My top 55 heavyweight punchers

[Mendoza]

My 55 hardest heavyweight punchers in a mostly chorological order.

The criteria are mix of the following.

1 ) Guys who I saw hitting fighters or heavy bags on video with great force. KO's in non-heavyweight divsions do not count.

2 ) Guys with high knockout out percentage in their wins, and guys who stopped hard to KO/TKO fighters.

3) Guys with numerous testimonials about their punching power, key for those with limited or no film.

The 55 hardest punchers:


1. Sullivan
2. Fitzsimmons
3. Maher
4. Slavin
5. T. Shakrey
6. Jeffries
7. McVey
8. Langford
9. Wills
10. Willard
11. Fulton
12. Dempsey
13. G. Godfrey
14. Fripo
15. Schmeling
16. J. Louis
17. M. Baer
18. B Baer
19. C. Williams
20. Ray
21. Marciano
22. Patterson
23. Johansson
24. Liston
25. Frazier
26. Foreman
27. Shavers
28. Lyle
29. Norton
30. Witherspoon
31. Cooney
32. Page
33 Coetzee
34. J Smith
35. Tyson
36. Bruno
37. Tucker
38. Ruddock
39. Bowe
40. Morrison
41 Morrer
42. Briggs
43. Ibebuchi
44. Tua
45. C. Sanders
46. Hide
47. L. Lewis
48. McCall
49 Rhaman
50 Maskeav
51. V Klitschko
52. W Klitschko
53. Brewster
54. Peter
55. Virchis

Should anyone else be in? I am a bit iffy on Maher, Slavin, Ray, Norton, and Tucker. I slightly more sold on Schemling, and Hide but neither have a firm spot yet. Since this was my first time through it is likely I missed a few names for sure. Who would you add in and who would you take out?

[janitor]

Bob Satterfield should be in but you probably just forgott him.

Tommy Gomez perhaps deserves consideration for a spot.

[C. M. Clay II]

My 55 hardest heavyweight punchers in a mostly chorological order.

The criteria are mix of the following.

1 ) Guys who I saw hitting fighters or heavy bags on video with great force. KO's in non-heavyweight divsions do not count.

2 ) Guys with high knockout out percentage in their wins, and guys who stopped hard to KO/TKO fighters.

3) Guys with numerous testimonials about their punching power, key for those with limited or no film.

The 55 hardest punchers:


1. Sullivan
2. Fitzsimmons
3. Maher
4. Slavin
5. T. Shakrey
6. Jeffries
7. McVey
8. Langford
9. Wills
10. Willard
11. Fulton
12. Dempsey
13. G. Godfrey
14. Fripo
15. Schmeling
16. J. Louis
17. M. Baer
18. B Baer
19. C. Williams
20. Ray
21. Marciano
22. Patterson
23. Johansson
24. Liston
25. Frazier
26. Foreman
27. Shavers
28. Lyle
29. Norton
30. Witherspoon
31. Cooney
32. Page
33 Coetzee
34. J Smith
35. Tyson
36. Bruno
37. Tucker
38. Ruddock
39. Bowe
40. Morrison
41 Morrer
42. Briggs
43. Ibebuchi
44. Tua
45. C. Sanders
46. Hide
47. L. Lewis
48. McCall
49 Rhaman
50 Maskeav
51. V Klitschko
52. W Klitschko
53. Brewster
54. Peter
55. Virchis

Should anyone else be in? I am a bit iffy on Maher, Slavin, Ray, Norton, and Tucker. I slightly more sold on Schemling, and Hide but neither have a firm spot yet. Since this was my first time through it is likely I missed a few names for sure. Who would you add in and who would you take out?

Nice joke.

[Mendoza]

Bob Satterfield should be in but you probably just forgott him.

Tommy Gomez perhaps deserves consideration for a spot.

I will think about Satterfield. The reputation is there, but his KO % is a bit low even in wins, and who did he really KO on flim?

[Mendoza]

Nice joke.

Gee thanks. My top 55 KO's that might have been dives might be next. Not to worry, you're boy will make the cut.

[OLD FOGEY]

My 55 hardest heavyweight punchers in a mostly chorological order.

The criteria are mix of the following.

1 ) Guys who I saw hitting fighters or heavy bags on video with great force. KO's in non-heavyweight divsions do not count.

2 ) Guys with high knockout out percentage in their wins, and guys who stopped hard to KO/TKO fighters.

3) Guys with numerous testimonials about their punching power, key for those with limited or no film.

The 55 hardest punchers:


1. Sullivan
2. Fitzsimmons
3. Maher
4. Slavin
5. T. Shakrey
6. Jeffries
7. McVey
8. Langford
9. Wills
10. Willard
11. Fulton
12. Dempsey
13. G. Godfrey
14. Fripo
15. Schmeling
16. J. Louis
17. M. Baer
18. B Baer
19. C. Williams
20. Ray
21. Marciano
22. Patterson
23. Johansson
24. Liston
25. Frazier
26. Foreman
27. Shavers
28. Lyle
29. Norton
30. Witherspoon
31. Cooney
32. Page
33 Coetzee
34. J Smith
35. Tyson
36. Bruno
37. Tucker
38. Ruddock
39. Bowe
40. Morrison
41 Morrer
42. Briggs
43. Ibebuchi
44. Tua
45. C. Sanders
46. Hide
47. L. Lewis
48. McCall
49 Rhaman
50 Maskeav
51. V Klitschko
52. W Klitschko
53. Brewster
54. Peter
55. Virchis

Should anyone else be in? I am a bit iffy on Maher, Slavin, Ray, Norton, and Tucker. I slightly more sold on Schemling, and Hide but neither have a firm spot yet. Since this was my first time through it is likely I missed a few names for sure. Who would you add in and who would you take out?

Turkey Thompson was a bigger hitter than Ray. Satterfield should be on this list. I would have to say generally, you gravitate toward high knockout percentages against second raters rather than stopping top
men when you reach down to the iffy level.

[OLD FOGEY]

I will think about Satterfield. The reputation is there, but his KO % is a bit low even in wins, and who did he really KO on flim?

Bob Baker--it is on youtube

What exactly is the issue, though. How many men did Sullivan, Slavin, and Sharkey stop on film.

[Mendoza]

Turkey Thompson was a bigger hitter than Ray. Satterfield should be on this list. I would have to say generally, you gravitate toward high knockout percentages against second raters rather than stopping top
men when you reach down to the iffy level.

I think Thompson has a real chance to make the cut. I forgot about him. The trouble is there is no flim on Turkey that I have seen. I have read some on Thompson, and he was down a bit more than you think and had some stmaina issues. Maybe Thompson hit that had, but was just wild. Hard to tell for sure.

Maybe Satterfield, but if you add him in, you have to take someone else out. I might just extend the list to 60 if I feel there isn't a huge drop off.

[janitor]

I will think about Satterfield. The reputation is there, but his KO % is a bit low even in wins, and who did he really KO on flim?

Well consider that Bob Bakers only other stopage loss was to Clarence Henry in the 8th round then look at what Satterfield did to him.

[OLD FOGEY]

I think Thompson has a real chance to make the cut. I forgot about him. The trouble is there is no flim on Turkey that I have seen. I have read some on Thompson, and he was down a bit more than you think and had some stmaina issues. Maybe Thompson hit that had, but was just wild. Hard to tell for sure.

Maybe Satterfield, but if you add him in, you have to take someone else out.

Why is film so important? So no one filmed Thompson. No one filmed Slavin or Fulton either, and they are on your list. I don't understand.

"he was down a bit more than you think"
What is the point? I thought you were judging punchers as punchers.

I would take either Thompson or Satterfield over Ray.
Also, you are way too modern loaded. You should check the top five ratings for Ring and weed out a few guys who didn't stop top men very often.

[Mendoza]

Well consider that Bob Bakers only other stopage loss was to Clarence Henry in the 8th round then look at what Satterfield did to him.

Ok, Satterfield in the cut of 55-60.

[Mendoza]

Why is film so important? So no one filmed Thompson. No one filmed Slavin or Fulton either, and they are on your list. I don't understand.

"he was down a bit more than you think"
What is the point? I thought you were judging punchers as punchers.

I would take either Thompson or Satterfield over Ray.
Also, you are way too modern loaded. You should check the top five ratings for Ring and weed out a few guys who didn't stop top men very often.

Film lets us judge for ourselves. In the case of no film available, testimonials, KO percentages, and stopping durable fighters can compensate.

Thompson over Ray? Maybe. I will ask someone who knows these two well but does not post here. Thompson was a brawler, who forced gusy to fight. If he was down and gassed more than you think, perhaps his power wasn't enough to prevent him from looking bad or winning rounds based on guys fearing him.

Ring Magazine ratings have little to do with pure punchers, though knocking out fighters who were ring rated means something in the context of building the thread.

IMO, Modern fighters tend to hit harder and produce more KO’s, though top punchers can be found in any decade on this list from 1880-present.

I am leaning toward extending the list to 60 to make room for Thompson and Satterfield.

[OLD FOGEY]

Better consider Mac Foster. Probably a bigger hitter than Hyde for example--Ko'd Folley, Williams, Spencer, Rischer, and has high ko %.

[Mendoza]

Better consider Mac Foster. Probably a bigger hitter than Hyde for example--Ko'd Folley, Williams, Spencer, Rischer, and has high ko %.

I forgot him too! I saw Mac Foster vs Jerry Quarry. I did not think Foster was a big hitter in that particualr match, but you're right, he does has a good KO % and did take out some top rated guys.

Ok, so Satterfield, Thompson, and M Foster are in the top 60 cut. 2 more to go to make it to 60. If I forgot some guys from 1950-1880, speak up. I might add Choynski.

[OLD FOGEY]

I forgot him too! I saw Mac Foster vs Jerry Quarry. I did not think Foster was a big hitter in that particualr match, but you're right, he does has a good KO % and did take out some top rated guys.

Ok, so Satterfield, Thompson, and M Foster are in the top 60 cut. 2 more to go to make it to 60. If I forgot some guys from 1950-1880, speak up. I might add Choynski.

Charles and Moore should rate way ahead of Choynski. Charles stopped twelve rated heavyweights. Moore nine, and each stopped bigger men also.

[janitor]

Charles and Moore should rate way ahead of Choynski. Charles stopped twelve rated heavyweights. Moore nine, and each stopped bigger men also.

Not so sure personaly.

The thing that comes across about Choynski is that you only had to blink and you were on queer street even if you did outweigh him by 30 lbs.

I think that he might well have been the hardest puncher of his weight ever.

[radianttwilight]

Do people really not see the joke here...?

[Mendoza]

Not so sure personaly.

The thing that comes across about Choynski is that you only had to blink and you were on queer street even if you did outweigh him by 30 lbs.

I think that he might well have been the hardest puncher of his weight ever.

Choynski is a maybe. I think he hit hard, but if he hit that hard, he should have more knockouts. I don't think Charels belongs on all time puncher's list. Charels has a lowly 43.96%, and many of his stoppages were below heavyweight.

[janitor]

[quote=Mendoza]Choynski is a maybe. I think he hit hard, but if he hit that hard, he should have more knockouts.

Choynski is a fighter where the record misleads.

There are a lot of fights on his record that he should have won, but are listed as losses, or draws. He is in my opinion one of the most handcuffed fighters of all time.

I don't think Charels belongs on al all time puncher's list. Charels has a lowly lowly 43.96%, and many of his stoppages were below heavyweight.

Knockout % can be more misleading than informative. A fighter with a high % over a career is generaly a puncher even if he fought a lot of weak opponents.

A fighter with a low % might well be a puncher depending on circumstances.

[OLD FOGEY]

Not so sure personaly.

The thing that comes across about Choynski is that you only had to blink and you were on queer street even if you did outweigh him by 30 lbs.

I think that he might well have been the hardest puncher of his weight ever.

No doubt about hardest puncher for his weight but his weight was 165.
Charles and Moore were eventually much bigger.

[Muchmoore]

Do people really not see the joke here...?

:lol: :good

[radianttwilight]

:lol: :good

The instant I see Sullivan at the top of any list involving gloves I'm onto something :lol:

That is, unless he's being listed as the first lineal gloves HW champion!

[brooklyn1550]

Do people really not see the joke here...?

I noticed it immediately:lol:

[Mendoza]

janitor

Choynski is a fighter where the record misleads.

There are a lot of fights on his record that he should have won, but are listed as losses, or draws. He is in my opinion one of the most handcuffed fighters of all time.

In which fights was Choynski handcuffed in? Are you suggesting Choynski fought not to win? They way I see it, he did not deleiver the KO blow in too many fights where he lost, won the decsion, or drew.


Knockout % can be more misleading than informative. A fighter with a high % over a career is generaly a puncher even if he fought a lot of weak opponents. A fighter with a low % might well be a puncher.

In most cases the heavies who are the best punchers have both a high KO% and have knocked out previsouly ranked guys. In most cases the heavies who can't punch have lower KO% and don't knock out many prevsiouly ranked guys.

[janitor]

No doubt about hardest puncher for his weight but his weight was 165.
Charles and Moore were eventually much bigger.

If you look at the period between Sullivan and Dempsey most of the greatest heavyweight finishers were small fighters.

Joe Choynski, Bob Fitzsimmons, Sam Langford were blowing away the big heavyweights better than any big man. Perhaps in some cases better than any big man since.

What was going on with these guys?

[OLD FOGEY]

Choynski is a maybe. I think he hit hard, but if he hit that hard, he should have more knockouts. I don't think Charels belongs on all time puncher's list. Charels has a lowly 43.96%, and many of his stoppages were below heavyweight.

I don't see the point with Choynski compared to Charles and Moore:

According to the Boxing Register

Choynski----------25 ko's in 79 fights 32%

Charles-----------51 ko's in 115 fights 44%

Moore------------130 ko's in 219 fights 59%

Charles and Moore did fight below heavyweight but both continued to score knockouts at heavyweight and Choynski also fought often below heavyweight.

[Mendoza]

The instant I see Sullivan at the top of any list involving gloves I'm onto something :lol:

That is, unless he's being listed as the first lineal gloves HW champion!
Um, I said the list is in chronological order, not ascending, alphabetical, my ranking, or descending order. Do you understand the difference? I will try to resist the urge to :lol: at those attempting to sabotage what was intended to be a classical boxing discussion.


If you understand what chronological order means than you will know why I listed Sullivan first. I have seen enough testimonials on Sullivan to conclude he was a good puncher. Not a top 10 or top 20 all time puncher in my order, but good enough to rate on this list for sure.

[janitor]

[quote=Mendoza]In which fights was Choynski handcuffed in? Are you suggesting Choynski fought not to win?

No I am suggesting that he was often forced by contract to fight under absurd conditions like that he would automaticaly loose if it went to the cards, was often the victim of blatantly biased referreing such as prolonged counts.

Taking it all into acount Choynski might just be the most shafted fighter in history.

No mean feat for a white guy.


They way I see it, he did not deleiver the KO blow in too many fights where he lost, won the decsion, or drew.


Consider the quality of opposition he fought and the weight he often gave up. Then look at what actualy happened in those fights.


In most cases the heavies who are the best punchers have both a high KO% and have knocked out previsouly ranked guys. In most cases the heavies who can't punch have lower KO% and don't knock out many prevsiouly ranked guys.


In general terms yes.

There are important caveats however.

Your knockout percentage falls off quickly when you step up in competition so fighters like Tony Canzoneri who have a high number of fights against top men likley have lower knockout percentages.

Fighters from earlier eras tend to have lower knockout percentages because-

A. Their records are incomplete and the main part missing is the padding.

B. TKOs were harder to obtain.

[Mendoza]

I don't see the point with Choynski compared to Charles and Moore:

According to the Boxing Register

Choynski----------25 ko's in 79 fights 32%

Charles-----------51 ko's in 115 fights 44%

Moore------------130 ko's in 219 fights 59%

Charles and Moore did fight below heavyweight but both continued to score knockouts at heavyweight and Choynski also fought often below heavyweight.

Choynski always fought at heavyweight. There was no light heavy weight divison for him when he was in his prime.

