Hardest Heavyweight Hitters - Top Ten

First topic message reminder :


Been thinking about this in one of those idle moments when you're knackered but can't be bothered to get off the sofa and go to bed, so thought I'd post.

Who are the hardest heavyweight hitters of all time? Logically you'd have to go with shavers first although I think Big George runs him close. The rest are probably interchangeable depending on your viewpoint. One thing that makes this hard is the variation in size within one weight category - for example on a p4p basis you might say Marciano hits harder than Lewis, but then can you judge men from the same weight class on a p4p basis? Because the reality is that a man of Rockys size and weight cannot physically hit as hard as a 6'5" 240lb Lewis, so must come lower. Should he even be on the list on that basis - by that reasoning the likes of Vitali will be ahead too. Here's my initial list to get us started, can we decide on a final ten?

Ernie Shavers
George Foreman
Sonny Liston
Jack Dempsey 
Mike Tyson
Max Baer
Joe Louis
Lennox Lewis
Joe Frazier
Rocky Marciano 

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You mention these things but have no clue who the 9 were nor do I as it happens but I have the common sense to not comment on things I don't know about, say no more.

Haye is so skillful your backing him to beat the lesser skilled Wlad i'm assuming and he also beat the lesser skilled Thompson didn't he or am I mistaken?

Yet you raise those 9 as an achievement. Tyson Fury's dad also beat up a few men in one of their freakshow fights. Next stop Vitali for old Mr Fury.

Actually I'm backing Wlad to beat Haye. Likewise I'd back Pac, PBF, Berto, Ortiz, Cloud, Froch, Clazaghe (coke version too), Groves, DeGale, Billy-Jo all to beat Fitz.

Did I raise those nine? Have I mentioned those 9 fights once yet?

Haye's more skilled than Wlad though, surely he wins and he was more skilled than Thompson yet lost. You are a funny guy, good job i've long sinced realised your just a WUM.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You can go on about being a genuine heavyweight all you want but Sharkey, Maher, Ruhlin and Corbett were genuine heavyweights at the time. For instance Norton and Frazier would be small heavyweights compared to Lewis and the K bros as would Foreman, do we dismiss wins over them too?

No, but we would have to put them into CON-TEXT.

The context of them being heavyweight fights, lets put into context all the fighters fighting at weights they wouldn't have been able to in the past and dismiss their victories and championships.

Yeah, they're heavyweight fights but if you're telling me that you'd put a 5'11, 210lb Frazier in with a 6'8, 245lb Vitali and NOT take the size difference into account when assessing a win then you're missing the point.

Similarly, a 6'3, 210lb Haye beating a 6'5, 250lb Harrison is put into context and dismissed as any kind of a decent win because every blind man and his dog could see that Harrison was gonna have his rump handed to him.

If Fitz had beaten Jeffries it would be a heavyweight victory worthy of the name. Beating a 185lb Corbett and knocking over 250lb nobodies (in the greater scheme of things) aren't worthy of being called GREAT HEAVYweight victories.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Did I raise those nine? Have I mentioned those 9 fights once yet?

Haye's more skilled than Wlad though, surely he wins and he was more skilled than Thompson yet lost. You are a funny guy, good job i've long sinced realised your just a WUM.

Haye lost against Thompson coz he gassed. He was winning up to that point. Inexperience cost him. Now are you stillmaintaining Fitz hit harder than Haye?

The skill differential between Haye and Wlad is not that great. The difference is Wlad is good at what he does and coupled with his size wins it for me. He is not some 180lb masquerading as a HW.

Bringing Thompson into this is nonsensical - it was Haye's 13th fight. It has nothing to do with the man at his best. Unbelievable!

It's like bringing the defeat of almost every boxer in history up, there's always an excuse