BoxRec

ValMar wrote:

Mexi-Box wrote:

ValMar wrote:
Mexi-Box, I have to repeat, this is a thread about absolute power (not p4p).
There is no place for let us say Lemieux, here.
You can open the topic : PUNCHING POWER 10/10 P4P ?
I would take a part in this kind of topic, gladly.

Next time put that on your topic subject, ffs, instead of bleeding from your eyeballs.

Kudryashov and Beterbiev are definitely 10/10 power no matter what, though. Beterbiev was hurting bigger dudes in the amateurs from what I've read and Kudryashov's power is top-tier no matter what division.

Don't be angry, please, I think I have done this precisely in the opening post. Beterbiev and Kudryashov (Gassiev, too) are the beasts, definitely, but they are not (as I know) HWs. Let me remind you about Pacquiao - he was destroyer in FW, SFW, etc...but no more at WW....

As I said, Beterbiev was destroying dudes in the amateurs. Dude fought big dudes with bigger gloves too.

Gassiev does have power, but from what I've seen, I don't think it's Kudryashov level. Kudryashov is a drainer, and he could make HW. Lots of current CWs are HWs that drain.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:We are discussing about the highest level HWs, and it is normal for me that "an average puncher" on this level has punching power 7/10...........
I mentioned Pulev, etc...etc....

Average out of 10 is 5.

Yes, of course....And, ranking of average HW is , let us say, #200, and we are speaking about top level fighters....

Mexi-Box wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Mexi-Box wrote: Next time put that on your topic subject, ffs, instead of bleeding from your eyeballs.

Kudryashov and Beterbiev are definitely 10/10 power no matter what, though. Beterbiev was hurting bigger dudes in the amateurs from what I've read and Kudryashov's power is top-tier no matter what division.

Don't be angry, please, I think I have done this precisely in the opening post. Beterbiev and Kudryashov (Gassiev, too) are the beasts, definitely, but they are not (as I know) HWs. Let me remind you about Pacquiao - he was destroyer in FW, SFW, etc...but no more at WW....

As I said, Beterbiev was destroying dudes in the amateurs. Dude fought big dudes with bigger gloves too.

Gassiev does have power, but from what I've seen, I don't think it's Kudryashov level. Kudryashov is a drainer, and he could make HW. Lots of current CWs are HWs that drain.

I agree, and I would like to see all of mentioned at HW, Usyk, too, of course.....

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:We are discussing about the highest level HWs, and it is normal for me that "an average puncher" on this level has punching power 7/10...........
I mentioned Pulev, etc...etc....

Average out of 10 is 5.

Yes, of course....And, ranking of average HW is , let us say, #200, and we are speaking about top level fighters....

It doesn't matter, although you never mentioned anything about top level. You just said active. No matter what your pool is, it doesn't make a 3 into a 7. You're very confused. Hughie fury isn't in the too 200 for punching power, I know that much.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Average out of 10 is 5.

Yes, of course....And, ranking of average HW is , let us say, #200, and we are speaking about top level fighters....

It doesn't matter, although you never mentioned anything about top level. You just said active. No matter what your pool is, it doesn't make a 3 into a 7. You're very confused. Hughie fury isn't in the too 200 for punching power, I know that much.

Confused ? I do not think so, but you have the right to think so.
Please, would you make your list with 5-10 most powerful active punchers (absolute, not p4p) ?

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:
Yes, of course....And, ranking of average HW is , let us say, #200, and we are speaking about top level fighters....

It doesn't matter, although you never mentioned anything about top level. You just said active. No matter what your pool is, it doesn't make a 3 into a 7. You're very confused. Hughie fury isn't in the too 200 for punching power, I know that much.

Confused ? I do not think so, but you have the right to think so.
Please, would you make your list with 5-10 most powerful active punchers (absolute, not p4p) ?

I don't have a list, nor the desire to have one. You asked about yours and Ortiz has no business anywhere near Wlad, Wilder and Joshua. Hughey Fury is about a 3. Where you're confused is you keep saying it's strictly about power and then you're bringing other skills into it by saying just top level. I don't think there are 10 top level Heavyweights. Too many I've never seen fight to tabulate a list, but I know you're overrating the hell out of Ortiz' power.

Mexi-Box wrote:

Jip wrote:Who punches the hardest in each division?

Joshua
Kudryashov
Bertebiev
Abraham
GGG
?
Thurman
Troyanowski
?

Thurman doesn't hit that hard. He's more Runtime than Onetime.