I am iffy on Choynski. As for Charles and Moore, what are their KO% in heavyweight only fights.

[radianttwilight]

Um, I said the list is in chronological order, not ascending, alphabetical, my ranking, or descending order. Do you understand the difference? I will try to resist the urge to :lol: at those attempting to sabotage what was intended to be a classical boxing discussion.


If you understand what chronological order means than you will know why I listed Sullivan first. I have seen enough testimonials on Sullivan to conclude he was a good puncher. Not a top 10 or top 20 all time puncher in my order, but good enough to rate on this list for sure.

My mistake? This is the first time I've ever seen a "chronological" heavyweight puncher list.

[OLD FOGEY]

In which fights was Choynski handcuffed in? Are you suggesting Choynski fought not to win? They way I see it, he did not deleiver the KO blow in too many fights where he lost, won the decsion, or drew.



In most cases the heavies who are the best punchers have both a high KO% and have knocked out previsouly ranked guys. In most cases the heavies who can't punch have lower KO% and don't knock out many prevsiouly ranked guys.

"the heavies who can't punch have lower KO's and don't knock out many previously ranked guys"

Just not necessarily true. Many men with high ko percentages such as Sharkey, Firpo, and Buddy Baer, did not knock out many top men who were rated or would have been rated if there had been ratings. Men like Moore, Charles, Savold, Satterfield, etc ko'd many more ranked fighters in their eras. Charles, for example, ko'd Bivins, Ray, Baksi, Valentino, Beshore, Oma, Layne, Kahut, Reynolds, Harrison, Wallace, and Satterfield, as well as Moore and Lesnevich, all of whom were rated at one time or another at heavyweight.
As far as I can tell, the only rated fighter Ray with his high ko % stopped was Savold. Gomez had a high ko percentage but only a few men, such as Muscato and Flynn, were rated. Guys like Lamar Clark had fantastic ko percentages but never ko'd even a journeyman level fighter.

[janitor]

[quote=OLD FOGEY]I don't see the point with Choynski compared to Charles and Moore:

According to the Boxing Register

Choynski----------25 ko's in 79 fights 32%

Charles-----------51 ko's in 115 fights 44%

Moore------------130 ko's in 219 fights 59%


Knockout percentage can be more misleading than informative particularly when comparing fighters from difernt eras.

Fighters from earlier eras tend to have lower knockout percentages because-

A. Their records are incomplete and the main part missing is the padding.

B. TKOs were harder to obtain.

Charles and Moore did fight below heavyweight but both continued to score knockouts at heavyweight and Choynski also fought often below heavyweight.

I dont dispute that both were all time punchers but I dont think either had Choynski's power and perhaps not his finishing ability either.

[Mendoza]

My mistake? This is the first time I've ever seen a "chronological" heavyweight puncher list.


Yes, it was your mistake. You did not grasp the first sentence. I looking for 55-60 names. A hall of fame for heavyweight punchers if you will. It was easiest for me to organize the data in a Chronological order.

[radianttwilight]

Yes, it was your mistake. You did not grasp the first sentence. I looking for 55-60 names. A hall of fame for heavyweight punchers if you will. It was easiest for me to organize the data in a Chronological order.


Fair enough.

[Mendoza]

OLD FOGEY "the heavies who can't punch have lower KO's and don't knock out many previously ranked guys"


You chopped off what I said. I said in most cases heavies who cannot punch have lower KO percentages and do not knock out many previously ranked guys. This is true.

Conversely the best punchers tend to have high KO%, and tend to knocked out some pervisouly ranked guys.

Here is a list I compiled of Knock Out percentages 2 years ago. Take note the punchers who are retired all belong on the list, and knocked out a high percentage of guys. This is not an accident. They did this because they can hit.



KO PERCENTAGE!:


V. Klitschko KO%=91.89%
R. Marciano KO%=87.75%
F Bruno KO%=84.44%
G. Foreman KO%=83.95%
W. Klitschko*active KO%=83.67%
L Brewster*active KO%=80.55%
T Morrison KO%=80.00%
D Tua*Active KO%=79.59%
J.L. Sullivan KO%=78.94%
M. Tyson KO%=78.57%
J. Louis KO%=77.46%
G Cooney KO%=77.41%
S. Liston KO%=77.20%
R. Bowe KO%=76.74%
E Shavers KO%=76.40%
I Ibaeuchi KO%=75.00%
J. Frazier KO%=72.79%
T Tucker KO%=72.72%
N Valuev*active KO%=72.72%
L Lewis KO%=72.72%
M Morrer KO%=71.15%
T Sharkey KO%=69.81%
C Sanders KO%=69.76%
H Rahman*Active KO%=68.75%
B. Fitzsimmons KO%=68.75%
E Ray KO%=68.62%
P Carnera KO%=68.26%
J. Jeffries KO%=68.18%
O Maskev*active KO%=67.56%
P Thomas KO%=66.66%
K Johnson*active KO%=66.66%
F Fulton KO%=66.35%
G. Godfrey KO%=66.12%
K. Norton KO%=66.00%
L Fripo KO%=65.85%
M Spinks KO%=65.62%
R Ruddock KO%=65.11%
G Page KO%=63.15%
M Baer KO%=63.09%
Clev Williams KO%=63.04%
F. Patterson KO%=62.50%
R Mercer KO%=60.97%
J. Dempsey KO%=60.97%
R Lyle KO%=60.78%
I Johanson KO%=60.71%
M. Ali KO%=60.00%

[OLD FOGEY]

Choynski always fought at heavyweight. There was no light heavy weight divison for him when he was in his prime.

I am iffy on Choynski. As for Charles and Moore, what are their KO% in heavyweight only fights.

Moore, off a quick perusal of boxrec, had 86 fights against heavyweights
and scored 57 ko's for a percentage of 66%. Moore was actually a better puncher at heavy than he had been at the lighter weights, probably reflecting increased finishing ability coming with experience. Moore ko'd 19 men who weighed 200 lbs or more.

[Mendoza]

Moore, off a quick perusal of boxrec, had 86 fights against heavyweights

and scored 57 ko's for a percentage of 66%. Moore was actually a better puncher at heavy than he had been at the lighter weights, probably reflecting increased finishing ability coming with experience. Moore ko'd 19 men who weighed 200 lbs or more.

All right. If this was top 40, I say no way to Moore as his KO percetnage is boaderline and he falied to stop what I condsider a very good heavyweight. I think Moore might have done enough to make the cut in the top 60. Let's say he's in for now, and see what other names come up.

[OLD FOGEY]

You chopped off what I said. I said in most cases heavies who cannot punch have lower KO percentages and do not knock out many previously ranked guys. This is true.

Conversely the best punchers tend to have high KO%, and tend to knocked out some pervisouly ranked guys.

Here is a list I compiled of Knock Out percentages 2 years ago. Take note the punchers who are retired all belong on the list, and knocked out a high percentage of guys. This is not an accident. They did this because they can hit.



KO PERCENTAGE!:


V. Klitschko KO%=91.89%
R. Marciano KO%=87.75%
F Bruno KO%=84.44%
G. Foreman KO%=83.95%
W. Klitschko*active KO%=83.67%
L Brewster*active KO%=80.55%
T Morrison KO%=80.00%
D Tua*Active KO%=79.59%
J.L. Sullivan KO%=78.94%
M. Tyson KO%=78.57%
J. Louis KO%=77.46%
G Cooney KO%=77.41%
S. Liston KO%=77.20%
R. Bowe KO%=76.74%
E Shavers KO%=76.40%
I Ibaeuchi KO%=75.00%
J. Frazier KO%=72.79%
T Tucker KO%=72.72%
N Valuev*active KO%=72.72%
L Lewis KO%=72.72%
M Morrer KO%=71.15%
T Sharkey KO%=69.81%
C Sanders KO%=69.76%
H Rahman*Active KO%=68.75%
B. Fitzsimmons KO%=68.75%
E Ray KO%=68.62%
P Carnera KO%=68.26%
J. Jeffries KO%=68.18%
O Maskev*active KO%=67.56%
P Thomas KO%=66.66%
K Johnson*active KO%=66.66%
F Fulton KO%=66.35%
G. Godfrey KO%=66.12%
K. Norton KO%=66.00%
L Fripo KO%=65.85%
M Spinks KO%=65.62%
R Ruddock KO%=65.11%
G Page KO%=63.15%
M Baer KO%=63.09%
Clev Williams KO%=63.04%
F. Patterson KO%=62.50%
R Mercer KO%=60.97%
J. Dempsey KO%=60.97%
R Lyle KO%=60.78%
I Johanson KO%=60.71%
M. Ali KO%=60.00%

A quick at this shows that percentages can be misleading. Not the low positions of Dempsey and Max Baer. How many think Tucker or Moorer are bigger punchers than those guys.

Also, this list by no means complete. Where are Buddy Baer (45 of 57 for 79%), Bruce Woodcock (31 of 39 for 79%), Charley Retzlaff (52 of 75 for 69%), or Tami Mauriello (60 of 96 for 63%).

[OLD FOGEY]

All right. If this was top 40, I say no way to Moore as his KO percetnage is boaderline and he falied to stop what I condsider a very good heavyweight. I think Moore might have done enough to make the cut in the top 60. Let's say he's in for now, and see what other names come up.

Moore stopped Jimmy Bivins three times (out of a total of 5 knockouts suffered by Bivins in his career) and Bivins is not only a Hall-of-Famer but was rated the #26 heavyweight by Ring Magazine in their all-time ratings. Moore scored a total of 9 knockouts against men ranked as a top five heavyweight by Ring Magazine at one time or another.

I don't see the low knockout percentage argument either. His 66% ko percentage against heavies is higher than those of Dempsey or Max Baer for their careers. As Janitor points out, old timers tend to have lower ko percentages for a number of reasons, one being that fights were not stopped as quickly as they are today.

[Mendoza]

I got a few emails from people who don't post on the web. Some other names to consider:

Pat Killen
Lee Q Murray
Curtis Shepard
Tommy Gomez
Jose Urtrain
Jeff Merrit
Roy Williams
Kallie Knotzee
John Tate

[Mendoza]

A quick at this shows that percentages can be misleading. Not the low positions of Dempsey and Max Baer. How many think Tucker or Moorer are bigger punchers than those guys.

Also, this list by no means complete. Where are Buddy Baer (45 of 57 for 79%), Bruce Woodcock (31 of 39 for 79%), Charley Retzlaff (52 of 75 for 69%), or Tami Mauriello (60 of 96 for 63%).

The list proves that the best punchers pretty much all have high ko%ages though the numbers can varry a bit.

The list was a pull from guys who could be considered top 100 heavyweights, which is why guys like Woodcock, Retzlaff, and Mauriello were not listed.

[mattdonnellon]

Killen and Merrit sound good to me. No way was Tucker a puncher and at the danger of severe internet attack, what good fighters did Cleveland Williams ko?

[Holmes' Jab]

Nice to see Ruddock getting a mention, his raw power was chilling at times. Not too sure about Hide he carried power for sure, but I think Golota would be a better choice.

[Holmes' Jab]

Don't really get Tucker's inclusion, though (ludicrously overrated fighter too). I'd put Dokes and Page ahead of him in terms of being harder hitters.

[Doppleganger]

Nice to see Ruddock getting a mention, his raw power was chilling at times. Not too sure about Hide he carried power for sure, but I think Golota would be a better choice. If i had to choose between Hide or Golota as a puncher it would be Hide every time. I think it was Riddick Bowe who said that it was Hide who really got his attention when he landed. Hide stopped an admittedly shopworn Tony Tucker in 2 rounds and his KO% of fights won was 97.5%. Hide was far from being a great fighter by any means but he was a real sharp puncher.

[Sonny's jab]

Curtis Sheppard had a reputation in his day. He knocked Joey Maxim out.

Jeff Merrit, yes.
Bernardo Mercado could hit.

Lots of guys can punch hard. A guy like Joe Mesi can bang, or Gary Mason, a thudding blunt-clubbing puncher.
Alex Stewart had real power.
Too many guys to consider, who are inevitably going to be arguably as good at hitting as half of those who end up on the list.

ARCHIE MOORE should definitely be on the list, IMO.

[My dinner with Conteh]

You have Tony Tucker 120 places too high.

[Mendoza]

Killen and Merrit sound good to me. No way was Tucker a puncher and at the danger of severe internet attack, what good fighters did Cleveland Williams ko?

Killen has 32 Ko's in 39 wins. Merritt has 19 Kos in 28 matches. My problem with Merritt is he fought too many 3rd raters, and did not have a high enough ko % in his wins.

Tucker has 48 Ko's in 66 fights, and stopped ranked guys like Douglas, and Jaco. I think his comptition level is better than Merritt and Killen.

Williams KO'd Terrell, and Terrell was tough to stop. He also has a great reputation as a puncher.

[JohnThomas1]

The 55 hardest punchers:

32. Page


I was perusing thru, thinking yeah not bad, but when i came to here i just knew this list was dynamite!

:yep

:good

:smoke

[Mendoza]

You have Tony Tucker 120 places too high.

Tucker was a guy I was iffy on. I think he might be edged out by Thompson, or Satterfield.

[JohnThomas1]

Tucker was a guy I was iffy on. I think he might be edged out by Thompson, or Satterfield.

I wonder aloud whether Douglas hits harder.

[Mendoza]

I wonder aloud whether Douglas hits harder.

Indeed.

[Sonny's jab]

Killen has 32 Ko's in 39 wins. Merritt has 19 Kos in 28 matches. My problem with Merritt is he fought too many 3rd raters, and did not have a high enough ko % in his wins.

Tucker has 48 Ko's in 66 fights, and stopped ranked guys like Douglas, and Jaco. I think his comptition level is better than Merritt and Killen.

Williams KO'd Terrell, and Terrell was tough to stop. He also has a great reputation as a puncher.

What significance can possibly be attached to knocking out Dave Jaco ?

(This is similar to a discussion I had not long ago when I had to questioned "Dion Simpson" being put forward as a "meaningful win" on Buster Douglas's record.)

[Sonny's jab]

Muhammad Ali could probably bang as hard as some on the list.
He didn't often elect to do so, but when he did he could rock good men to their boots. Lyle, Bonavena, Foreman, Folley, they all felt the force.
Well, I think Ali could hit as hard as Tony Tucker, for a start.

[JohnThomas1]

Muhammad Ali could probably bang as hard as some on the list.
He didn't often elect to do so, but when he did he could rock good men to their boots. Lyle, Bonavena, Foreman, Folley, they all felt the force.
Well, I think Ali could hit as hard as Tony Tucker, for a start.

Totally agree.

[Mendoza]

What significance can possibly be attached to knocking out Dave Jaco ?

(This is similar to a discussion I had not long ago when I had to questioned "Dion Simpson" being put forward as a "meaningful win" on Buster Douglas's record.)

Tucker is gonzo.

[China_hand_Joe]

Do people really not see the joke here...?

Usually a thread like this in here wouldn't be a joke.

There genuinely are people who rate Langford as a HW puncher.

[janitor]

Usually a thread like this in here wouldn't be a joke.

There genuinely are people who rate Langford as a HW puncher.

Well he knocked everybody in the heavyweight division out.

Isnt that what aa puncher is meant to do?

[mattdonnellon]

Williams dropped Terrell in the 6th round for a three count and in the seventh had him defenceless after a series of good hooks. Good stuff but hardly the type of "best form" of other ATG punchers? Incidently Sonny Liston was the referee.

[Mendoza]

The 60 hardest punchers rough draft

In a chronological format!

