Who are your top 5 hardest hitters at HW?

[Sun_Tzu]

Not taking away from Shavers power, but gloves can be faulty. Should we put Ali in the same category or close because he ripped his glove hitting Cooper?

You could if he had actually ripped it on Cooper instead of Angelo cutting it.

[jiopsi]

Earnie SHavers had even heavier hands surely? Burst a glove, no ones ever done that, almost KOed Ali had him wobbled, Foreman couldnt wobble Ali, everyone that fought both said shavers hit harder, guys liek Ali beat both and said shavers hit harder so he had no reason to lie

James Tillis says Tyson hit harder than Shavers

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=386241

Shavers didn't KD Tillis, Tyson did.
Shavers didn't KO Holmes, Tyson did.

[Scott9945]

Statistics are great for baseball. In boxing they mean very little considering all the variables.

[JAB5239]

You could if he had actually ripped it on Cooper instead of Angelo cutting it.

He did, Angelo just helpeď it along when he got back to the corner. So I guess we know have to consider Ali one of the hardest hitting heavyweights ever because he busted a glove in a fight. Or maybe we can just say these things can happen from time to time and it really proves nothing.

[billeau2]

Statistics are great for baseball. In boxing they mean very little considering all the variables.

Its interesting to note the revolution in statistics that happened in baseball. I foget the guy who wrote the book Money Ball but he came out of the Oakland A's organization. the A's were an incredible team. Individually they were not stacked with all stars, rather they had certain relevent skills...which could be characterized as performing in the clutch. This team won two world series, their consistancy was amazing.

When we deconstruct the idea of hitting and pitching in the clutch we actually get meaningful statistical correlations. And this was the beginning of reassessing statistical information in baseball. Things like on base percentage became relevant...a clutch hitter finds a way, often enough, to get on base when it is most needed. And instead of strikeouts things like how a pitcher got a batter out became more relevent. So a guy like Sparky Lyle, a great Yankee reliever from my childhood, the seventies, did not strike out guys as much as a guy like Rivierra, but because of his slider he got guys to hit the ball on the ground. This often caused double plays because the liklihood of what will happen when a ball is hit on the ground, i.e. there is like a 20% chance it will get hit past the infield...good odds! specially when there is another man on base.

But yeah statistics are indeed the lifeblood of baseball. In boxing they can be relevent, but they do have to be tempered with common sense and with understanding circumstances. I think in this case, we could use these stats IF one were to divide the field into guys who fought a certain normative amount of rounds. Then, divide the field of these guys according to competition...there are ways to do this, for example: the average amount of wins, ko's, losses of their opponents, along with a measure of opponent's rank (taking an average of how opponents ranked at the time) etc.

And then one can extrapolate on the things known at the time, like was it a weak era? a strong era? where there a lot of seasoned challengers? etc.

It is more of a challenge to apply stats to boxing thats for sure.

[Scott9945]

Its interesting to note the revolution in statistics that happened in baseball. I foget the guy who wrote the book Money Ball but he came out of the Oakland A's organization. the A's were an incredible team. Individually they were not stacked with all stars, rather they had certain relevent skills...which could be characterized as performing in the clutch. This team won two world series, their consistancy was amazing.

When we deconstruct the idea of hitting and pitching in the clutch we actually get meaningful statistical correlations. And this was the beginning of reassessing statistical information in baseball. Things like on base percentage became relevant...a clutch hitter finds a way, often enough, to get on base when it is most needed. And instead of strikeouts things like how a pitcher got a batter out became more relevent. So a guy like Sparky Lyle, a great Yankee reliever from my childhood, the seventies, did not strike out guys as much as a guy like Rivierra, but because of his slider he got guys to hit the ball on the ground. This often caused double plays because the liklihood of what will happen when a ball is hit on the ground, i.e. there is like a 20% chance it will get hit past the infield...good odds! specially when there is another man on base.

But yeah statistics are indeed the lifeblood of baseball. In boxing they can be relevent, but they do have to be tempered with common sense and with understanding circumstances. I think in this case, we could use these stats IF one were to divide the field into guys who fought a certain normative amount of rounds. Then, divide the field of these guys according to competition...there are ways to do this, for example: the average amount of wins, ko's, losses of their opponents, along with a measure of opponent's rank (taking an average of how opponents ranked at the time) etc.

And then one can extrapolate on the things known at the time, like was it a weak era? a strong era? where there a lot of seasoned challengers? etc.

It is more of a challenge to apply stats to boxing thats for sure.

The most basic difference is that you get a consistent quality level in baseball. It's all measured against MLB talent.

Many boxers (even the elite) compete against "minor league" talent. That alone compromises any early KO statistics.

[billeau2]

The most basic difference is that you get a consistent quality level in baseball. It's all measured against MLB talent.

Many boxers (even the elite) compete against "minor league" talent. That alone compromises any early KO statistics.

Thats another interesting point.

The NFL has coopted the university system in this country and made a farm system...ditto for basketball. baseball does have a legitimate farm system, one that has the virtue of being self sufficient to a large extent. With football there are some who even appreciate the college game more but in all the above cases there is indeed a clear line indicating the levels of talent.

With boxing we have olympic and amateur levels but there is much less clarity where one can say an individual has crossed a threshhold to a professional level.

I think the real problem is that consistancy would dictate that all boxers have a similar amount of various opponents and that is not the case. So yes, in this respect it does appear that one is comparing apples to oranges.

[billeau2]

He did, Angelo just helpeď it along when he got back to the corner. So I guess we know have to consider Ali one of the hardest hitting heavyweights ever because he busted a glove in a fight. Or maybe we can just say these things can happen from time to time and it really proves nothing.

Actually when ole Elroy was showing the fellows his George Foreman like punches he also ripped a glove.... And this was even without the fellows holding the bag!!

[AlexKid]

You guys are basically calling Ali a liar, or a dumb-ass. You are also calling a load of other boxers liars. You also claim superiority in knowledge to them when they boxed all their life and were in the ring with shavers and foreman.

I tell you if these boxers are all liars they are DAMN good liars/actors, congruent, no resistance of emotions its like they were exactly telling the truth.

Earnie hits hardest and you guys r just trolling me because you know im his fan.

[Anthony342]

Statistics are great for baseball. In boxing they mean very little considering all the variables.

There's even a term in statistics called lurking variables that try to account for things that don't always show up right away in statistical analysis.