Its true. He has been running a lot reascently, doesnt take away him having brutal force behind his hooks.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: It doesn't matter, although you never mentioned anything about top level. You just said active. No matter what your pool is, it doesn't make a 3 into a 7. You're very confused. Hughie fury isn't in the too 200 for punching power, I know that much.

Confused ? I do not think so, but you have the right to think so.
Please, would you make your list with 5-10 most powerful active punchers (absolute, not p4p) ?

I don't have a list, nor the desire to have one. You asked about yours and Ortiz has no business anywhere near Wlad, Wilder and Joshua. Hughey Fury is about a 3. Where you're confused is you keep saying it's strictly about power and then you're bringing other skills into it by saying just top level. I don't think there are 10 top level Heavyweights. Too many I've never seen fight to tabulate a list, but I know you're overrating the hell out of Ortiz' power.

Yes, this is a topic about power. Fighters who belong to the top level, should, generally speaking, have better power than others. I can not see this as a strange or confusing fact. There are always some exceptions (David Price is one of them), but not a lot.
I hope (not sure) that there are more than 10 top level HWs....
As I can see, you disagree with me only about Ortiz....Obviously, you might accept the rest of list........And, please, do not take this personally, this is a boxing forum, for fan's fun.....

True, it's the fact that he's not a big puncher that does that. Not the running.

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:
Confused ? I do not think so, but you have the right to think so.
Please, would you make your list with 5-10 most powerful active punchers (absolute, not p4p) ?

I don't have a list, nor the desire to have one. You asked about yours and Ortiz has no business anywhere near Wlad, Wilder and Joshua. Hughey Fury is about a 3. Where you're confused is you keep saying it's strictly about power and then you're bringing other skills into it by saying just top level. I don't think there are 10 top level Heavyweights. Too many I've never seen fight to tabulate a list, but I know you're overrating the hell out of Ortiz' power.

Yes, this is a topic about power. Fighters who belong to the top level, should, generally speaking, have better power than others. I can not see this as a strange or confusing fact. There are always some exceptions (David Price is one of them), but not a lot.
I hope (not sure) that there are more than 10 top level HWs....
As I can see, you disagree with me only about Ortiz....Obviously, you might accept the rest of list........And, please, do not take this personally, this is a boxing forum, for fan's fun.....

God no, Ortiz was the most glaring. All of your 7's are ridiculous and no, being top level does not mean you have more power than a lesser talent. I just ignored Price, he hits harder than Ortiz, but certainly not as hard as Wilder, Wlad or Joshua. Take what personally? You being wrong? That doesn't bother me at all.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I don't have a list, nor the desire to have one. You asked about yours and Ortiz has no business anywhere near Wlad, Wilder and Joshua. Hughey Fury is about a 3. Where you're confused is you keep saying it's strictly about power and then you're bringing other skills into it by saying just top level. I don't think there are 10 top level Heavyweights. Too many I've never seen fight to tabulate a list, but I know you're overrating the hell out of Ortiz' power.

Yes, this is a topic about power. Fighters who belong to the top level, should, generally speaking, have better power than others. I can not see this as a strange or confusing fact. There are always some exceptions (David Price is one of them), but not a lot.
I hope (not sure) that there are more than 10 top level HWs....
As I can see, you disagree with me only about Ortiz....Obviously, you might accept the rest of list........And, please, do not take this personally, this is a boxing forum, for fan's fun.....

God no, Ortiz was the most glaring. All of your 7's are ridiculous and no, being top level does not mean you have more power than a lesser talent. I just ignored Price, he hits harder than Ortiz, but certainly not as hard as Wilder, Wlad or Joshua. Take what personally? You being wrong? That doesn't bother me at all.

"All of my 7's are ridiculous" From time to time, I am wrong, and if you think that you are never wrong, let us make the new religion, you could be a proper "new messiah".........

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Saad, you can better, much better..........

If the 1 to 10 ranking is just for top level heavyweights then some top level heavyweights have to be a one, so Hughie Fury isn't a seven.

If the 1 to 10 ranking is for all human beings, but you are only interested in where top level heavyweights rank, then Hughie Fury isn't a seven, he's a 10. All of them are 10/10. Pretty much every professional heavyweight ever is 10/10.

You need to define your scale.

gp. wrote:If the 1 to 10 ranking is just for top level heavyweights then some top level heavyweights have to be a one, so Hughie Fury isn't a seven.

If the 1 to 10 ranking is for all human beings, but you are only interested in where top level heavyweights rank, then Hughie Fury isn't a seven, he's a 10. All of them are 10/10. Pretty much every professional heavyweight ever is 10/10.

