons for saying 'world ranked' and why that meant 'relevant sanctioning body'. Maybe less laughing and more reading?

Demarco is a durable guy. He's just not that durable.

Because if he was truly durable enough for your standards he'd not have been stopped by both Valero and Broner? I'm not sure how you cannot see the circularity of your reasoning here.

So basing off your "evidence" then (Watching the punch and has the guy got a lot of KO's ) then Wilder and Broner ARE great punchers then. Especially Broner.

Is it fair to say that you think Broner is one of the greatest punchers of all time at both 130 and 135?

I mean, all the "evidence" is clearly there.

He looks like a hard puncher. Check.

He knocked out almost everyone he fought at 130 and 135 and a lot of those were early. Check

Sparring partner's say that he's a hard puncher. Check.

Therefore the "Evidence" suggest he's one of the greatest punchers at 130 and 135 in history. That's fair, yes?

He also legitimately stopped Demarco something one of the hardest punchers ever couldn't do and a round earlier.

Let's not forget he stopped Gavin Rees (Only stopped twice including Broner therefore must be durable) and quite a few guys that I'd say were better than the guys Valero fought

Again you can laugh but you obviously aren't reading and understanding, surely I have presented the evidence that any rational person would use to ascertain whether a fighter was a hard and great puncher. How is it even remotely comical to use your eyes and senses to determine punching power on film?

Broner might be a great puncher, quite possibly, perhaps in a few years time I will argue for that (and not solely from the basis that he might knock out someone with a good chin). I don't think Broner was as big a puncher at 130 and 135 as Valero though. Again the idea that Broner was a big puncher at 130 and 135 is quite clear but because of your strange reasoning there is something impossible about that making him a great puncher.

I'm sure in your mind, you genuinely think that this is a good comparison.

I don't know if that' sad or funny.

It is a good comparison, you are being very dense here.

[New England]

valero is one of the hardest punchers ever. have you seen that record!?!

keep digging.
here's a shovel:

[IronDanHamza]

I already explained the reasons for saying 'world ranked' and why that meant 'relevant sanctioning body'. Maybe less laughing and more reading?

Oh I read it. It's just ****** and more a cop out on your part to defend your idea that knocking guys out in world title fights is automatically relevant.

Because if he was truly durable enough for your standards he'd not have been stopped by both Valero and Broner? I'm not sure how you cannot see the circularity of your reasoning here.

What are you saying here? That Demarco is an overly durable guy?

Again you can laugh but you obviously aren't reading and understanding, surely I have presented the evidence that any rational person would use to ascertain whether a fighter was a hard and great puncher. How is it even remotely comical to use your eyes and senses to determine punching power on film?

Again I'm absolutely reading and understanding it's just comical.

You think that looking at a fighters punch can determine if he's a great puncher. Oh, as long as he get KO's and there sparring partners so he can punch hard aswell, of course.

Broner might be a great puncher, quite possibly, perhaps in a few years time I will argue for that (and not solely from the basis that he might knock out someone with a good chin). I don't think Broner was as big a puncher at 130 and 135 as Valero though. Again the idea that Broner was a big puncher at 130 and 135 is quite clear but because of your strange reasoning there is something impossible about that making him a great puncher.

Well, there you go.

A few years?? Why do you need a few years??

The "evidence" is all there isn't it? For Broner? All the evidence you need in your eyes for him to be a "great" puncher is all there.

1. He looks like he hits hard
2. He's knocked out almost everyone he's fought at 130-135 (Including world ranked fighters)
3. His sparring partners say he punches hard.

What else do you need?

It is a good comparison, you are being very dense here.

Oh yes, of course.

That's truley a spectacular comparison.

Determining whether it is raining outside is oh so similar to determining if a fighter is a great puncher.

Yeah, it's definitely more sad than funny at this point.

[IronDanHamza]

valero is one of the hardest punchers ever. have you seen that record!?!

keep digging.
here's a shovel:

Jaime Garza
Adrien Broner
Deontay Wilder

GREAT punchers.

Check out the "Evidence"

Ali Raymi likely a future ATG puncher based on the Evidence aswell don't forget.

1. Looks like he punches hard. Check
2. 20 1 Round KO's in a row. Check

That's two critiera of the evidence checked already.

All he needs now is some sparring testimonials and it's damn near irrefutable scientific evidence.

[Humean]

Oh I read it. It's just ****** and more a cop out on your part to defend your idea that knocking guys out in world title fights is automatically relevant.

The relevance was that they weren't bums and journeymen.

What are you saying here? That Demarco is an overly durable guy?

I'm saying that your reasoning is circular. DeMarco has fought only two bona fide world class opponents in Valero and Broner and been stopped by both. By your own reasoning that renders him not durable but this is circular reasoning. It is fallacious.

Again I'm absolutely reading and understand it's just comical.

You think that looking at a fighters punch can determine if he's a great puncher. Oh, as long as he get KO's and there sparring partners so he can punch hard aswell, of course.

Looking at the impact of his punches is of course strong evidence of punching power. I honestly don't understand how that is comical to you.

Well, there you go.

A few years?? Why do you need a few years??

The "evidence" is all there isn't it? For Broner? All the evidence you need in your eyes for him to be a "great" puncher is all there.

1. He looks like he hits hard
2. He's knocked out almost everyone he's fought at 130-135 (Including world ranked fighters)
3. His sparring partners say he punches hard.

What else do you need?

There might be a lot of evidence left to come because his career is still in full swing, how could I evaluate Broner without considering what evidence the future may have? The evidence at present does suggest Broner was a very formidable puncher at 130 and 135.

Oh yes, of course.

That's truley a spectacular comparison.

Determining whether it is raining outside is oh so similar to determining if a fighter is a great puncher.

Yeah, it's definitely more sad than funny at this point.

It is, it involves the taking and evaluating of evidence and reasoning. Your argument is roughly equivalent of saying that you can only know that it is raining outside if only one piece of evidence is forthcoming, that all the other ways to know it is raining outside are irrelevant.

[Humean]

Jaime Garza
Adrien Broner
Deontay Wilder

GREAT punchers.

Check out the "Evidence"

Ali Raymi likely a future ATG puncher based on the Evidence aswell don't forget.

1. Looks like he punches hard. Check
2. 20 1 Round KO's in a row. Check

That's two critiera of the evidence checked already.

All he needs now is some sparring testimonials and it's damn near irrefutable scientific evidence.

You are only making yourself look ****** here.

[IronDanHamza]

You are only making yourself look ****** here.

The irony!!

[New England]

You are only making yourself look ****** here.

dude, you said edwin valero is one of the hardest punchers of all time. not of the past few years, not of his era, but of all time. what on earth makes you think you're qualified to judge boxing knowledge of others when yours is so clearly lacking?


the confidence with which you make a fool of yourself is astounding.