1. Sullivan
2. Fitzsimmons
3. Maher
4. Slavin
5. T. Shakrey
6. Jeffries
7. McVey
8. Langford
9. Wills
10. Willard
11. Fulton
12. Dempsey
13. G. Godfrey
14. Fripo
15. Schmeling
16. J. Louis
17. M. Baer
18. B Baer
19. C. Williams
20. Ray
21. Marciano
22. Patterson
23. Johansson
24. Liston
25. Frazier
26. Foreman
27. Shavers
28. Lyle
29. Norton
30. Witherspoon
31. Cooney
32. Page
33 Coetzee
34. J Smith
35. Tyson
36. Bruno
37. Tucker
38. Ruddock
39. Bowe
40. Morrison
41 Morrer
42. Briggs
43. Ibebuchi
44. Tua
45. C. Sanders
46. Hide
47. L. Lewis
48. McCall
49 Rhaman
50 Maskeav
51. V Klitschko
52. W Klitschko
53. Brewster
54. Peter
55. Virchis


OUT: Tucker, this leaves six more spots.


IN: Mac Foster, Turkey Thompson, Archie Moore, and Bob Satterfield. I don’t think these guys make the top 40, but they can make the top 60 for now. Two spots are open.


Still not sure about: Joe Choynski, John Tate, Buster Douglas, and Pat Killen. Anyone else?

[Sonny's jab]

Williams dropped Terrell in the 6th round for a three count and in the seventh had him defenceless after a series of good hooks. Good stuff but hardly the type of "best form" of other ATG punchers?

A few posts back you were condoning the inclusion of Pat Killen and Jeff Merritt.

I dont know anything about Pat Killen. What makes his KO win record superior to Cleveland Williams ?

As for Jeff Merritt, I know he he beat an over-the-hill Ernie Terrell. What other names are on his record as KO victims ?

I'm guessing many of the guys get their "reputation" as hard hitters because the people who see them up close, in fights, in sparring, and hitting the bag, and the people who fight them consider the punches to be hard.

[OLD FOGEY]

Here are some top none champion punchers with record breakdown:
1. Elmer Ray--102 bouts-87-13-1 1 NC 70 ko's (69%)
against rated opponents 6-6 with 1 NC 3 ko's (23%)
Top five heavy ko'd-----Lee Savold

2. Turkey Thompson--72 bouts-54-15-2 1NC 39 ko's (54%)
against rated opponents--8-9-2 1 NC 5 ko's (25%)
Top five heavies ko'd-----Elmer Ray, Lee Q Murray, Gus Dorazio

3. Cleveland Williams--92 bouts-78-13-1 58 ko's (63%)
against rated opponents--11-10-1 6 ko's (27%)
top five heavies ko'd-----Ernie Terrell, John Holman

4. Earnie Shavers--89 bouts-74-14-1 68 ko's (76%)
against rated opponents--8-8-1 6 ko's (35%)
top five heavies ko'd-----Jimmy Young, Jimmy Ellis, Ken Norton, Joe Bugner

5. Bob Satterfield--80 bouts-50-25-5 35 ko's (44%)
against rated opponents--16-19-1 9 ko's (25%)
top five heavies ko'd-----Lee Oma, Bob Baker, Cleveland Williams, John Holman

6. Lee Savold--137 bouts-93-40-3 1NC 65 ko's (47%)
against rated opponents--17-21 (11 ko's) 29%
top five heavies ko'd-----Lou Nova(2), Lem Franklin(2), Johnny Flynn, Buddy Walker, Bruce Woodcock

This was taken from boxrec several months ago.
In rated fighters, I included lightheavies.

Comment--the difference between Savold and Satterfield and the others is that they fought far more rated fighters, which pulled their total percentages down.

[Mendoza]

Here are some top none champion punchers with record breakdown:

1. Elmer Ray--102 bouts-87-13-1 1 NC 70 ko's (69%)
against rated opponents 6-6 with 1 NC 3 ko's (23%)
Top five heavy ko'd-----Lee Savold

2. Turkey Thompson--72 bouts-54-15-2 1NC 39 ko's (54%)
against rated opponents--8-9-2 1 NC 5 ko's (25%)
Top five heavies ko'd-----Elmer Ray, Lee Q Murray, Gus Dorazio

3. Cleveland Williams--92 bouts-78-13-1 58 ko's (63%)
against rated opponents--11-10-1 6 ko's (27%)
top five heavies ko'd-----Ernie Terrell, John Holman

4. Earnie Shavers--89 bouts-74-14-1 68 ko's (76%)
against rated opponents--8-8-1 6 ko's (35%)
top five heavies ko'd-----Jimmy Young, Jimmy Ellis, Ken Norton, Joe Bugner

5. Bob Satterfield--80 bouts-50-25-5 35 ko's (44%)
against rated opponents--16-19-1 9 ko's (25%)
top five heavies ko'd-----Lee Oma, Bob Baker, Cleveland Williams, John Holman

6. Lee Savold--137 bouts-93-40-3 1NC 65 ko's (47%)
against rated opponents--17-21 (11 ko's) 29%
top five heavies ko'd-----Lou Nova(2), Lem Franklin(2), Johnny Flynn, Buddy Walker, Bruce Woodcock

This was taken from boxrec several months ago.
In rated fighters, I included lightheavies.

Comment--the difference between Savold and Satterfield and the others is that they fought far more rated fighters, which pulled their total percentages down.


Savold likely had the most amount of matches’ vs Journeyman too. Check his record from 1940 to 1933 and you will see. When you tally it all up, Savold had many matches where he did not stop Journeyman, which a problem that Shavers, Ray and Williams never had.


A good puncher like Ray, Shavers, or Williams should almost always stop journeyman. Indeed they did.


Satterfield had a reputation as a puncher, which is why I think he deserves a real look. I cannot recall Savold having a big reputation as a puncher.

[crippet]

What about Henry Cooper?, he had a fair old left hook 'enrys ammer'

[OLD FOGEY]

Savold likely had the most amount of matches’ vs Journeyman too. Check his record from 1940 to 1933 and you will see. When you tally it all up, Savold had many matches where he did not stop Journeyman, which a problem that Shavers, Ray and Williams never had.


A good puncher like Ray, Shavers, or Williams should almost always stop journeyman. Indeed they did.


Satterfield had a reputation as a puncher, which is why I think he deserves a real look. I cannot recall Savold having a big reputation as a puncher.

You might be correct that Satterfield has a reputation and Savold does not, or at least has much less of one. But does a close analysis of their records justify that?

Ray has a huge reputation in some quarters as a puncher. Does he deserve it?

Two issues on Savold. He did not punch that effectively early in his career. How much should he be penalized for that?

Clearly someone like Williams was much better at blowing over journeyman. But is that the mark of a great puncher? I would say not.

Ken Norton against unrated fighters----38-0, 31 ko's

Joe Louis against unrated fighters----37-0, 30 ko's

Comment-nothing to choose.

Ken Norton against rated fighers----4-7-1, 2 ko's

Joe Louis against rated fighters----31-3, 24 ko's

Separates the man from the mouse, no?

[janitor]

Here are some top none champion punchers with record breakdown:
1. Elmer Ray--102 bouts-87-13-1 1 NC 70 ko's (69%)
against rated opponents 6-6 with 1 NC 3 ko's (23%)
Top five heavy ko'd-----Lee Savold

2. Turkey Thompson--72 bouts-54-15-2 1NC 39 ko's (54%)
against rated opponents--8-9-2 1 NC 5 ko's (25%)
Top five heavies ko'd-----Elmer Ray, Lee Q Murray, Gus Dorazio

3. Cleveland Williams--92 bouts-78-13-1 58 ko's (63%)
against rated opponents--11-10-1 6 ko's (27%)
top five heavies ko'd-----Ernie Terrell, John Holman

4. Earnie Shavers--89 bouts-74-14-1 68 ko's (76%)
against rated opponents--8-8-1 6 ko's (35%)
top five heavies ko'd-----Jimmy Young, Jimmy Ellis, Ken Norton, Joe Bugner

5. Bob Satterfield--80 bouts-50-25-5 35 ko's (44%)
against rated opponents--16-19-1 9 ko's (25%)
top five heavies ko'd-----Lee Oma, Bob Baker, Cleveland Williams, John Holman

6. Lee Savold--137 bouts-93-40-3 1NC 65 ko's (47%)
against rated opponents--17-21 (11 ko's) 29%
top five heavies ko'd-----Lou Nova(2), Lem Franklin(2), Johnny Flynn, Buddy Walker, Bruce Woodcock

This was taken from boxrec several months ago.
In rated fighters, I included lightheavies.

Comment--the difference between Savold and Satterfield and the others is that they fought far more rated fighters, which pulled their total percentages down.

Certainly puts the careers of Savold and Satterfield into perspective.

Those boys certainly gave the public their moneys worth when it came to taking on ranked oponents.

[Mendoza]

Certainly puts the careers of Savold and Satterfield into perspective.

Those boys certainly gave the public their moneys worth when it came to taking on ranked oponents.

While both were active guys, both also had losing records vs ranked opponets in a somewhat down period of heavyweight boxing ( W.W II ).

[Mendoza]

You might be correct that Satterfield has a reputation and Savold does not, or at least has much less of one. But does a close analysis of their records justify that?

Ray has a huge reputation in some quarters as a puncher. Does he deserve it?

Two issues on Savold. He did not punch that effectively early in his career. How much should he be penalized for that?

Clearly someone like Williams was much better at blowing over journeyman. But is that the mark of a great puncher? I would say not.

Ken Norton against unrated fighters----38-0, 31 ko's

Joe Louis against unrated fighters----37-0, 30 ko's

Comment-nothing to choose.

Ken Norton against rated fighers----4-7-1, 2 ko's

Joe Louis against rated fighters----31-3, 24 ko's

Separates the man from the mouse, no?

If we are talking about pure punchers, we grade the punch and not the skills. Yes, the ability to starch Journeyman nearly ever time is something great punchers should be able to do. A reputation in his era as a puncher is something he should also have.

Regarding Norton, he fought Ali, Holmes, and Foreman. Three all time top 15 heavies in all books and all time top 10 in most. If Norton gets the correct call vs Ali in the third fight, his record vs rated fighters is 5-6-1. Very few if any fighters had a tougher elite competition than Norton did.

[janitor]

While both were active guys, both also had losing records vs ranked opponets in a somewhat down period of heavyweight boxing ( W.W II ).

Yes but if these guys had been carefully guided and protected they might have fought a quater the number of ranked contenders, beat most of them and got to fight for the title at some point.

Imagine what you could do with a guy like Satterfield today. He would be a huge draw.

[Sweet Pea]

edit:whoops!

[Mendoza]

Any other names?

[Marciano Frazier]

My 55 hardest heavyweight punchers in a mostly chorological order.

The criteria are mix of the following.

1 ) Guys who I saw hitting fighters or heavy bags on video with great force. KO's in non-heavyweight divsions do not count.

2 ) Guys with high knockout out percentage in their wins, and guys who stopped hard to KO/TKO fighters.

3) Guys with numerous testimonials about their punching power, key for those with limited or no film.

The 55 hardest punchers:


1. Sullivan
2. Fitzsimmons
3. Maher
4. Slavin
5. T. Shakrey
6. Jeffries
7. McVey
8. Langford
9. Wills
10. Willard
11. Fulton
12. Dempsey
13. G. Godfrey
14. Fripo
15. Schmeling
16. J. Louis
17. M. Baer
18. B Baer
19. C. Williams
20. Ray
21. Marciano
22. Patterson
23. Johansson
24. Liston
25. Frazier
26. Foreman
27. Shavers
28. Lyle
29. Norton
30. Witherspoon
31. Cooney
32. Page
33 Coetzee
34. J Smith
35. Tyson
36. Bruno
37. Tucker
38. Ruddock
39. Bowe
40. Morrison
41 Morrer
42. Briggs
43. Ibebuchi
44. Tua
45. C. Sanders
46. Hide
47. L. Lewis
48. McCall
49 Rhaman
50 Maskeav
51. V Klitschko
52. W Klitschko
53. Brewster
54. Peter
55. Virchis

Should anyone else be in? I am a bit iffy on Maher, Slavin, Ray, Norton, and Tucker. I slightly more sold on Schemling, and Hide but neither have a firm spot yet. Since this was my first time through it is likely I missed a few names for sure. Who would you add in and who would you take out?
Peter and Virchis really don't merit spots on this list at this point in their careers. Generally, in order to validate that a guy's power is "real," I would say he needs to stop someone who would be generally considered at least top 20 fighter in the division, and preferably a top 10 and/or one who is a durable fighter. Neither of them has ever even stopped a top 20 heavyweight, let alone a durable one. Peter is now 0 for 4 in attempts at stopping top 20 heavyweights. Virchis is 0 for 1, or maybe 1 for 3 if one considers Vidoz to have been a top 20 heavyweight at the time. Neither of them has an especially great general knockout record that stands out and says "This guy demands recognition," nor does either of them have a knockout over anyone even remotely close to being a championship-caliber heavyweight.

Herbie Hide does have a monstrous knockout percentage, but, like Peter and Virchis, he's never stopped a current top 20 heavyweight. If he demands a spot and you're not even iffy on him, then Lamar Clark deserves a mention as well.

Rahman and McCall I'm not sure about (having not compiled one of these lists, I don't know whether or not they'd make mine), but I will point out that they're pretty much only considered harder hitters than any of a host of other contenders because of their knockouts over Lewis. Neither of them has an especially high knockout average or a credible high-level knockout resume aside from their one-hit wonders against Lewis.

Moorer's inclusion seems weird. Who did he stop at heavyweight? He narrowly outpointed Holyfield (never had him in trouble that I remember), was outpointing Foreman (never had him in trouble that I remember) before being knocked out, got hammered in the Holyfield rematch, and was knocked out in 30 seconds by Tua, and that's the whole of his elite heavyweight record. Even against top 20 fringe-contender types, he went the distance with White, stopped Cooper after a ton of punishment in a war, went the distance with Smith, went the distance with Schulz, TKO'd Botha at the tail end of the 12th round, and went the distance with Bean, and that's the whole of it. He never even came close to scoring a knockdown against an elite heavyweight, and hardly ever stopped fringe contender heavyweights (only with great deals of punishment when he did). I don't see how he belongs among the hardest-hitting heavyweights in history at all.

[Mendoza]

Marciano Frazier

Peter and Virchis really don't merit spots on this list at this point in their careers. Generally, in order to validate that a guy's power is "real," I would say he needs to stop someone who would be generally considered at least top 20 fighter in the division, and preferably a top 10 and/or one who is a durable fighter. Neither of them has ever even stopped a top 20 heavyweight, let alone a durable one. Peter is now 0 for 4 in attempts at stopping top 20 heavyweights. Virchis is 0 for 1, or maybe 1 for 3 if one considers Vidoz to have been a top 20 heavyweight at the time. Neither of them has an especially great general knockout record that stands out and says "This guy demands recognition," nor does either of them have a knockout over anyone even remotely close to being a championship-caliber heavyweight.


The list has nothing to do with skill, poor durability or technique. It is a pure punching power type of list with the criterion spelled out in post #1 of this thread.

Peter and Virchis are huge punchers with film and reputation, who in my opinion defiantly hit harder than some people on this list. Here is a tid bit of information. Virchis was known as the hardest puncher in the Soviet Amateurs ( Over Maskeav and Klitschko ), and Vitlai Klitschko who defeated Virchis as an amateur called him the hardest hitter he ever fought. Peter has great power. Peter has 15 1st or 2nd round KO's in 30 fights. Maybe you have not seen some of Virchis Ko's ( Check the Bidenko fight, or some other you tube match ), but I'm sure you seen Peter lay some guys out. I am more progressive than many historians or hard core fight fans are. To date Toney, Chagaev are very hard to stop guys. Wlad was the #1 heavy, and McCline isn't easy to stop with punches either. These are the contenders Peter or Virchis failed to stop.


Herbie Hide does have a monstrous knockout percentage, but, like Peter and Virchis, he's never stopped a current top 20 heavyweight. If he demands a spot and you're not even iffy on him, then Lamar Clark deserves a mention as well.

Hide has film, the reputation, and a sizzling Knockout percentage. He stopped some good fighters. Bowe said Hide hit him the hardest. Mentioning Lamar Clark is a joke. His competition where he scored KO'd was grade D. Hide KO's some former and current x-alphabet champions.