You need to define your scale.

Nice effort, I'm not liking your chances of getting through.

gp. wrote:If the 1 to 10 ranking is just for top level heavyweights then some top level heavyweights have to be a one, so Hughie Fury isn't a seven.

If the 1 to 10 ranking is for all human beings, but you are only interested in where top level heavyweights rank, then Hughie Fury isn't a seven, he's a 10. All of them are 10/10. Pretty much every professional heavyweight ever is 10/10.

You need to define your scale.

1 to 10 ranking for all active boxers. In theory, some boxers beyond HW might be on this list, but it is not likely....

For example : Roman Gonzalez is 2/10, Terence Crawford is 3/10, Errol Spence is 4/10, Genady Golovkin is 5/10, Sergey Kovalev is 6/10, Denis Lebedev and Kubrat Pulev are 7/10, Charles Martin and Murat Gassiev are 8/10, Povetkin, Briggs and Ustinov are 9/10.....

Why dont you just make it 1-10 for heavyweights? I mean, you pretty much suggested that theyre all youre interested in.

So 5 would be average power for a heavyweight

ValMar wrote:

gp. wrote:If the 1 to 10 ranking is just for top level heavyweights then some top level heavyweights have to be a one, so Hughie Fury isn't a seven.

If the 1 to 10 ranking is for all human beings, but you are only interested in where top level heavyweights rank, then Hughie Fury isn't a seven, he's a 10. All of them are 10/10. Pretty much every professional heavyweight ever is 10/10.

You need to define your scale.

1 to 10 ranking for all active boxers. In theory, some boxers beyond HW might be on this list, but it is not likely....

For example : Roman Gonzalez is 2/10, Terence Crawford is 3/10, Errol Spence is 4/10, Genady Golovkin is 5/10, Sergey Kovalev is 6/10, Denis Lebedev and Kubrat Pulev are 7/10, Charles Martin and Murat Gassiev are 8/10, Povetkin, Briggs and Ustinov are 9/10.....

On this scale then your ratings make more sense, but I'm not sure using this scale is particularly useful. You'll have all your heavyweights bunched at one end from 7-10. You might as well just rank heavyweights on a scale of 1-4.

crusader wrote:Why dont you just make it 1-10 for heavyweights? I mean, you pretty much suggested that theyre all youre interested in.

So 5 would be average power for a heavyweight

^^
Or do that, what he said.

gp. wrote:

ValMar wrote:

gp. wrote:If the 1 to 10 ranking is just for top level heavyweights then some top level heavyweights have to be a one, so Hughie Fury isn't a seven.

If the 1 to 10 ranking is for all human beings, but you are only interested in where top level heavyweights rank, then Hughie Fury isn't a seven, he's a 10. All of them are 10/10. Pretty much every professional heavyweight ever is 10/10.

You need to define your scale.

1 to 10 ranking for all active boxers. In theory, some boxers beyond HW might be on this list, but it is not likely....

For example : Roman Gonzalez is 2/10, Terence Crawford is 3/10, Errol Spence is 4/10, Genady Golovkin is 5/10, Sergey Kovalev is 6/10, Denis Lebedev and Kubrat Pulev are 7/10, Charles Martin and Murat Gassiev are 8/10, Povetkin, Briggs and Ustinov are 9/10.....

On this scale then your ratings make more sense, but I'm not sure using this scale is particularly useful. You'll have all your heavyweights bunched at one end from 7-10. You might as well just rank heavyweights on a scale of 1-4.

You are right, but some people think that some CWs, even LHWs have more punching power than majority of HWs. I do not think so, for me it is quite natural for HWs to be the most powerful, and really, I can not see anything weird about this thread/question.....OK, my English is pretty bad, but I do not think that I could be misunderstood, here.....If you want, here is the question : What do you think about this list (HWs and their punching power - 4/4)----Joshua, Klitschko, Haye, Wilder, Ortiz, Price ........

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Saad, you can better, much better..........

No he can't. The dude is an imbecile of the highest magnitude.

ValMar wrote:

gp. wrote:

ValMar wrote:
1 to 10 ranking for all active boxers. In theory, some boxers beyond HW might be on this list, but it is not likely....

For example : Roman Gonzalez is 2/10, Terence Crawford is 3/10, Errol Spence is 4/10, Genady Golovkin is 5/10, Sergey Kovalev is 6/10, Denis Lebedev and Kubrat Pulev are 7/10, Charles Martin and Murat Gassiev are 8/10, Povetkin, Briggs and Ustinov are 9/10.....

