Top 10 p4p hardest hitters of all time?

[FightFit]

A list of the biggest punchers in boxing history has as much potential for being contentious as a pound for pound ranking. Ko percentages,testimonies from past opponents,and highlight reels are all useful for narrowing the list down to finalists.
But in the end,subjective opinion is the deciding factor. Heres 3 names i read could be considered by reputation James Jeffries,Sam McVea,Max Baer.Non heavyweights who campaigned amongst the big boys with pretty fair success Bob Foster Archie Moore.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Nah...Humean is just oiling his shovel....yall stay tuned now ooookaaay?

Humean is a machine that will not stop... He will take this 90-100 pages long to prove that valero is one of the top 10 hardest punchers ever.....

Humean is like the terminator, and IronDan is John conner,, It will take a pipebomb and a vat of molten steel to slow down Humean

[greeh]

It will take a pipebomb and a vat of molten steel to slow down Humean

Either that or that he finally gets some common sense smacked into his head.

[New England]

Humean is a machine that will not stop... He will take this 90-100 pages long to prove that valero is one of the top 10 hardest punchers ever.....

Humean is like the terminator, and IronDan is John conner,, It will take a pipebomb and a vat of molten steel to slow down Humean

the terminator actually puts up a fight.


humean digs a hole and jumps into it

[jas]

Jimmy Wilde.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Jimmy Wilde.

I was wondering if some one was going to mention Wilde. He is an interesting mention since there is virtually no footage and he was turn of the century era. A lot of his ko's were in later rounds like ko 44,17,23 etc so it seems he won a lot of wars of attrition. Plus not sure how good most of his competition was. I know he fought a lot of the top guys but he did dodge a euro champ and gave up his title, not that it matters in terms of punching. I just don't know if he had that single punch power

[StarshipTrooper]

the terminator actually puts up a fight.


humean digs a hole and jumps into it

Only after he drops the soap in it first :chuckle9:

[Humean]

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.

If you think that i'm a fool then that is a great endorsement. Thank you.

Who has even said that?

They weren't all bums and journeyman but like I said however many posts ago a lot of them weren't ranked in both of his reigns.

Who?

It's easy to knock out a bunch of chinless bums out, that's not a display of all time great punching power. Valero couldn't dent the chin of punchbg Demarco (his toughest opponent), it's laughable to put him in the discussion.

It is obviously not just my posts you have failed to read properly.

It doesn't render him not durable because he took a beating in both fights by guys who can punch.

It's fallascious..So you consider him to be very durable then I can assume?

I'm not entirely sure quite how durable DeMarco is, i'd say pretty durable though, time might give better evidence of that.

Let me show you the circularity of your argument. DeMarco is apparently not durable for your criteria of what makes a fighter durable, why? Because he was stopped by both Broner and Valero. I say 'Broner and Valero are very big punchers' and the reason that that does not count for you is based upon the evidence that DeMarco was stopped by Broner and Valero, which to you doesn't indicate that either Broner or Valero are big punchers. Can you not see the logical circle here?

No, the evidence at present suggests he's a GREAT puncher (To you).

And why does future evidence matter? It's not a factor for Valero.

His stamp at 130 and 135 has been left.

The future matters because there is potentially more evidence to come in, Broner's display, or failure to display, power at welterweight may be evidence towards the sort of power he had at 130 and 135. If Broner can stop 147 pounders then that is some evidence of his power. The future is not a factor for Valero because he is dead.

The evidence at present suggests he's a great puncher (as in hardest hitting) to any rational person who can understand the relevant pieces of evidence. Now you actually acknowledge these other pieces of evidence, you even admitted that Valero was a big puncher but you keep asserting that because he did not stop anyone that you consider to have had a 'good' or great' chin that that renders him incapable of being considered a great puncher. Now unless you are equivocating on your meaning then this really makes no sense.

Here is one reason your argument is flawed, you are once again reasoning in a circle. Valero is not a great puncher because he did not knock out anyone with a 'good' or great' chin but how do you distinguish between a fighter with a 'good or 'great' chin and a fighter who doesn't have one? Either you use the sorts of evidence I am usng to determine a great puncher to determine whether a fighter has a 'good' or 'great' chin and if so then you have no reason to dismiss the same criteria in regards to big punchers. Or you are back in your circle because the criteria to determine who has a 'good' or 'great' chin is determined by how well they take the punches of genuine big or great punchers. But how do you determine who is a great or big puncher? By if they knocked out someone with a 'good' or 'great' chin. Logical circle!