Rahman and McCall I'm not sure about (having not compiled one of these lists, I don't know whether or not they'd make mine), but I will point out that they're pretty much only considered harder hitters than any of a host of other contenders because of their knockouts over Lewis. Neither of them has an especially high knockout average or a credible high-level knockout resume aside from their one-hit wonders against Lewis.

Both were big guys who can punch hard. McCall belongs. Asside from Lewis, he Ko'd Maskeav, a hard to stop Akienwande, and Damiani. Rhaman can Bang. Aside from his famous Lewis KO, he stopped Meehan, and Sanders. Rhaman's KO% is 67.92, which is a lot higher than many older timers who seem to get excuses type of arguments. I think overall Rhaman competition level along with McCall's is good. I think both these guys hit harder than Turkey Thompson, who I am making room for on the list.


Moorer's inclusion seems weird. Who did he stop at heavyweight? He narrowly outpointed Holyfield (never had him in trouble that I remember), was outpointing Foreman (never had him in trouble that I remember) before being knocked out, got hammered in the Holyfield rematch, and was knocked out in 30 seconds by Tua, and that's the whole of his elite heavyweight record. Even against top 20 fringe-contender types, he went the distance with White, stopped Cooper after a ton of punishment in a war, went the distance with Smith, went the distance with Schulz, TKO'd Botha at the tail end of the 12th round, and went the distance with Bean, and that's the whole of it. He never even came close to scoring a knockdown against an elite heavyweight, and hardly ever stopped fringe contender heavyweights (only with great deals of punishment when he did). I don't see how he belongs among the hardest-hitting heavyweights in history at all.

This is your best argument. Moorer did floor Holyfield. He stopped Botha who was a tough nut to crack, Bert Cooper, and Jirov. I think Morrer can hit, and his KO % of 69.64% is good, especially considering he's hung around for a while. Moorer faced many ironed chinned guys. Guys like Tua, Foreman, Holyfield, and Bean are Shultz were extremely hard guys to stop. Morrer pretty much fought them in their prime. Between Tua, Holyfield, Schultz, and Bean maybe they share a combined 3 Ko losses in 150+ fights. Such a collection of durable guys is not found on many of the other guys who are on the list. I am iffy on Moorer, but I need to see a good case from someone who can take his spot before I move him off.



Who do you recomend I put on over Peter, Virchis, Rhaman, McCall, Hide, and Morrer?

[Sonny's jab]

Well, if we can include guys who never KO'd a rated opponent, then

Eric "Butterbean" Esch
Joe Mesi
Lou Savarese

[Mendoza]

Well, if we can include guys who never KO'd a rated opponent, then

Eric "Butterbean" Esch
Joe Mesi
Lou Savarese

Um, no. Are you trying to derail this thread? For openers these guys are big time punchers on flim.

[OLD FOGEY]

While both were active guys, both also had losing records vs ranked opponets in a somewhat down period of heavyweight boxing ( W.W II ).

1. Both having losing records against ranked opponents is a valid point.

2. Dragging in a Revolver-level WWII putdown is both bizarre and ignorant. Satterfield was a 1941 Golden Gloves champion who served three years in WWII before beginning his pro career upon discharge in 1945. All his knockouts of top heavyweights came in the 1950's. This sort of 'deny them any credit with any kitchen-sink argument' might make a bit more sense with Savold who at least boxed during WWII, but Savold broke into the rankings before the United States entered WWII in 1939 and 1940. Five of his seven rated years were outside of WWII, and all of his seven knockouts of top five heavyweights were against men who peaked in the ratings either before or well after American participation in WWII. Nova was the #1 contender in 1938, Franklin #2 in 1941, Walker #5 in 1940, Flynn #4 in 1948, and Woodcock #4 in 1946 & #5 in 1949.
Competition probably took a hit during WWII, but the almost complete abandonment of the sport by white Americans after the fifties or by almost all top American athletes after the turn of the century might have far more impact.

[OLD FOGEY]

If we are talking about pure punchers, we grade the punch and not the skills. Yes, the ability to starch Journeyman nearly ever time is something great punchers should be able to do. A reputation in his era as a puncher is something he should also have.

Regarding Norton, he fought Ali, Holmes, and Foreman. Three all time top 15 heavies in all books and all time top 10 in most. If Norton gets the correct call vs Ali in the third fight, his record vs rated fighters is 5-6-1. Very few if any fighters had a tougher elite competition than Norton did.

Yes, I thought we are talking about punching power, not all-around skills. Your point about Norton is valid, but Jimmy Young did well against Ali, Foreman, and Norton, but that does not make him a top puncher.
Norton's only ko's of rated fighters were against a slipping Quarry and the enigmatic Bobick. Quarry was stopped 6 times in his career and Bobick was downright weak-jawed. Despite his impressive record knocking over journeymen, there is nothing in Norton's resume to compare with Joe Louis.

This still begs the issue. Perhaps the journeymen of Louis' era were a better lot on the whole than those of the Norton era. And both great punchers and not so great punchers can blow away journeymen, and some great punchers, for example Dempsey, had trouble doing it during early stages of their careers. What these men do with rated opponents at their peaks is far more indicative of their punching power.

By the way, off film, Jersey Joe Walcott is certainly a harder hitter than Norton, and Ring Magazine picked him as one of their 100 top punchers at all weights.

[Mendoza]

OLD FOGEY Yes, I thought we are talking about punching power, not all-around skills. Your point about Norton is valid, but Jimmy Young did well against Ali, Foreman, and Norton, but that does not make him a top puncher.

That is what I said " If we are talking about pure punchers, we grade the punch and not the skills. Yes, the ability to starch Journeyman nearly ever time is something great punchers should be able to do. A reputation in his era as a puncher is something he should also have.

Regarding Norton, he fought Ali, Holmes, and Foreman. Three all time top 15 heavies in all books and all time top 10 in most. If Norton gets the correct call vs Ali in the third fight, his record vs rated fighters is 5-6-1. Very few if any fighters had a tougher elite competition than Norton did. "

OLD FOGEY says: Norton's only ko's of rated fighters were against a slipping Quarry and the enigmatic Bobick. Quarry was stopped 6 times in his career and Bobick was downright weak-jawed. Despite his impressive record knocking over journeymen, there is nothing in Norton's resume to compare with Joe Louis.

This still begs the issue. Perhaps the journeymen of Louis' era were a better lot on the whole than those of the Norton era. And both great punchers and not so great punchers can blow away journeymen, and some great punchers, for example Dempsey, had trouble doing it during early stages of their careers. What these men do with rated opponents at their peaks is far more indicative of their punching power.

By the way, off film, Jersey Joe Walcott is certainly a harder hitter than Norton, and Ring Magazine picked him as one of their 100 top punchers at all weights.

I don't think the heavyweight contenders ( which any great puncher pretty much is by default ) late 60's and 70's were worse than the those in the 30's and 40's. The diffrence fighters with joruneymen type of records were in fact ring rates guys in the 30's and 40's. This did not happen in the 60's or 70's. Regaring W.W II, it hurt the era. Half the men were at war, and those who returned after a lay off had toruble getting back to where they were. There is not other way to look at it.

Norton KO'd Quarry, who's more durable than anyone Walcott stopped. He also pole axed Bobbick in one, and beat on Stander even worse than Frazier did. Oh, and Norton really hurt Ali in the first fight too.

Walcott took too many journeyman the distance, and has a low KO%. One of these can keep you off this list, but when you combine both its hard to make a case for him. With Wlacott one can not blame lack of skills fo landing clean punches either.

[OLD FOGEY]

That is what I said " If we are talking about pure punchers, we grade the punch and not the skills. Yes, the ability to starch Journeyman nearly ever time is something great punchers should be able to do. A reputation in his era as a puncher is something he should also have.

Regarding Norton, he fought Ali, Holmes, and Foreman. Three all time top 15 heavies in all books and all time top 10 in most. If Norton gets the correct call vs Ali in the third fight, his record vs rated fighters is 5-6-1. Very few if any fighters had a tougher elite competition than Norton did. "



I don't think the heavyweight contenders ( which any great puncher pretty much is by default ) late 60's and 70's were worse than the those in the 30's and 40's. The diffrence fighters with joruneymen type of records were in fact ring rates guys in the 30's and 40's. This did not happen in the 60's or 70's. Regaring W.W II, it hurt the era. Half the men were at war, and those who returned after a lay off had toruble getting back to where they were. There is not other way to look at it.

Norton KO'd Quarry, who's more durable than anyone Walcott stopped. He also pole axed Bobbick in one, and beat on Stander even worse than Frazier did. Oh, and Norton really hurt Ali in the first fight too.

Walcott took too many journeyman the distance, and has a low KO%. One of these can keep you off this list, but when you combine both its hard to make a case for him. With Wlacott one can not blame lack of skills fo landing clean punches either.

"Quarry, who's more durable than anyone Walcott stopped."

Nonsense.
Jerry Quarry 6 ko'd by in 66 fights (1 in each 11 bouts)

Walcott's rated ko victims:
Ezzard Charles 7 ko'd by in 112 fights (1 in 16+ bouts)
Curtis Sheppard 5 ko'd by in 87 fights (1 in 17 bouts)
Tommy Gomez 5 ko'd by in 87 fights (1 in 17 bouts)
Elmer Ray 7 ko'd by in 95 fights (1 in 13+ bouts)
Johnny Shkor 4 ko'd by in 51 fights (1 in 13 bouts)
Harold Johnson 4 ko'd by in 87 fights (1 in 22 bouts)
Ole Tandberg 1 ko'd by in 30 fights (Walcott only man to stop)

I don't know why anyone should judge Quarry more durable and Norton certainly never scored a knockout on film as impressive as Walcott's over Charles. Quarry was simply not an exceptionally durable fighter.

2. Why keep bringing up Ali, Foreman, and Holmes. No one is disputing that Norton was skilled, but he did not stop or have any of these men down or in really deep trouble.

3. Jack Dempsey and Max Baer have records that would mark them as journeyman level fighters in the current era. Old timers lost more often, have lower knockout percentages, and tended to be stopped more often. One possible explanation is that the depth of competition was generally better.

4. ko'ing Bobick early means little or nothing.

5. A lot of people pounded Stander. He was stopped 9 times in 61 bouts. Why should he be considered more durable than, let's say, Tandberg.

[Sonny's jab]

Um, no. Are you trying to derail this thread? For openers these guys are big time punchers on flim.

Butterbean and Joe Mesi look like they punch VERY HARD on film too.
Why do you think this is an attempt to "derail this thread" ?

I bet Butterbean could hit like a freight train.
Mesi was a very good hitter too, look at the films.

Who did Pat Killen knock out who Butterbean wouldn't if he hit them cleanly ?

[Woddy]

but he did not stop or have any of these men down or in really deep trouble.[/B]



Well, he did manage to break Ali's jaw, and gave a peak Holmes all he could handle.

[OLD FOGEY]

That is what I said " If we are talking about pure punchers, we grade the punch and not the skills. Yes, the ability to starch Journeyman nearly ever time is something great punchers should be able to do. A reputation in his era as a puncher is something he should also have.

Regarding Norton, he fought Ali, Holmes, and Foreman. Three all time top 15 heavies in all books and all time top 10 in most. If Norton gets the correct call vs Ali in the third fight, his record vs rated fighters is 5-6-1. Very few if any fighters had a tougher elite competition than Norton did. "



I don't think the heavyweight contenders ( which any great puncher pretty much is by default ) late 60's and 70's were worse than the those in the 30's and 40's. The diffrence fighters with joruneymen type of records were in fact ring rates guys in the 30's and 40's. This did not happen in the 60's or 70's. Regaring W.W II, it hurt the era. Half the men were at war, and those who returned after a lay off had toruble getting back to where they were. There is not other way to look at it.

Norton KO'd Quarry, who's more durable than anyone Walcott stopped. He also pole axed Bobbick in one, and beat on Stander even worse than Frazier did. Oh, and Norton really hurt Ali in the first fight too.

Walcott took too many journeyman the distance, and has a low KO%. One of these can keep you off this list, but when you combine both its hard to make a case for him. With Wlacott one can not blame lack of skills fo landing clean punches either.

On the war--many of the boxers who went into the service boxed in the service for the entertainment of the troops.
For those who saw front-line service, the experience of war probably produced greater mental and physical toughness.
Anyway, what has the war to do with Satterfield's success in the 1950's against heavies born too late to see service in the war.

WWII was the era of Robinson, Pep, Ike Williams, Moore, etc. Provide evidence that boxing after the war was not booming in quality. Revolver raised this issue and I find neither his nor your viewpoint very compelling.

[OLD FOGEY]

Well, he did manage to break Ali's jaw, and gave a peak Holmes all he could handle.

Breaking Ali's jaw is a good point, although the fight was actually a split decision. The issue is not Norton as a skilled fighter, but Norton as a puncher in comparision to others such as Walcott. I honestly think myself that Walcott was the better puncher.

[mr. magoo]

This whole argument about Joe Walcott being a better puncher isn't really being backed up here by those making the claim. He might have been the superior puncher, but what are people basing this on?

The below statistics are only numbers and may not mean anything, but at least its more substance than anything that has been so far provided.

WIN KO PERCENTAGES

Joe Walcott- 51 wins 32 KO's = 63%

Ken Norton- 42 wins 33 KO's = 79%

NUMBER OF HEAVYWEIGHTS KO'D OVER 200 LBS:

Joe Walcott- 4

Ken Norton- 30

[Luigi1985]

This whole argument about Joe Walcott being a better puncher isn't really being backed up here by those making the claim. He might have been the superior puncher, but what are people basing this on?

The below statistics are only numbers and may not mean anything, but at least its more substance than anything that has been so far provided.

WIN KO PERCENTAGES

Joe Walcott- 51 wins 32 KO's = 63%

Ken Norton- 42 wins 33 KO's = 79%

NUMBER OF HEAVYWEIGHTS KO'D OVER 200 LBS:

Joe Walcott- 4

Ken Norton- 30


That´s really a bad comparison. Walcott KO´d for example a great fighter like Charles with a picture- book- hook, Norton KO´d bums like Zanon, Garcia, Bobick, etc., the only good fighter he TKO´d was Quarry. I don´t know why coming with the whole weight- thing again...

[Woddy]

That´s really a bad comparison. Walcott KO´d for example a great fighter like Charles with a picture- book- hook, Norton KO´d bums like Zanon, Garcia, Bobick, etc., the only good fighter he TKO´d was Quarry. I don´t know why coming with the whole weight- thing again...

I don't necessarily agree with all of Magoo's points, but he does make a valid statement about the differences in weight with Walcott's opponents vs Norton's opposition. Walcott beat a man like Ezzard Charles, but he was only 180 Lbs when Walcott knocked him out, as were many of Joe's opponents.

[Marciano Frazier]

This whole argument about Joe Walcott being a better puncher isn't really being backed up here by those making the claim. He might have been the superior puncher, but what are people basing this on?

The below statistics are only numbers and may not mean anything, but at least its more substance than anything that has been so far provided.

WIN KO PERCENTAGES

Joe Walcott- 51 wins 32 KO's = 63%

Ken Norton- 42 wins 33 KO's = 79%

NUMBER OF HEAVYWEIGHTS KO'D OVER 200 LBS:

Joe Walcott- 4

Ken Norton- 30 "what are people basing this on"?? Did you not read Fogey's arguments for the last page-and-a-half?