On this scale then your ratings make more sense, but I'm not sure using this scale is particularly useful. You'll have all your heavyweights bunched at one end from 7-10. You might as well just rank heavyweights on a scale of 1-4.

You are right, but some people think that some CWs, even LHWs have more punching power than majority of HWs. I do not think so, for me it is quite natural for HWs to be the most powerful, and really, I can not see anything weird about this thread/question.....OK, my English is pretty bad, but I do not think that I could be misunderstood, here.....If you want, here is the question : What do you think about this list (HWs and their punching power - 4/4)----Joshua, Klitschko, Haye, Wilder, Ortiz, Price ........

Well you'd expect about 20-25% of active heavyweights to come into the 10/10 (or 4/4) bracket, so yes, all those would be.

gp. wrote:

ValMar wrote:

gp. wrote:

On this scale then your ratings make more sense, but I'm not sure using this scale is particularly useful. You'll have all your heavyweights bunched at one end from 7-10. You might as well just rank heavyweights on a scale of 1-4.

You are right, but some people think that some CWs, even LHWs have more punching power than majority of HWs. I do not think so, for me it is quite natural for HWs to be the most powerful, and really, I can not see anything weird about this thread/question.....OK, my English is pretty bad, but I do not think that I could be misunderstood, here.....If you want, here is the question : What do you think about this list (HWs and their punching power - 4/4)----Joshua, Klitschko, Haye, Wilder, Ortiz, Price ........

Well you'd expect about 20-25% of active heavyweights to come into the 10/10 (or 4/4) bracket, so yes, all those would be.

No, there are only a few fighters on the top (considering power in this case, but we can speak about chin, skills, stamina, too).
Are there a lot of students on some prominent university (let us say Yale or Oxford) with IQ more than 160 ? Of course, not.
I suppose three quarters of them are between 120 and 140. Perhaps one out of a thousand has IQ 160 or over....
I hope that you are serious, and understand my point.

ValMar wrote:

gp. wrote:

ValMar wrote: You are right, but some people think that some CWs, even LHWs have more punching power than majority of HWs. I do not think so, for me it is quite natural for HWs to be the most powerful, and really, I can not see anything weird about this thread/question.....OK, my English is pretty bad, but I do not think that I could be misunderstood, here.....If you want, here is the question : What do you think about this list (HWs and their punching power - 4/4)----Joshua, Klitschko, Haye, Wilder, Ortiz, Price ........

Well you'd expect about 20-25% of active heavyweights to come into the 10/10 (or 4/4) bracket, so yes, all those would be.

No, there are only a few fighters on the top (considering power in this case, but we can speak about chin, skills, stamina, too).
Are there a lot of students on some prominent university (let us say Yale or Oxford) with IQ more than 160 ? Of course, not.
I suppose three quarters of them are between 120 and 140. Perhaps one out of a thousand has IQ 160 or over....
I hope that you are serious, and understand my point.

That's IQ though, which is a Bell curve. That's not a 1-10 scale. A 1-10 scale should be graduated equally along its length. Otherwise it's purely arbitrary - I could say that nobody is 10/10 except the very hardest puncher, or I could say nobody is 10/10 at all because they don't deserve to be there.

If you want to make it a Bell curve, what percentile do you think should be ranked above 9?

Klitschko, Joshua and Wilder (in that order) are the hardest punchers.

gp. wrote:

ValMar wrote:

gp. wrote:

Well you'd expect about 20-25% of active heavyweights to come into the 10/10 (or 4/4) bracket, so yes, all those would be.

No, there are only a few fighters on the top (considering power in this case, but we can speak about chin, skills, stamina, too).
Are there a lot of students on some prominent university (let us say Yale or Oxford) with IQ more than 160 ? Of course, not.
I suppose three quarters of them are between 120 and 140. Perhaps one out of a thousand has IQ 160 or over....
I hope that you are serious, and understand my point.

That's IQ though, which is a Bell curve. That's not a 1-10 scale. A 1-10 scale should be graduated equally along its length. Otherwise it's purely arbitrary - I could say that nobody is 10/10 except the very hardest puncher, or I could say nobody is 10/10 at all because they don't deserve to be there.

If you want to make it a Bell curve, what percentile do you think should be ranked above 9?

Any scale could be presented as a curve (with normal distribution - Gauss, or without)....
I wrote in opening post 10/10 = +95/100, if you want percentile - it would be 99th, of course it is roughly.....
If you have a thousand pro-boxers at HW - the answer is easy, you might add two or three CWs, and that is it........