Again, because knowing if it's raining outside is the same as knowing if a fighter is a great puncher.

In your mind, that's genuinely a good comparison.

Are you honestly not able to understand this? I refuse to believe you are not intelligent enough.

What we have here, sadly, is the guy wearing the Dunce hat thinks that everyone else is a Dunce.

Intriguing watch, though.

I do think you are being a dunce, unfortunately the people who are backing you up don't exactly have the sharpest minds either.

You have ****phobic New England who will delight you with his tremendous grasp of the differences between heterosexual and ****sexual sex and its ramifications for the passing on of genes.

Then you have Billeau2 who likes to call me ****** for stating blatantly obvious facts and does so in a wash of largely incoherent prose.

Then RubenSonny who loves to state the same thing repeatedly but when you ask him for the evidence for his claim he conveniently cannot provide it.

And to top it off you have Poet who is an angry man with borderline personality disorder.

If the determination of truth was a matter of democracy then you'd win the debate, thankfully it is not.

Anyway I have had more than enough of this forum as it is a cesspool of irrationality. 95% of the time it is like arguing with a child, or worse, a pet.

[LacedUp]

If you think that i'm a fool then that is a great endorsement. Thank you.



Who?


It is obviously not just my posts you have failed to read properly.



I'm not entirely sure quite how durable DeMarco is, i'd say pretty durable though, time might give better evidence of that.

Let me show you the circularity of your argument. DeMarco is apparently not durable for your criteria of what makes a fighter durable, why? Because he was stopped by both Broner and Valero. I say 'Broner and Valero are very big punchers' and the reason that that does not count for you is based upon the evidence that DeMarco was stopped by Broner and Valero, which to you doesn't indicate that either Broner or Valero are big punchers. Can you not see the logical circle here?



The future matters because there is potentially more evidence to come in, Broner's display, or failure to display, power at welterweight may be evidence towards the sort of power he had at 130 and 135. If Broner can stop 147 pounders then that is some evidence of his power. The future is not a factor for Valero because he is dead.

The evidence at present suggests he's a great puncher (as in hardest hitting) to any rational person who can understand the relevant pieces of evidence. Now you actually acknowledge these other pieces of evidence, you even admitted that Valero was a big puncher but you keep asserting that because he did not stop anyone that you consider to have had a 'good' or great' chin that that renders him incapable of being considered a great puncher. Now unless you are equivocating on your meaning then this really makes no sense.

Here is one reason your argument is flawed, you are once again reasoning in a circle. Valero is not a great puncher because he did not knock out anyone with a 'good' or great' chin but how do you distinguish between a fighter with a 'good or 'great' chin and a fighter who doesn't have one? Either you use the sorts of evidence I am usng to determine a great puncher to determine whether a fighter has a 'good' or 'great' chin and if so then you have no reason to dismiss the same criteria in regards to big punchers. Or you are back in your circle because the criteria to determine who has a 'good' or 'great' chin is determined by how well they take the punches of genuine big or great punchers. But how do you determine who is a great or big puncher? By if they knocked out someone with a 'good' or 'great' chin. Logical circle!



Are you honestly not able to understand this? I refuse to believe you are not intelligent enough.



I do think you are being a dunce, unfortunately the people who are backing you up don't exactly have the sharpest minds either.

You have ****phobic New England who will delight you with his tremendous grasp of the differences between heterosexual and ****sexual sex and its ramifications for the passing on of genes.

Then you have Billeau2 who likes to call me ****** for stating blatantly obvious facts and does so in a wash of largely incoherent prose.

Then RubenSonny who loves to state the same thing repeatedly but when you ask him for the evidence for his claim he conveniently cannot provide it.

And to top it off you have Poet who is an angry man with borderline personality disorder.

If the determination of truth was a matter of democracy then you'd win the debate, thankfully it is not.

Anyway I have had more than enough of this forum as it is a cesspool of irrationality. 95% of the time it is like arguing with a child, or worse, a pet.

Humean, this is the history section.

Take that stuff to NSB.

You are arguing with some of the most respected and knowledgable posters on this forum, who have followed boxing history for years.

Don't get childish if they don't agree with you.

[New England]

"i thought edwin valero was one of the hardest punchers ever. i was wrong.

i quit!"