First off, if we go by a combination of KO% and size of opponents KO'd, then I daresay Freddie Steele is up there with the all-time elite hitters, and Norton is not even in the picture. Lining up those statistics for any two guys really does not constitute a thorough and accurate comparison of their careers, and I will point out that it is especially irrelevant when you're making a comparison like Norton with Walcott, who had a much higher percentage of his total fights against world-class opposition than Norton did, who had far tougher personal circumstances holding him back for a great deal of his career than Norton did, and who was a defensive fighter who rarely went for the kill, as opposed to a swarmer like Norton.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Norton's track record of punching power against his top five opponents:
Ali- never scored a knockdown or came close to it in 39 total rounds, although he did break Ali's jaw in the first fight
Foreman- obviously didn't score any knockdowns or even have a glimmer of hurting Foreman
Holmes- scored no knockdowns and never appeared mildly close to scoring a knockdown that I know of
Quarry- scored no knockdowns, stopped Quarry on his feet through an extended shellacking
Young- scored no knockdowns, never came mildly close to scoring a knockdown that I know of

Walcott's track record of punching power against his top five opponents:
Louis- Scored two knockdowns in their first fight and one in the second, all in the early rounds and from single punches
Marciano- floored Rocky for the first time in his career with a single shot in the first round
Charles- knocked Charles out brutally with a single shot in their third fight
Ray- KO'd him in three in their first meeting while they were pups, had him down three times in their rubber match, all in the early rounds and, I believe, from single punches
Bivins- had him down for an eight-count in round three from a single shot
------------------------------------------------------------------
Norton never scored a knockdown in 7 fights with his top five opponents; Walcott scored ten knockdowns in 12 fights with his own and knocked down every single one of them at least once, usually in the early rounds and as a result of a single shot. Walcott showed much more elite-level punching power than Norton did.

Now, I anticipate that the counter-argument here will be that Norton's opponents were generally more durable; I will concede that this is true, but is there such an enormous gap as to account for Norton (who was an aggressive fighter) never scoring a knockdown against any of his top five opponents while Walcott decked every single one of them, usually early and with a single shot? Going by boxrec records, Walcott's top five were stopped a total of 21 times in 444 pro fights, or an average of once every 21.1 fights; Norton's were stopped 11 times in 339 total fights, or an average of once every 30.8 fights. Norton's group overall evens out as a little more durable, but there isn't a gap anywhere near wide enough to account for the gap between these guys' results.

[Mendoza]

This whole argument about Joe Walcott being a better puncher isn't really being backed up here by those making the claim. He might have been the superior puncher, but what are people basing this on?

The below statistics are only numbers and may not mean anything, but at least its more substance than anything that has been so far provided.

WIN KO PERCENTAGES

Joe Walcott- 51 wins 32 KO's = 63%

Ken Norton- 42 wins 33 KO's = 79%

NUMBER OF HEAVYWEIGHTS KO'D OVER 200 LBS:

Joe Walcott- 4

Ken Norton- 30

Exactly. Norton has more KO's in less total fights, and a higher KO %. In additon Norton fought much harder guys to stop, and more dangerous punchers. As I said before Walcott failed to KO many journeyman in distance fights.

Holmes, who fought a bunch of punchers said Norton and Shaver hit him the hardest.

[Marciano Frazier]

Exactly. Norton has more KO's in less total fights, and a higher KO %. In additon Norton fought much harder guys to stop, and more dangerous punchers. As I said before Walcott failed to KO many journeyman in distance fights.

Holmes, who fought a bunch of punchers said Norton and Shaver hit him the hardest. Read my last post.

[mattdonnellon]

I dont think calling Garcia or Bobick "Bums" is helpful or true. I certainly think any US Olympic HW is not a bum and anybody that fairly beat Norton is not my idea of a bum either. The relative merits of Walcott and Norton as punchers is interesting with decent points been made on both sides. Personally I would allways take Walcott over Ken but the ko/weight issue is interesting.
.A few posts back you were condoning the inclusion of Pat Killen and Jeff Merritt.

I dont know anything about Pat Killen. What makes his KO win record superior to Cleveland Williams ?

As for Jeff Merritt, I know he he beat an over-the-hill Ernie Terrell. What other names are on his record as KO victims ?

Killen ko'd durable Patsy Cardiff and had a great punching rep with his peers. He stood 6-1, about 195 pounds. He ko'd allmost everybody he faced in his time, the exceptions been Bill Bradbury, Lem McGregor and Joe McAuliffe. He was boxing at a fringe contender/ good B level eg Duncan McDonald, Joe Lannon, Joe Sheedy, Mervine Thompson. Not many fighters ko'd men as cleanly and as often as he did back in thoes days.
Merritt it is true is partly there by reputation. Aside from Terrell (whom i didn't give Williams much credit for ko'ing!) his other good win is over Stander whom only Smoking Joe had ko'd at that point. He also, if memory serves me right, broke Shaver's jaw in sparring.

I'm guessing many of the guys get their "reputation" as hard hitters because the people who see them up close, in fights, in sparring, and hitting the bag, and the people who fight them consider the punches to be hard.
BTw I dont think Tom Sharkey was a terrific puncher, he was an attritionalist for sure but the only top men he ko'd were Ruhlin and the very chinny(but skillful McCoy) and an over-the-hill Goddard. Jeff, Fitz, Greggains, Maher, Corbett, youthful Choynski all survived against Sailor Tom. Any other views on this?:huh

[Mendoza]

Read my last post.
I agree when you say Norton had tougher guys to stop. But I think the below information is misleading:




Marciano_Frazier says :

Ali- never scored a knockdown or came close to it in 39 total rounds, although he did break Ali's jaw in the first fight
Foreman- obviously didn't score any knockdowns or even have a glimmer of hurting Foreman
Holmes- scored no knockdowns and never appeared mildly close to scoring a knockdown that I know of
Quarry- scored no knockdowns, stopped Quarry on his feet through an extended shellacking
Young- scored no knockdowns, never came mildly close to scoring a knockdown that I know of

Walcott's track record of punching power against his top five oppo
nents:
Louis- Scored two knockdowns in their first fight and one in the second, all in the early rounds and from single punches
Marciano- floored Rocky for the first time in his career with a single shot in the first round
Charles- knocked Charles out brutally with a single shot in their third fight
Ray- KO'd him in three in their first meeting while they were pups, had him down three times in their rubber match, all in the early rounds and, I believe, from single punches
Bivins- had him down for an eight-count in round three from a single shot


Here's where the rubber meets the road. The fighters Walcott fougt were down and TKO'd and down far more often than the fighters Norton fought. Charles, Ray, and Bivins went down a lot. Louis went down about 8 times. Marciano only twice.

Now get this: Ali, Holmes, Quarry, and Foreman as a group were down less than Ray was.

Ali, Holmes, Quarry, and Foreman as a group were down less Charels was

Ali, Holmes, Quarry, and Foreman as a group were down less Bivins was.

Simply stated Walcott fought a bunch of rated guys who outside of Marciano were not that tough to knock down.

PS: Norton came close to scoring a knock down on Ali, as Ali was gassed, hurt, and shaken up.

[mattdonnellon]

Sorry Sonny's Jab, I screwed up your quote. The following was my reply to your question regarding Killen and Merritts merits;
Killen ko'd durable Patsy Cardiff and had a great punching rep with his peers. He stood 6-1, about 195 pounds. He ko'd allmost everybody he faced in his time, the exceptions been Bill Bradbury, Lem McGregor and Joe McAuliffe. He was boxing at a fringe contender/ good B level eg Duncan McDonald, Joe Lannon, Joe Sheedy, Mervine Thompson. Not many fighters ko'd men as cleanly and as often as he did back in thoes days.
Merritt it is true is partly there by reputation. Aside from Terrell (whom i didn't give Williams much credit for ko'ing!) his other good win is over Stander whom only Smoking Joe had ko'd at that point. He also, if memory serves me right, broke Shaver's jaw in sparring.

[Amsterdam]

This is by far the worst list ever, in the history of boxing forum's.

Mike Tyson is 36, but we've got Sullivan at #1.

Please, just sign out and don't come back.:smoke

[mattdonnellon]

Mendoza, I dont follow your logic. You rate Norton over Walcott because he generally failed to knock down or out fighters who were harder to knock down or out than the fighters that Walcott ACTUALLY knocked down and sometimes out? Am I missing something here?

[Amsterdam]

Mendoza, I dont follow your logic. You rate Norton over Walcott because he generally failed to knock down or out fighters who were harder to knock down or out than the fighters that Walcott ACTUALLY knocked down and sometimes out? Am I missing something here?

Yes, he doesn't know what he's talking about. I think he's likely just a wind up artist.

[Marciano Frazier]

I agree when you say Norton had tougher guys to stop. But I think the below information is misleading:




Here's where the rubber meets the road. The fighters Walcott fougt were down and TKO'd and down far more often than the fighters Norton fought. Charles, Ray, and Bivins went down a lot. Louis went down about 8 times. Marciano only twice.

Now get this: Ali, Holmes, Quarry, and Foreman as a group were down less than Ray was.

Ali, Holmes, Quarry, and Foreman as a group were down less Charels was

Ali, Holmes, Quarry, and Foreman as a group were down less Bivins was.

Simply stated Walcott fought a bunch of rated guys who outside of Marciano were not that tough to knock down.

I already posted a statistical comparison of how often each group was stopped; Norton's group was stopped an average of once in every 30.8 fights, while Walcott was stopped on an average of once every 21.1 fights. Not an enormous gap. The guys you Norton fought were down far fewer total times, but they also had far fewer total fights, far fewer fights against elite opponents, and fought with refererees who were quicker to stop fights- and your claims about groups of fighters having been floored fewer times than a given individual fighter are not accurate.

Ali was down four times, Holmes was down five times, Foreman was down four times, and Quarry was down seven times. That makes 20 knockdowns suffered by that group. To my knowledge, I believe Ray was down 11 times in his recorded career, possibly more if he was dropped multiple times in his early stoppage losses I don't have anecdotal data about, but probably not. Bivins was down about 10 times to my knowledge, possibly more also if he was floored more than once in a couple of his stoppage losses to Moore and Charles, but probably not enough to make 20.

Only Charles was dropped more than that group of fighters, and that is the result of Charles' having been allowed to rise from 15 knockdowns in two early fights and then getting battered a lot as a washed-up journeyman. Marciano was floored less often than anyone on either list, and Walcott still put him down. It is a fact that Walcott consistently displayed power and knocked down elite-level opponents, while Norton never did. Unless one thinks that 1970s heavyweights were made of steel and bullets would bounce of their chests while 1940s and '50s heavyweights were little stick men with china plates for chins, it's just an unavoidable conclusion that Walcott displayed much more power at an elite level than Norton did.

PS: Norton came close to scoring a knock down on Ali, as Ali was gassed, hurt, and shaken up.
Show me the round, show me the moment- when did Ali's knees sag from a Norton punch? When was Ali ready to go as a result of Norton's offense? I've watched round after round of these two guys in the ring, and I've never seen Norton look as though he's even close to wobbling Ali with a punch.

[mattdonnellon]

I never said he doesn't know what he is talking about-I think he does. The problem for me is; I dont know what he is talking about!
Yes, he doesn't know what he's talking about. I think he's likely just a wind up artist.

[mr. magoo]

"what are people basing this on"?? Did you not read Fogey's arguments for the last page-and-a-half?

First off, if we go by a combination of KO% and size of opponents KO'd, then I daresay Freddie Steele is up there with the all-time elite hitters, and Norton is not even in the picture. Lining up those statistics for any two guys really does not constitute a thorough and accurate comparison of their careers, and I will point out that it is especially irrelevant when you're making a comparison like Norton with Walcott, who had a much higher percentage of his total fights against world-class opposition than Norton did, who had far tougher personal circumstances holding him back for a great deal of his career than Norton did, and who was a defensive fighter who rarely went for the kill, as opposed to a swarmer like Norton.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Norton's track record of punching power against his top five opponents:
Ali- never scored a knockdown or came close to it in 39 total rounds, although he did break Ali's jaw in the first fight
Foreman- obviously didn't score any knockdowns or even have a glimmer of hurting Foreman
Holmes- scored no knockdowns and never appeared mildly close to scoring a knockdown that I know of
Quarry- scored no knockdowns, stopped Quarry on his feet through an extended shellacking
Young- scored no knockdowns, never came mildly close to scoring a knockdown that I know of

Walcott's track record of punching power against his top five opponents:
Louis- Scored two knockdowns in their first fight and one in the second, all in the early rounds and from single punches
Marciano- floored Rocky for the first time in his career with a single shot in the first round
Charles- knocked Charles out brutally with a single shot in their third fight
Ray- KO'd him in three in their first meeting while they were pups, had him down three times in their rubber match, all in the early rounds and, I believe, from single punches
Bivins- had him down for an eight-count in round three from a single shot
------------------------------------------------------------------
Norton never scored a knockdown in 7 fights with his top five opponents; Walcott scored ten knockdowns in 12 fights with his own and knocked down every single one of them at least once, usually in the early rounds and as a result of a single shot. Walcott showed much more elite-level punching power than Norton did.

Now, I anticipate that the counter-argument here will be that Norton's opponents were generally more durable; I will concede that this is true, but is there such an enormous gap as to account for Norton (who was an aggressive fighter) never scoring a knockdown against any of his top five opponents while Walcott decked every single one of them, usually early and with a single shot? Going by boxrec records, Walcott's top five were stopped a total of 21 times in 444 pro fights, or an average of once every 21.1 fights; Norton's were stopped 11 times in 339 total fights, or an average of once every 30.8 fights. Norton's group overall evens out as a little more durable, but there isn't a gap anywhere near wide enough to account for the gap between these guys' results.

I don't think this requires a huge in depth analysis, nor a heated debate that stretches over 3 days and 35 posts ( you won't get one from me by the way. ) Most of this stuff is pretty much common sense if you're honest about it.

You already said so yourself. Norton fought the more durable opponents, who were also generally quite a bit bigger than the men Walcott fought. In addition they were the product of the 1960's and 70's- a period commonly regarded as a golden age for heavyweights, whereas the 30's and 40's weren't as much. As stated before, Norton KO'd or TKO'd as many as 30 opponents who breached the 200 pound mark, while Walcott only stopped 4 men who climbed to such perameters. If you don't think this holds any significance, then why don't you tell me why divisional guidelines have changed over the last few decades, and why men who are 180 Lbs are no longer considered heavyweights. Personally, I don't have a problem with men of that size getting into the ring with bigger fighters, but apparently the sport of boxing does, and perhaps for good reason. Despite these obvious differences, Norton still managed to score more knockouts in a fewer number of fights. ( kind of a no brainer really. )

As for this claim about Norton failing to stop or floor his best opponents, my response is " so what?" Did Walcott ever manage to break a man's jaw who was as durable as Muhammad Ali? How many guys did Walcott fight who were made like Larry Holmes? Who was the most solid chinned fighter that Walcott ever dusted, and was his chin made like Tex Cobb's? How difficult were some of his opponents to hit, were any of them like Jimmy Young? How many guys like Jerry Quarry did Walcott beat? Sure he Ko'd a 180 lb Ezzard Charles a single time in 4 meetings ( two of which he lost ), and managed to floor a declining Joe Louis. I don't find these things as being particularly convincing when comparing the punching abilities of Ken Norton vs Joe Walcott. I also don't see the relevance in pointing out the fact that Norton did not manage to floor George Foreman. Again, who cares? Foreman was rarely dropped in his career, and in fact destroyed Norton before he got a chance to land much on him. What does this have to do with the guy's ability as a puncher? Thats like saying that because Shavers was KO'd by one of his better opponents in Quarry, that his power and punching ability should be questioned.

[radianttwilight]

[quote=mr. magoo] Foreaman was rarely dropped in his career. [quote]

Foreman got dropped by Young. He was exhausted, but that doesn't change the fact that he got floored by the definition of "creampuff".

Again - I'm not trying to say Foreman had a weak chin (I think he had one of the best), but that's not because of who dropped him, because Young did.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=mr. magoo] Foreaman was rarely dropped in his career. [quote]

Foreman got dropped by Young. He was exhausted, but that doesn't change the fact that he got floored by the definition of "creampuff".

Again - I'm not trying to say Foreman had a weak chin (I think he had one of the best), but that's not because of who dropped him, because Young did.

All of the above is true, but my point is that Ken Norton should not be penalized because he did not prove his punching ability against Foreman. George dusted him before he had a chance to get anything off, the same way he did to Joe Frazier and a number of other good fighters.

[Marciano Frazier]

I don't think this requires a huge in depth analysis, nor a heated debate that stretches over 3 days and 35 posts ( you won't get one from me by the way. ) Most of this stuff is pretty much common sense if you're honest about it.
Yes, it is. Walcott consistently floored and hurt world-class fighters, and Norton never did, in spite of having a much more aggressive style than Walcott.

