How hard does Danny hit?

[scap]

Well it's impossible to say for sure, but it's something that's fun to debate. One of the greatest things about boxing is that it's a relatively subjective sport. There is always going to be lot of speculation because it is so raw and informal compared to football, baseball and the rest. Think of all the unique boxing styles different fighters have developed. Watching Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali (Or Sullivan and Corbett, Dempsey and Tunney, etc.) fight one another , you'd think they were raised on different planets. Completely different theories of combat. With so much variation in style can we really predict who could have beaten who? We have a hard enough time predicting results of fights happening now, in an era we are living through. Do you suggest we stop making these historical matchup threads just because it's impossible to get an answer?


So, can we know for sure who punches harder than the other? Probably not, but it is a lot of fun trying to figure it out.

Take Tyson for example. A lot of people think he was one of the hardest hitting heavyweights of all time. I don't, because after watching his performances, I was always left with the impression that his handspeed was just as much a factor as his punching power. Can you really even try to compare him to Foreman, who had much slower hands and yet had so much raw power that he was still able to KO a greater number of higher caliber boxers than Tyson?

Check boxrec.com and you'll see that a lot of Mike's KO's were only TKO's. I consider that too when assessing him.

Another factor I take into account is insider opinion. I recall an interview with Peter McNeely who claimed that Tyson was the quickest boxer he ever fought, but he wasn't the hardest puncher.

One a seperate but related note, I recall a quote from a guy who sparred with Marciano and Louis who remarked that the Rock definitely hit much harder than Louis. Walcott said the same thing. That's a big part of the reason that I rank Marciano as a harder (but not better) puncher than Louis.

So I would say that these type of threads aren't useless. If you call this thread bull****, you may as well say the same about any thread where a question is asked that there is no sure answer to. All of those historical matchups would also be bull**** by that logic.

And if there was a sure answer, why should there even be a thread? You could just direct the querier to a website where they could read the answer. Every question asked would have one or two brief responses. Imagine if the only questions allowed were things with definite answers like "How much did Ali weigh versus Frazier in their first fight?" or "What year did Frank Bruno retire?" There would be no debate, no hypothetical questions asked, no analysis of statistics, and no imagination required. In sum it up, it would be a boring forum.

You present some good stuff here but the initial thread is not quite what you describe...sure we can argue who hits harderJoe Louis or Mike Tyson, but to straight up say does Joe Louis hit hard is kinda dumb, of course he hits hard, of course Williams hits hard...phrase it differently...and It would be more tolerable...point is these threads come out too frequently in my mind...but your reply was very intelligent and reasonable people disagree all of the time, now I leave you with the words of an old friend named Walter Socheck, he said "And a good day to you sir."

[scap]

Oh there are different definitions of power, you say Tyson's hand speed was the biggest factor in his punching power...I think handspeed is a huge reason why power is power..Foreman's power was a different kind of power...

Ya see this is the kind of argument or thread that is productive, just like you were leading on about...if I say Mike Tyson hits hard, thats dumb, George Foreman hits hard, thats dumd-we can disagree but your still smart.

[Tyson_Bit_Holyfields_Ear]

He doesn't hit particularly hard, but then again he's 270lbs.