You already said so yourself. Norton fought the more durable opponents, who were also generally quite a bit bigger than the men Walcott fought. In addition they were the product of the 1960's and 70's- a period commonly regarded as a golden age for heavyweights, whereas the 30's and 40's weren't as much. As stated before, Norton KO'd or TKO'd as many as 30 opponents who breached the 200 pound mark, while Walcott only stopped 4 men who climbed to such perameters. If you don't think this holds any significance, then why don't you tell me why divisional guidelines have changed over the last few decades, and why men who are 180 Lbs are no longer considered heavyweights. Personally, I don't have a problem with men of that size getting into the ring with bigger fighters, but apparently the sport of boxing does, and perhaps for good reason. Despite these obvious differences, Norton still managed to score more knockouts in a fewer number of fights. ( kind of a no brainer really. )
1. You've no doubt had this explained before, but again, many fighters who naturally weigh in the 180s have competed at heavyweight with success in recent decades; for the most part, it's simply become the practice for them to bulk up to over 200 pounds in order to compete there, no doubt because, admittedly, they are generally facing bigger opposition- that doesn't change the fact that men of that size compete and do so with success.
2. Again, I've already acknowledged that Norton had a higher knockout percentage and fought bigger men than Walcott did; I then proceeded to point out that, although they may have been collectively smaller opponents, a much higher percentage of Walcott's total fights were against world-elite opponents than Norton's fights, Walcott spent a great deal of his career living in poverty and fighting on short notice wihtout training, while Norton was well-managed his entire career, and Walcott was a defensively-oriented fighter, while Norton was an aggressive fighter. With this taken into account, it should be obvious that, all things being equal, Norton would have a considerably higher knockout percentage, even if he didn't hit harder (which he didn't).

As for this claim about Norton failing to stop or floor his best opponents, my response is " so what?"
"So what?" So nearly all his knockouts, making up the majority of the record you keep citing, were over tomato-can-level opposition, while he didn't produce results against elite opponents in terms of displaying punching power, and Walcott consistently floored and hurt elite-level opponents, even durable ones,

Did Walcott ever manage to break a man's jaw who was as durable as Muhammad Ali?
What, do you think Ali was durable because he had super-strong, extra-hard-to-break bones?

How many guys did Walcott fight who were made like Larry Holmes?
How many guys did Norton fight who were made like Marciano? That's kind of a vague, meaningless question. Holmes wasn't impossible to hurt or knock down; Kevin Isaac, Renaldo Snipes, and Earnie Shavers all did it.

Who was the most solid chinned fighter that Walcott ever dusted, and was his chin made like Tex Cobb's?
It's debatable who Walcott's most durable victim was, but obviously comparing him to Tex Cobb (which would be an admittedly unfavorable comparison) is a moot point, since Norton didn't "dust" Cobb, or any other high-ranking heavyweight with upper-level durability, either. A more apt comparison would be which of these two fighters (Walcott and Norton) "dusted" the more durable opponent- the best opponent Norton "dusted" was Bobick, who had a glass jaw by world-class standards and was blown out by an obscure journeyman shortly thereafter. Walcott at least "dusted" Harold Johnson and Ezzard Charles, both of whom had chins reliable enough in their primes to stand up to numerous deadly punchers round after round and fight after fight.

How difficult were some of his opponents to hit, were any of them like Jimmy Young?
Bivins, Maxim, Charles, Johnson- these guys were all famed world-class cuties, very hard to hit effectively.

How many guys like Jerry Quarry did Walcott beat?
I'm sorry, what do you mean by "like"? Walcott beat a lot of guys who were greater fighters than Quarry, who were stopped less often than Quarry, who were Quarry's size or bigger, etc. This is another vague question meant to draw out an image of a discrepancy that isn't there. Quarry wouldn't be the best name on Walcott's resume.

Sure he Ko'd a 180 lb Ezzard Charles a single time in 4 meetings ( two of which he lost ), and managed to floor a declining Joe Louis. I don't find these things as being particularly convincing when comparing the punching abilities of Ken Norton vs Joe Walcott.
It is a fact Norton never floored or knocked out anyone nearly as good as those guys. The best way to demonstrate you have high-level power is to knock down and knock out high-level opponents, particularly with one shot the way Walcott did to the likes of Louis and Charles and Marciano. The fact is that this isn't just a bit of incidental background noise; it's a consistent pattern.

It is true that Norton's top opponents were generally better than Walcott's, but they weren't all better than all of Walcott's, and it is true that Norton's top opponents were generallymore durable than Walcott's, but they weren't all more durable than all of Walcott's; and you would have to believe that they were in order to pretend that the gap between these guys' results isn't relevant.

[Mendoza]

Marciano Frazier I already posted a statistical comparison of how often each group was stopped; Norton's group was stopped an average of once in every 30.8 fights, while Walcott was stopped on an average of once every 21.1 fights. Not an enormous gap. The guys you Norton fought were down far fewer total times, but they also had far fewer total fights, far fewer fights against elite opponents, and fought with refererees who were quicker to stop fights- and your claims about groups of fighters having been floored fewer times than a given individual fighter are not accurate.

As a group Norton's competition was more elite, higher all time ranked, more durable, and fought better punchers..


Ali was down four times, Holmes was down five times, Foreman was down four times, and Quarry was down seven times. That makes 20 knockdowns suffered by that group. To my knowledge, I believe Ray was down 11 times in his recorded career, possibly more if he was dropped multiple times in his early stoppage losses I don't have anecdotal data about, but probably not. Bivins was down about 10 times to my knowledge, possibly more also if he was floored more than once in a couple of his stoppage losses to Moore and Charles, but probably not enough to make 20.

Therefore, on your tally Ali, Holmes, Foreman and Quary were down 20 times.

Ray, and Bivins by themselves were down at least 21 times, most likely much more. Charles was down 30 times. Therefore, this group has already been down twice as much before we even count Moore, or research Ray or Bivins.

It is very easy to see who was more durable between these two groups.
One group went down 20 times. The group was down at least 60+ times. Furthermore, I will say the group of Ali, Holmes, Foreman, and Quarry fought better punchers as a group too.


Show me the round, show me the moment- when did Ali's knees sag from a Norton punch? When was Ali ready to go as a result of Norton's offense? I've watched round after round of these two guys in the ring, and I've never seen Norton look as though he's even close to wobbling Ali with a punch.

Watch the finals rounds of Ali vs Norton and judge for yourself what type of shape Ali was in. Ali was an actor when hurt, its clear he was in a bad way. Norton had Ali hurt and tired. Ali was not ready to go, but if the fight was 15 rounds, and not 12 something dramatic could have happened. After the fight, Ali was spent. Dr. Fernie Pechechio was looking him over.

We are getting off track in a punchers thread. Sorry. Walcott didn't KO some journeyman he meet, and has a low KO%. It is tough for him to make a list of great punchers. If Walcott is in, then I might have to make room too many others and since the list is in chronological order, I do not want to do that.

[mattdonnellon]

All these back and forth stats would be revelent if you were comparing like with like, however you are making a comparison of people that Jersey Joe SUCCEEDED in ko'd or at least knocked down with opponents that Norton FAILED to do either to. Its interesting but going no-where.
I think Walcott should be in but not Ken but both seem borderline calls. I think one criteria should be that an elite puncher knocked-out a similiar elite, near equal opponent at least once. No problem there for Walcott, perhaps Quarry qualifies for Ken.

[OLD FOGEY]

All these back and forth stats would be revelent if you were comparing like with like, however you are making a comparison of people that Jersey Joe SUCCEEDED in ko'd or at least knocked down with opponents that Norton FAILED to do either to. Its interesting but going no-where.
I think Walcott should be in but not Ken but both seem borderline calls. I think one criteria should be that an elite puncher knocked-out a similiar elite, near equal opponent at least once. No problem there for Walcott, perhaps Quarry qualifies for Ken.

I agree with all of this.
I think it is a valid point that Walcott did not show as much power as the size of his opposition increased, certainly not always the case with big punchers. Here is his record against over 200 lb opposition:

Walcott 14 bouts Won 10 lost 4 ko'd 4--only Tandberg and Shkor among his ko victims were even second tier, although European champion Tandberg suffered his only stoppage to Walcott.

How do some of the other borderline punchers do against over 200 lbers?

Archie Moore---25 bouts Won 23 lost 1 drew 1 ko's 19 including top men Baker and Lavorante (ko % 76%--much better than against general competition)

Ezzard Charles--16 bouts Won 13 lost 3 ko's 7 including Joe Baksi and Coley Wallace (ko percentage 44%-exactly as against general comp--but was 8-1 with 5 ko's against 200 + men through 1954-no evidence power waned against larger opponents)

Bob Satterfield--7 bouts Won 6 lost 1 ko's 5 including Bob Baker, Cleveland Williams and John Holman(2) (ko % 71% far better than against general competition despite this being a tough group-Nino Valdes, Baker, Holman, and Williams were all top five men at one time or another)

Just for fun, what about Ken Norton against less than 200 lb opposition
Ken Norton--10 bouts Won 9 lost 1 ko's 6 (none against ranked opposition--the one ranked fighter under 200 lbs Norton fought, Jose Luis Garcia at 188 lbs, stopped him--ko % 60% slightly below general average of 66%)


conclusion--Moore and Satterfield for certain, and also Charles in my judgement, were bigger punchers than Norton. Walcott is much more of a tight call.

[Marciano Frazier]

I agree with all of this.
I think it is a valid point that Walcott did not show as much power as the size of his opposition increased, certainly not always the case with big punchers. Here is his record against over 200 lb opposition:

Walcott 14 bouts Won 10 lost 4 ko'd 4--only Tandberg and Shkor among his ko victims were even second tier, although European champion Tandberg suffered his only stoppage to Walcott.

How do some of the other borderline punchers do against over 200 lbers?

Archie Moore---25 bouts Won 23 lost 1 drew 1 ko's 19 including top men Baker and Lavorante (ko % 76%--much better than against general competition)

Ezzard Charles--16 bouts Won 13 lost 3 ko's 7 including Joe Baksi and Coley Wallace (ko percentage 44%-exactly as against general comp--but was 8-1 with 5 ko's against 200 + men through 1954-no evidence power waned against larger opponents)

Bob Satterfield--7 bouts Won 6 lost 1 ko's 5 including Bob Baker, Cleveland Williams and John Holman(2) (ko % 71% far better than against general competition despite this being a tough group-Nino Valdes, Baker, Holman, and Williams were all top five men at one time or another)

Just for fun, what about Ken Norton against less than 200 lb opposition
Ken Norton--10 bouts Won 9 lost 1 ko's 6 (none against ranked opposition--the one ranked fighter under 200 lbs Norton fought, Jose Luis Garcia at 188 lbs, stopped him--ko % 60% slightly below general average of 66%)


conclusion--Moore and Satterfield for certain, and also Charles in my judgement, were bigger punchers than Norton. Walcott is much more of a tight call.
While this is a somewhat valid argument, I think you're probably putting too much emphasis on size-of-victims as an ultimate decider for power. Ultimately, it is quality that is important, and even durability certainly doesn't vary directly with size.

Now, in my last couple posts, I've argued heavily in Walcott's favor as compares with Norton- however, I concede that in some areas(pure knockout percentage and knockouts over bigger opponents), Norton did have a better punching record, and I will also concede that Walcott's apparently much-greater capacity for flooring and hurting elite-level opposition was aided by his superior boxing skill to Norton, although noting at the same time that an inverse is true; Norton scoring more general knockouts was aided by his greater aggressiveness. The big question here is what one considers the most important criteria.

I see the same question when it comes to Walcott compared with, say, Moore. Afterall, as you point out, Moore has a veryimpressive knockout record against bigger men in general, much moreso than Walcott's, and even a good deal better than Norton's. However, Moore, like Norton, didn't really deliver in terms of power against the cream of the crop at heavyweight; he had one flash knockdown against Marciano and never floored Ali, Patterson Valdes or Henry.

Walcott, on the other hand, is an opposite situation- he doesn't have a particularly impressive statistical knockout average against more or less any tier of opposition, but, when he fought the cream of the crop, he consistently displayed power in a way in which very few fighters do (Norton and Moore being among the ones who did not at heavyweight). I tend to believe, personally, that this is a stylistic thing; Walcott was criticized throughout his career for a lack of killer instinct and a tendency to let opponents off the hook. He liked to hang back and potshot people, often hurting them or flooring them with some of his jolting counters, but not jumping on them and ending the fight the way someone with more killer instinct would, preferring to continue coasting. Norton and Moore were guys who pressed for the knockout when they thought they could get it, and who poured it on when they had their man hurt. I believe this to be the main reason that they much more consistently knocked out journeymen, but much more seldom hurt and knocked down elite-level heavyweights than Walcott did.

[OLD FOGEY]

Marciano-Frazier:

Excellent food-for-thought analysis

I was responding to some of the criticism, but I agree that quality of opposition is more important than size of opposition.

On Moore, you left off Bivins, whom Moore knocked out 3 times, and Bivins suffered only 5 knockouts in his whole career against brutal competition.

[janitor]

All these back and forth stats would be revelent if you were comparing like with like, however you are making a comparison of people that Jersey Joe SUCCEEDED in ko'd or at least knocked down with opponents that Norton FAILED to do either to. Its interesting but going no-where.
I think Walcott should be in but not Ken but both seem borderline calls. I think one criteria should be that an elite puncher knocked-out a similiar elite, near equal opponent at least once. No problem there for Walcott, perhaps Quarry qualifies for Ken.

It is not a verry productive comparison anyway.

Their styles are about as diferent as is possible and so are their career profiles in terms of the competition they fought and the circumstances.

[OLD FOGEY]

It is not a verry productive comparison anyway.

Their styles are about as diferent as is possible and so are their career profiles in terms of the competition they fought and the circumstances.

I think you may be right, but we are chewing on a number of larger questions.

1. Does a consistent display of power against second-tier or worse opposition necessarily indicate power against top level oppositon?

2. Does a lack of consistent power against second-tier or worse oppostion necessarily indicate a lack of power against top level opposition?

3. Which is more important, a high percentage of knockouts, generally reflecting consistent power against lesser opposition, or knockouts over elite opposition?

I think the answer to the first two is no, and knockouts of elite opposition is more important. Some agree and some disagree and that is what the debate has been about.

Bob Satterfield might be a better example than Walcott to illustrate my side of the debate.

[mr. magoo]

=Marciano Frazier]Yes, it is. Walcott consistently floored and hurt world-class fighters, and Norton never did, in spite of having a much more aggressive style than Walcott.


Are we still playing by the same rules? If so, then why don't you tell me which one of Walcott's best opponents were more difficult to knockout than Larry Holmes or Muhammad Ali? And While you're at it, why don't you tell me which one of Walcott's opponents had their jaw broken like Ali did?




1. You've no doubt had this explained before, but again, many fighters who naturally weigh in the 180s have competed at heavyweight with success in recent decades; for the most part, it's simply become the practice for them to bulk up to over 200 pounds in order to compete there, no doubt because, admittedly, they are generally facing bigger opposition- that doesn't change the fact that men of that size compete and do so with success.



And why exactly do you think that is?


2. Again, I've already acknowledged that Norton had a higher knockout percentage and fought bigger men than Walcott did;

Technically, we could have ended this debate with the above quote, but your creative juices has given us the luxery of yet another sequal which is:

]
although they may have been collectively smaller opponents, a much higher percentage of Walcott's total fights were against world-elite opponents than Norton's fights, Walcott spent a great deal of his career living in poverty and fighting on short notice wihtout training, while Norton was well-managed his entire career, and Walcott was
a defensively-oriented fighter, while Norton was an aggressive fighter. With this taken into account, it should be obvious that, all things being equal, Norton would have a considerably higher knockout percentage, even if he didn't hit harder (which he didn't).


Do you really think the playing fields were that uneven? It was typically the norm of Walcott's period for figters to turn pro with liittle or no amateur experience, and to hold jobs on the side while taking fights on short notice. He wasn't the only one. That being said, how was he anymore disadavantaged than the fighter standing accross the ring from him? On the flipside, Norton came from an era where he played football in the services and had a small amateur career, yet turned pro and faced many fighters who were well trained, had amateur backgrounds, and quality trainers. How was he any different from those guys? Its not like Walcott worked in a factory, had no amateur experience, no good trainers, and fought princes who were groomed to be champions while Norton was a stallion in the stable facing drug store clerks. Your observations are correct to some degree, but are rather one sided.


"So what?" So nearly all his knockouts, making up the majority of the record you keep citing, were over tomato-can-level opposition, while he didn't produce results against elite opponents in terms of displaying punching power, and Walcott consistently floored and hurt elite-level opponents, even durable ones,


Again, you continue to build your argument by comparing the best of Norton's opponents to Walcott's. Walcott did not CONSISTANTLY floor or ko men who were NATURAL ALL TIME GREAT HEAVYWEIGHTS. His best knockout wins came against men who were under 200 lbs and were in no way shape or form comparable to that of Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, or Jimmy Young.



What, do you think Ali was durable because he had super-strong, extra-hard-to-break bones?


All of a sudden the durability of a man's chin which survived the power of Foreman, Liston, Frazier, and Shavers is irrelevant by your estimation, but the ability to KO men who were naturally lightheavyweights or less is. Interesting. As for the bone density of ALi's chin, I'm not sure that it was more solid than that of his peers, but lets just say that Norton penetrated it better than Walcott could against a 180 lb Charles, in his first two meetings with him, which were losses.



How many guys did Norton fight who were made like Marciano? That's kind of a vague, meaningless question. Holmes wasn't impossible to hurt or knock down; Kevin Isaac, Renaldo Snipes, and Earnie Shavers all did it.


LOL, Earnie Shavers was commonly credited as being one of the hardest punchers of all time. Could Walcott have done better than Shavers? Kevin Isaac was a 200+ pound, undefeated prospect when he floored Holmes in his 7th pro fight. walcott was beaten by 177 lb Henry Taylor in his 7th pro bout, and ko'd by 188 lb El Ettore in his 13th bout.

See how selection bias works?

It's debatable who Walcott's most durable victim was, but obviously comparing him to Tex Cobb (which would be an admittedly unfavorable comparison) is a moot point, since Norton didn't "dust" Cobb, or any other high-ranking heavyweight with upper-level durability, either.

I agree, it is a moot point given that Walcott would not dust Cobb, Ali, Holmes, Young or anyone that Norton couldn't dust.



A more apt comparison would be which of these two fighters (Walcott and Norton) "dusted" the more durable opponent- the best opponent Norton "dusted" was Bobick, who had a glass jaw by world-class standards and was blown out by an obscure journeyman shortly thereafter.


First of all, Norton's best Ko was not Bobick. Secondly, you have yet to tell me who Walcott floored, hurt or beat who was better or more durable than Muhammad Ali or Larry Holmes. If this is the best that you can do, then you seriously have to go back to trolling 101.



Walcott at least "dusted" Harold Johnson and Ezzard Charles, both of whom had chins reliable enough in their primes to stand up to numerous deadly punchers round after round and fight after fight.


Here we go again,

Charles and Johnson were naturally lightheavyweights who were regularly floored or beaten by other lightheavyweights. Also, heres another little tid bit about Walcott's win over Harold Johnson- Walcott won the fight by KO when Johnson fell to the floor untouched, and was later revealed to have an injured vertebral disk, meaning that no one really knows if this loss was really caused by Walcott's ability as a puncher.

.



It is true that Norton's top opponents were generally better than Walcott's, but they weren't all better than all of Walcott's, and it is true that Norton's top opponents were generallymore durable than Walcott's, but they weren't all more durable than all of Walcott's; and you would have to believe that they were in order to pretend that the gap between these guys' results isn't

This whole argument should have been summed up by YOUR quote in pink.

[Sweet Pea]

This is by far the worst list ever, in the history of boxing forum's.

Mike Tyson is 36, but we've got Sullivan at #1.

Please, just sign out and don't come back.:smokeI thought the same thing before re-reading the original post and criteria. I suggest reading it again.

[Marciano Frazier]

Marciano-Frazier:

Excellent food-for-thought analysis

I was responding to some of the criticism, but I agree that quality of opposition is more important than size of opposition.

On Moore, you left off Bivins, whom Moore knocked out 3 times, and Bivins suffered only 5 knockouts in his whole career against brutal competition.
This is true, and the other two stoppages were one early on in his career to the monstrous-punching heavyweight Lem Franklin (who deserves consideration for a top-55-all-time-puncher list himself, by the way), and one to Ezzard Charles. Bivins has a strong track record for durability, even against numerous heavyweight punchers, so Moore knocking him out three times is a big boost to his career knockout credentials. That said, Walcott did have Bivins down for an eight-count during their one and only meeting, and Walcott knocked out Charles and Sheppard, who Moore failed to knock out, I think Walcott had the better knockdown over Marciano (slightly longer count, looked to be less due to balance than Moore's), and Walcott stopped Johnson in three (Johnson collapsed from a back injury, but it was still indirectly caused by Walcott punching Johnson and knocking him down the previous round), while Moore stopped him only once in five fights, that being in the 14th round. Then again, of course, in addition to the stoppages over Bivins, who did, afterall, go the distance with Walcott, Moore did score three knockdowns over iron-jawed (against light heavyweights and heavyweights) Maxim in one of their matches, while I don't believe Walcott ever had him in serious trouble during his fights with him.

Walcott and Moore had (I believe- it's possible they both fought some journeymen I overlooked) six common opponents: Bivins, Charles, Sheppard, Johnson, Marciano and Maxim- this is an all-star list of fighters, every one of them a definite ranked contender of the era, with five of them being future hall-of-famers, and most of them guys who were well known for their elusiveness and/or durability. Overall, Walcott is 8-5 (3 KOs) against them, with Moore at 13-6 (4 KOs). Their knockout percentages are very similar, with Walcott's being about 2% higher.

As I said before, what really impresses me about Walcott is the way he was consistently able to hurt and knock down elite fighters with a single shot, and usually in the early rounds. Walcott fought three generally-recognized top 20 all-time heavyweights, and knocked them all down, every time as the result of a single, jolting shot in the first half of the fight. That is serious elite-level punching power; very, very few fighters can match that.

However, I do overall regard Moore as a harder hitter than Walcott, though he was less effective against elite heavyweights. Curtis "the Hatchetman" Sheppard, who fought both Walcott and Moore (along with a host of other top heavyweights), considered Moore the hardest hitter he ever fought. Tiger Ted Lowry, who had 140+ fights and faced a virtual roll-call of the top heavyweights of the late '40s and early '50s, also called Moore the hardest hitter he ever fought. Marciano, who fought both Moore and Walcott, made conflicting statements about who hit him harder, but also ranked Moore way up there in terms of power.

And getting back to the Norton comparison, Moore has a higher knockout percentage at heavyweight, a higher knockout percentage even against 200+ pound heavyweights, and a better resume of knockouts over name heavyweights than Norton, so I don't see where that one is even seriously debatable. Moore is easily the harder hitter. Walcott is a bit more confusing of a situation to sort out, given the conflicting evidence, but I think his sheer consistent results against top-flight opposition speak for themselves.

[Marciano Frazier]

Are we still playing by the same rules? If so, then why don't you tell me which one of Walcott's best opponents were more difficult to knockout than Larry Holmes or Muhammad Ali? And While you're at it, why don't you tell me which one of Walcott's opponents had their jaw broken like Ali did?
Why don't you tell me which opponent Norton ever knocked down who was as durable or as good as Louis, Marciano, Charles, Bivins or Johnson?




Technically, we could have ended this debate with the above quote, but your creative juices has given us the luxery of yet another sequal which is:
No, because those things don't at all constitute the total sum of the evidence to judge a fighter's power, and you know it.

Do you really think the playing fields were that uneven? It was typically the norm of Walcott's period for figters to turn pro with liittle or no amateur experience, and to hold jobs on the side while taking fights on short notice. He wasn't the only one. That being said, how was he anymore disadavantaged than the fighter standing accross the ring from him?
It wasn't unusual for a fighter to be disadvantaged, yes, but it's hardly as though everyone was- that's silly. Walcott was matched up again and again and again against established contenders and prospects who had management backing and professional training, often on short notice and in their backyards, and who were oftenmuchmore experienced than he was. Tiger Jack Fox, Al Ettore, Roy Lazer, George Brothers, Abe Simon, etc. were established contenders and prospects who had HUGE unfair advantages over Walcott when he fought them.


On the flipside, Norton came from an era where he played football in the services and had a small amateur career, yet turned pro and faced many fighters who were well trained, had amateur backgrounds, and quality trainers. How was he any different from those guys?
He didn't fight well-trained, experienced, quality fighters until later in his career when he himself was a well-off, well-managed and well-trained fighter. Walcott did not have the same opportunity.

Its not like Walcott worked in a factory, had no amateur experience, no good trainers, and fought princes who were groomed to be champions
Yes, it is.

while Norton was a stallion in the stable facing drug store clerks. Your observations are correct to some degree, but are rather one sided.
I didn't say anything that extreme, but it is certainly true that, prior to his fight with Ali when he already had 30 professional fights and was well-trained, well-managed and groomed for a championship, Norton did not face any real high-risk opposition. This is worlds apart from what Walcott went through.


Again, you continue to build your argument by comparing the best of Norton's opponents to Walcott's. Walcott did not CONSISTANTLY floor or ko men who were NATURAL ALL TIME GREAT HEAVYWEIGHTS.
Yes, he did. Louis and Marciano are almost universally-regarded as belonging in the top 10 of all time at heavyweight, and Walcott floored them a total of four times, all in the early rounds and all with single shots.

His best knockout wins came against men who were under 200 lbs and were in no way shape or form comparable to that of Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, or Jimmy Young.
Not necessarily knockouts, but Walcott knocked down and hurt guys who were a heck of a lot better than anyone Norton ever floored. In fact, Norton never knocked down anyone either as durable or as good as a Marciano, Louis, Bivins or Johnson.



All of a sudden the durability of a man's chin which survived the power of Foreman, Liston, Frazier, and Shavers is irrelevant by your estimation, but the ability to KO men who were naturally lightheavyweights or less is. Interesting.
No, that is not what I said- you're twisting my meaning, and I think you know it.What I indicated was that breaking Ali's jaw is not specifically more impressive than breaking someone else's jaw; he didn't have magic, super-strong bones.


First of all, Norton's best Ko was not Bobick.
I consider a "dusting" to mean actually stopping someone by knocking them down; Norton's best stoppage is over Quarry- who, ironically, was smallish and a natural sub-200-pounder himself- but that was a gradual bludgeoning, not a "dusting." His best actual knockout is his blow-out over the glass-jawed Bobick. That doesn't even begin to stack up with Walcott's resume.

Secondly, you have yet to tell me who Walcott floored, hurt or beat who was better or more durable than Muhammad Ali or Larry Holmes.
Marciano was knocked down less often than either Ali or Holmes and they were floored by lesser punchers than he was during their careers, and Marciano is the only man in this discussion who was never stopped in his professional career- in fact, he was never stopped in any fight of any kind, even amateur. Walcott dealt him the first knockdown of his career one minute into the first round- this is a much more impressive display of power than any Norton ever put on.

If this is the best that you can do, then you seriously have to go back to trolling 101.
Now I'm a troll? We can have our disagreements, but please don't start into unmerited insults. I am arguing based on facts and about boxing. I've said nothing personal and have directly addressed your arguments- if that's trolling, then everyone on this forum should be banned. Unless your definition of "trolling" is "debating against my viewpoint."



Here we go again,

Charles and Johnson were naturally lightheavyweights who were regularly floored or beaten by other lightheavyweights.
Charles was never beaten at light heavyweight. The fact that Charles and Johnson were natural light heavyweights does not constitute reason for ignoring them as evidence; both of them fought numerous full-sized heavyweights and consistently showed themselves to be both capable and reliable in standing up against them, hence the reason that they were elite heavyweights of the era themselves.

Also, heres another little tid bit about Walcott's win over Harold Johnson- Walcott won the fight by KO when Johnson fell to the floor untouched, and was later revealed to have an injured vertebral disk, meaning that no one really knows if this loss was really caused by Walcott's ability as a puncher.
Walcott had just knocked Johnson down the previous round, and the report indicated that Johnson had injured his back from the fall. This isn't a clean knockout, but it still certainly shows power and is a better stoppage than any Norton has aside from Quarry (who was smallish himself and was bludgeoned into a stoppage on his feet).





This whole argument should have been summed up by YOUR quote in pink.
So fighting generally better top opponents proves you hit harder?!:huh No, as I said: although Norton's best opponents were GENERALLY better and more durable than Walcott's, they were not ALL better or ALL more durable than ALL of Walcott's, and since that is not the case, the fact remains that Walcott displayed much more elite-level power EVEN AGAINST EQUALLY-DURABLE/GOOD OPPONENTS,

[OLD FOGEY]

I also think Lem Franklin is a very strong candidate. His final record was 32-13-1 with 2 NC in 48 fights. He scored 28 knockouts, including top five men Lee Savold, Jimmy Bivins, Curtis Sheppard, and big Abe Simon, plus a slew of gatekeeper types--Tony Musto, Perk Daniels, Willie Reddish, Eddie Blunt, and Altus Allen.

[Marciano Frazier]

I also think Lem Franklin is a very strong candidate. His final record was 32-13-1 with 2 NC in 48 fights. He scored 28 knockouts, including top five men Lee Savold, Jimmy Bivins, Curtis Sheppard, and big Abe Simon, plus a slew of gatekeeper types--Tony Musto, Perk Daniels, Willie Reddish, Eddie Blunt, and Altus Allen.
Yes, Franklin completely fell apart at the end of his career (leading to his tragic death, in fact), but he had a run in there where he was scoring knockout after knockout and positively decapitating numerous credible opponents. During 1940-42, Franklin went 20-0 with 18 knockouts (and one NC that was a fight in which Franklin knocked his opponent down five times in two rounds, but the referee ruled the match a No Contest), including knockouts over Bivins, who was a durable top fighter, Sheppard, who was rather seldom stopped himself and was a respected contender, Simon, who was a behemoth contender and who seemed plenty durable in his fights with Louis, and several solid fringe contenders.

Another is Earl "the Hooded Terror" Walls, who had a run in '52-54 in which he went 15-0 (14 KOs) and established a reputation as a monstrous puncher by annihilating guys like Rex Layne, Tommy Harrison and Joe Kahut in the first two rounds.

And, in fact, I think Franklin, Walls and their ilk are examples of why a "top 55 heavyweight punchers" list is ultimately fruitless- there are just dozens and dozens of guys, some who come immediately to mind and some who don't, who have possessed absolutely devastating power in the heavyweight division, and it's simply impossible to sort through them all and objectively pick out the 55 who hit the hardest.

In my honest opinion, Walcott probably wasn't one of the 55 hardest hitters in the history of the heavyweight division- and I don't think Norton was either, or Moorer, Witherspoon, or any of a number of other fighters on that list. And I don't think I could make a "55 hardest punchers" list myself that would be more accurate than this one. We can say who we think hit the very, very hardest based on their results at the absolute top of the list, but even those guys may only have produced their results because they hit extremely hard and had supplementing skills which allowed them to have success at a level that got them noticed, while other guys who hit even harder than they did, but lacked the skill to get to the top, may have been present at the same time as they were. It isn't all that uncommon for a boxer to remark that some unknown journeyman he fought early in his career hit him harder than anyone else he ever fought. And even not among the unknown journeymen, it's impossible to know with any great degree of accuracy, without using some more precise measure, who hit harder between two guys who fought entirely different opponents 50 years apart.

[mattdonnellon]

Marciano Frazier makes good sense about the journeymen etc and I just want to throw in a couple of other names, Billy Stift, Jack Doyle and esp. Tony Galento.

[Mendoza]

The 60 hardest punchers rough draft

In a chronological format!

1. Sullivan
2. Fitzsimmons
3. Maher
4. Slavin
5. T. Shakrey
6. Jeffries
7. McVey
8. Langford
9. Wills
10. Willard
11. Fulton
12. Dempsey
13. G. Godfrey
14. Fripo
15. Schmeling
16. J. Louis
17. M. Baer
18. B Baer
19. C. Williams
20. Ray
21. Marciano
22. Patterson
23. Johansson
24. Liston
25. Frazier
26. Foreman
27. Shavers
28. Lyle
29. Norton
30. Witherspoon
31. Cooney
32. Page
33 Coetzee
34. J Smith
35. Tyson
36. Bruno
37. Tucker
38. Ruddock
39. Bowe
40. Morrison
41 Morrer
42. Briggs
43. Ibebuchi
44. Tua
45. C. Sanders
46. Hide
47. L. Lewis
48. McCall
49 Rhaman
50 Maskeav
51. V Klitschko
52. W Klitschko
53. Brewster
54. Peter
55. Virchis


OUT: Tucker, this leaves six more spots.

IN: Mac Foster, Turkey Thompson, Archie Moore, and Bob Satterfield. I don’t think these guys make the top 40, but they can make the top 60 for now. Two spots are open.

Still not sure about: Joe Choynski, John Tate, Buster Douglas, Joe Walcott, Tony Galento, Curtis Sheppard, Pat Killen and others.

Here's what I want to do. I'm making my own top 40 list, and a consensus top 60 list. There are two spots open on the top 60 list. I say we vote for them.

The first process is to come up with names to vote on. Lem Franklin, Joe Choynski, John Tate, Buster Douglas, Joe Walcott, Tony Galento, Curtis Sheppard, Pat Killen....who else?

[OLD FOGEY]

This is a replacement for an mistaken post:

Well, what about Bernardo Mercado. He scored 29 ko's in 39 fights, including Earnie Shavers and Trevor Berbick.

[ChrisPontius]

Here's what I want to do. I'm making my own top 40 list, and a consensus top 60 list. There are two spots open on the top 60 list. I say we vote for them.

The first process is to come up with names to vote on. Lem Franklin, Joe Choynski, John Tate, Buster Douglas, Joe Walcott, Tony Galento, Curtis Sheppard, Pat Killen....who else?

I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but if i have to choose from those names, my votes go to Walcott and Galento. I must say i've never seen Franklin, Choynski (except for sparring with a shot Jeffries), Sheppard and Killen on film though.

[Mendoza]

Any more names? Otherwise I going to make a cut to 40 and 60

[mcvey]

Tommy Gomez?

[mcvey]

Tommy Gomez?
How about Gunboat Smith?

[Mendoza]

Tommy Gomez?

What would the case for Gomez be?

[mcvey]

What would the case for Gomez be?
In 84 fights he had 72 wins 65 by ko,pretty good % .About Gunboat Smith,is he worth a place in your list?

[Mendoza]

In 84 fights he had 72 wins 65 by ko,pretty good % .About Gunboat Smith,is he worth a place in your list?

No on Smith. Power is the last thing to go. Smith shoudl have more KO wins. Gomez is intersting.

[mcvey]

No on Smith. Power is the last thing to go. Smith shoudl have more KO wins. Gomez is intersting.
Smith had 48 wins with 33 kos ,isnt that enough? Dont forget his record included 51 no decs,as to percentages ,they can be misleading , Ike Williams a monster puncher at Lightweight ,didnt have a terrrific ko %. Power is the last thing top go but as you age ,you can,t pull the trigger,as Louis found out,Ali,not a big puncher ,stopped a lot of guys ,hiow many did he stop in his last few fights?

[OLD FOGEY]

Gomez is not a bad choice. He had a high percentage of ko's, with 65 in 87 bouts. There is an element of Lamar Clark in all of this with plenty of padding but he did stop a number of fringe contenders, Buddy Scott, Johnny Flynn, Phil Muscato, Tony Musto, Freddie Schott, and Gunnar Barlund. I would consider him myself kind of a weak choice for your top sixty list with Lem Franklin and Lee Savold clearly men who blew out better opponents and achieved higher ratings, but he is not an indefensible choice. Walcott, of course, blew out Gomez.

[Florida boy]

I can almost guarantee, that Klitschko hits harder then everyone in your top 5. way to many little guys up there, theres kos came against the dwarf heavyweights of the olden days.(and yes, i know there were a few big men back then)

[Luigi1985]

Her some fighters who weren´t mentioned yet:


Goddard
Comiskey
DePiccoli
Gastanaga
Haynes

[SuzieQ49]

Jersey Joe Walcott claimed Tommy Gomez was the hardest puncher he ever faced. Harder than louis and marciano.

[RoccoMarciano]

Jersey Joe Walcott claimed Tommy Gomez was the hardest puncher he ever faced. Harder than louis and marciano.

Wow! This is a cool post! Gives me something fun to look into.. kinda hard to argue with the guy.

[Marciano Frazier]

Jersey Joe Walcott claimed Tommy Gomez was the hardest puncher he ever faced. Harder than louis and marciano. I've seen Walcott quoted as saying Gomez was the hardest hitter he had fought, but that was in 1948- can you show me a quote where he says after the Marciano fights that Gomez hit harder than Rocky did?

[Mendoza]

I've seen Walcott quoted as saying Gomez was the hardest hitter he had fought, but that was in 1948- can you show me a quote where he says after the Marciano fights that Gomez hit harder than Rocky did?

I too would like to see this. Someone once said none of Joe Louis opponents said he hit them the hardest. Nor sure if this is true or not either. I have been BUSY, but plan to wrap this thread up with a 40 and 60 soon.

[OLD FOGEY]

I too would like to see this. Someone once said none of Joe Louis opponents said he hit them the hardest. Nor sure if this is true or not either. I have been BUSY, but plan to wrap this thread up with a 40 and 60 soon.

I don't know in this case, but I think a lot of the time fighters say things like this to be nice to a guy while serving as the guest speaker at a dinner in his honor or at some other get together. I don't think we should always take these types of statements--"A hit me harder than Louis or Marciano" or "B gave me a tougher fight than Dempsey or Tunney"--as gospel.

[sthomas]

Joe Choynski should be on the list. Fought 4 turn of the century champs (KO Johnson 3, draw Jefferies 20 rounds) and I believe each said he hit harder than anyone they had faced. I believe Johnson said in the late 1920's that he thought Choynski was a bigger puncher than all the guys present @ the time. Plus Choynski was the size of a light-heavyweight.

[Russell]

Speaking of Hide...

Hide's KO of Tucker was scary. That cross nearly took Tucker's fuckin' head off.

[Mendoza]

Did I forgot to post the final results?

Here are my top 40 and 60 heavyweight punchers. The top 40 is more of a pure punchers list, the top 60 is more fan friendly and includes several bubble type of candidates.

A few things.

The list are in a mostly Chronological order. This means old timers will be listed first. It does not mean I think. Sullvian hits harder than Tyson or Shavers! I hope this is clear.

Criterion: This is a pure punching power type of list. The below six categories factor in making it ot not.

1 ) Fighter should have a high knock out percentage in his wins. We are grading power here, not chins. Punchers should usually stop journeyman type of opponents. If they do not, it is a negative against them.

2 ) KO's in non-heavyweight divisions do not count, but not stopping fighters in lower weight divisions is viewed as a slight negative. Power rarely increases when fighters move up in weight classes.

3 ) Stopping hard to stop contender’s in their primes or near primes matters. So do one punch knockouts, and devastating knockouts that are far more than ten counts.

4 ) Quality of competition is considered. Some fighters fought much harder to hit and stop fighters than others.

5 ) Fighters who proved their power on film by hitting opponents or heavy bags with great force cement their status

6) Guys with numerous testimonials about their punching power are given extra considerations. This is especially true for fighters I have no seen on film.

The most qualified the fighters will rank highly in all six categories!

With that said here are lists.

Up first. The Fan’s top 60 all time punchers:

1. Sullivan
2. Fitzsimmons
3. Maher
4. Slavin
5. T. Shakrey
6. Jeffries
7. McVey
8. Langford
9. Wills
10. Willard
11. Fulton
12. Dempsey
13. G. Godfrey
14. Fripo
15. Schmeling
16. J. Louis
17. Lem Franklin
18. Turkey Thompson
19. M. Baer
20. B Baer
21. C. Williams
22. Ray
23. Satterfield
24. Gomez
25 Moore
26. Marciano
27. Patterson
28. Johansson
29. Liston
30. Frazier
31. Mac Foster
32 Foreman
33. Shavers
34 Lyle
35. Norton
36. Witherspoon
37. Cooney
38. Page
39 Coetzee
40. J Smith
41. Tyson
42. Bruno
43. Ruddock
44 Bowe
45. Morrison
46 Morrer
47. Briggs
48. Ibebuchi
49. Tua
50. C. Sanders
51. Hide
52. L. Lewis
53. McCall
54 Rhaman
55 Maskeav
56. V Klitschko
57. W Klitschko
58. Brewster
59. Peter
60 Virchis

Just missing the cut, and very arguable: Pat Killen, Lee Q Murray, Curtis Sheppard, Jose Urtrain, Jeff Merrit, Roy Williams ,Kallie Knotzee ,John Tate, Lem Franklin, Joe Choynski, and Buster Douglas. These guys would be in the top 75.


Top 40 all time heavyweight punchers. Same rules:

The list are in a mostly Chronological order. This means old timers will be listed first. It does not mean I think. Sullvian hits harder than Tyson or Shavers! I hope this is clear.

Criterion: This is a pure punching power type of list! The below five categories.

1 ) Fighter should have a high knock out percentage in his wins. We are grading power here, not chins. Punchers should usually stop journeyman type of opponents. If they do not, it is a negative against them.

2 ) KO's in non-heavyweight divisions do not count, but not stopping fighters in lower weight divisions is viewed as a slight negative. Power rarely increases when fighters move up in weight classes.

3 ) Stopping hard to stop contender’s in their primes or near primes matters. So do devastating knockouts that are far more than ten counts.

4 ) Quality of competition is considered. Some fighters fought much harder to hit and stop fighters than others.

5 ) Fighters who proved their power on film by hitting opponents or heavy bags with great force cement their status

6) Guys with numerous testimonials about their punching power are given extra considerations. This is especially true for fighters I have no seen on film.

The most qualified the fighters will rank highly in all six categories!

With that said here is the top 40 all time heavyweight punchers list:

1. Sullivan
2. Fitzsimmons
3. Maher
4. Slavin
5. Jeffries
6. McVey
7. Langford
8. Wills
9. Dempsey
10. Fripo
11 J. Louis
12. M. Baer
13. B Baer
14. Ray
15 Marciano
16. Patterson
17. Johansson
18. Liston
19. Frazier
20 Foreman
21. Shavers
22 Lyle
23 Witherspoon
24. Cooney
25. Page
26. Tyson
27. Bruno
28. Ruddock
29 Bowe
30. Morrison
31 Morrer
32. Briggs
33. Ibebuchi
34. Tua
35 C. Sanders
36. L. Lewis
37 Maskeav
38. V Klitschko
39. W Klitschko
40. Brewster

Just missing the cut, and very arguable: Everyone not listed, but in the top 60.

[China_hand_Joe]

Lennox Lewis is turning in his grave right now.

[McGrain]

:lol: :lol:

Lennox Lewis is turning in his grave right now.

[cuchulain]

My 55 hardest heavyweight punchers in a mostly chorological order.

The criteria are mix of the following.

1 ) Guys who I saw hitting fighters or heavy bags on video with great force. KO's in non-heavyweight divsions do not count.

2 ) Guys with high knockout out percentage in their wins, and guys who stopped hard to KO/TKO fighters.

3) Guys with numerous testimonials about their punching power, key for those with limited or no film.

The 55 hardest punchers:


1. Sullivan
2. Fitzsimmons
3. Maher
4. Slavin
5. T. Shakrey
6. Jeffries
7. McVey
8. Langford
9. Wills
10. Willard
11. Fulton
12. Dempsey
13. G. Godfrey
14. Fripo
15. Schmeling
16. J. Louis
17. M. Baer
18. B Baer
19. C. Williams
20. Ray
21. Marciano
22. Patterson
23. Johansson
24. Liston
25. Frazier
26. Foreman
27. Shavers
28. Lyle
29. Norton
30. Witherspoon
31. Cooney
32. Page
33 Coetzee
34. J Smith
35. Tyson
36. Bruno
37. Tucker
38. Ruddock
39. Bowe
40. Morrison
41 Morrer
42. Briggs
43. Ibebuchi
44. Tua
45. C. Sanders
46. Hide
47. L. Lewis
48. McCall
49 Rhaman
50 Maskeav
51. V Klitschko
52. W Klitschko
53. Brewster
54. Peter
55. Virchis

Should anyone else be in? I am a bit iffy on Maher, Slavin, Ray, Norton, and Tucker. I slightly more sold on Schemling, and Hide but neither have a firm spot yet. Since this was my first time through it is likely I missed a few names for sure. Who would you add in and who would you take out?

To have Johansson, Page and Norton ahead of Tyson, Tua and Vitali (well ahead, in fact) is extrmely puzzling !

And Lewis?

WTF is Lennox ?

He hit harder than AT LEAST 3/4 of your list !

[Loewe]

To have Johansson, Page and Norton ahead of Tyson, Tua and Vitali (well ahead, in fact) is extrmely puzzling !

And Lewis?

WTF is Lennox ?

He hit harder than AT LEAST 3/4 of your list !

You should really work on your reading comprehension. :deal

[slicksouthpaw16]

My 55 hardest heavyweight punchers in a mostly chorological order.

The criteria are mix of the following.

1 ) Guys who I saw hitting fighters or heavy bags on video with great force. KO's in non-heavyweight divsions do not count.

2 ) Guys with high knockout out percentage in their wins, and guys who stopped hard to KO/TKO fighters.

3) Guys with numerous testimonials about their punching power, key for those with limited or no film.

The 55 hardest punchers:


1. Sullivan
2. Fitzsimmons
3. Maher
4. Slavin
5. T. Shakrey
6. Jeffries
7. McVey
8. Langford
9. Wills
10. Willard
11. Fulton
12. Dempsey
13. G. Godfrey
14. Fripo
15. Schmeling
16. J. Louis
17. M. Baer
18. B Baer
19. C. Williams
20. Ray
21. Marciano
22. Patterson
23. Johansson
24. Liston
25. Frazier
26. Foreman
27. Shavers
28. Lyle
29. Norton
30. Witherspoon
31. Cooney
32. Page
33 Coetzee
34. J Smith
35. Tyson
36. Bruno
37. Tucker
38. Ruddock
39. Bowe
40. Morrison
41 Morrer
42. Briggs
43. Ibebuchi
44. Tua
45. C. Sanders
46. Hide
47. L. Lewis
48. McCall
49 Rhaman
50 Maskeav
51. V Klitschko
52. W Klitschko
53. Brewster
54. Peter
55. Virchis

Should anyone else be in? I am a bit iffy on Maher, Slavin, Ray, Norton, and Tucker. I slightly more sold on Schemling, and Hide but neither have a firm spot yet. Since this was my first time through it is likely I missed a few names for sure. Who would you add in and who would you take out?

Is that list in order? Becuase i would definiely put Foreman or Shavers at the number one spot.

[Mendoza]

To have Johansson, Page and Norton ahead of Tyson, Tua and Vitali (well ahead, in fact) is extrmely puzzling !

And Lewis?

WTF is Lennox ?

He hit harder than AT LEAST 3/4 of your list !

This list is NOT in order. I repeat the list is not in order. The list is in a rough chronological order. In other words, order of appearance. I agree Lewis hit harder than ¾ of the people on the list.

[cuchulain]

This list is NOT in order. I repeat the list is not in order. The list is in a rough chronological order. In other words, order of appearance. I agree Lewis hit harder than ¾ of the people on the list.
Fair enough !

As Loewe points out, I need to read more carefully.

[McGrain]

I think it's an excellent list. Scmeling should be in there.

Great work.