BoxRec

At their respective peaks, which one of these two had the greater punching power?

yancey wrote:At their respective peaks, which one of these two had the greater punching power?

Foreman... But Tyson could put a combo 2gether better. Id say they was about = at taking a guy out.. But Foreman hit harder Im sure. If u watch Foreman hitting da bag and then u watch Tyson hitting da bag. Tyson is MUCH better.... But.. Foreman hits it harder. In fact wen Foreman hit it u could hear the thud and... U could see the big dent he was leaving in da bag.
Im certain the answer is Foreman.

One shot power? I don't even think Shavers threw a bigger single bomb than Foreman did, though some will argue it out between those two.

Foreman could literally knock a man down and out with a single punch. And even if he didnt' hit with precision you could see it discombobulate people even when hit folks on the arms.

Tyson would do the same with a buzz saw of about 3 shots in the same amount of time, with just as destructive of an outcome. But he couldnt "scoot a moose 5 paces with a single shot" like Foreman.

But Tyson would often land it perfect on the target and take the moose out just as easily if not easier. At his best.

From my observations it seemed like Tyson was always aiming at those precise "KO spots" where as Foreman just wanted to land in the general zip code of his opponent.

Well-put from Buzz.

I suspect watching the footage the answer is Foreman, but Tyson was just so overwhelmingly better in terms of precision & velocity, & probably is not too far behind Foreman in terms of raw power to boot.

I think the answer's Foreman, but I'm not so sure that translates to me choosing Tyson if I was to allow one to hit me clean.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Well-put from Buzz.

I suspect watching the footage the answer is Foreman, but Tyson was just so overwhelmingly better in terms of precision & velocity, & probably is not too far behind Foreman in terms of raw power to boot.

I think the answer's Foreman, but I'm not so sure that translates to me choosing Tyson if I was to allow one to hit me clean.

Definitely! Foreman at his most cruel if given the rules of the game would still likely not be driven to kill you with that one shot. Somewhere even in young Foreman were the seeds of the future preacher.

Tyson might just want to see if he could kill you. And he probably would. Remember when Richard "The Alien" Grant got crippled by that idiot who hit him he wasn't looking? Tyson would probably take his shot 1 second before the agreed upon "moment".

Never mind that, it occurs to me that he would also not hesitate to use the 45 degree death blow of Eubanks without a second thought.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Well-put from Buzz.

I suspect watching the footage the answer is Foreman, but Tyson was just so overwhelmingly better in terms of precision & velocity, & probably is not too far behind Foreman in terms of raw power to boot.

I think the answer's Foreman, but I'm not so sure that translates to me choosing Tyson if I was to allow one to hit me clean.

Definitely! Foreman at his most cruel if given the rules of the game would still likely not be driven to kill you with that one shot. Somewhere even in young Foreman were the seeds of the future preacher.

Tyson might just want to see if he could kill you. And he probably would. Remember when Richard "The Alien" Grant got crippled by that idiot who hit him he wasn't looking? Tyson would probably take his shot 1 second before the agreed upon "moment".

Never mind that, it occurs to me that he would also not hesitate to use the 45 degree death blow of Eubanks without a second thought.

Don't be so sure on that opening point. The young Foreman, both during & before Boxing, was a comprehensive savage.

Foreman hit harder!

I go with the general consensus, Foreman hit harder with a single shot.Foreman was a more mauling thudding rupture the spleen and cause permanent internal damage kind of guy than Tyson who was more a broken jaw and ribs kind, Tyson hit sharper in a shorter duration due to his greater handspeed and more accurate and surprising combinations (at least in his peak).

To sum it up Foreman is much the harder puncher per single shot but Tyson packed a hell of a slashing bone breaking set of tools as well.

Two of the hardest punchers of all time

What have Evander Holyfield, Lou Savarese, Alex Stewart, Mark Young, and David Jaco said?

One o the blurbs I liked in "Facing Ali" was the chapter about Foreman. George stated that he hit TOO HARD that it impeded his comeback.

Basically, he stated that his jab was so strong that it would knock his opponent back. By knocking them back, they were then out of position for his overhand right to knock them out. In essence, he stated he had to tone back on his punching power when fighting Moorer so that he could set up the right hand.

zojo, wrote:One o the blurbs I liked in "Facing Ali" was the chapter about Foreman. George stated that he hit TOO HARD that it impeded his comeback.

Basically, he stated that his jab was so strong that it would knock his opponent back. By knocking them back, they were then out of position for his overhand right to knock them out. In essence, he stated he had to tone back on his punching power when fighting Moorer so that he could set up the right hand.

Just unreal at that age. Any age, really.

zojo, wrote:What have Evander Holyfield, Lou Savarese, Alex Stewart, Mark Young, and David Jaco said?

Alex Stewart is no authority, Tyson never hit him.

zojo, wrote:One o the blurbs I liked in "Facing Ali" was the chapter about Foreman. George stated that he hit TOO HARD that it impeded his comeback.

Basically, he stated that his jab was so strong that it would knock his opponent back. By knocking them back, they were then out of position for his overhand right to knock them out. In essence, he stated he had to tone back on his punching power when fighting Moorer so that he could set up the right hand.

Foreman has said alot of nonsensical things and this is certainly one of them. He also said that the whole Moorer fight was planned out 3 months in advance. Fact is that Foreman did not have anything near the power he once posessed when he came back. He still hit hard mind you but to say that he scaled back on the jab because it was too hard strikes me as bullshit.

hhaehre wrote:

zojo, wrote:One o the blurbs I liked in "Facing Ali" was the chapter about Foreman. George stated that he hit TOO HARD that it impeded his comeback.

Basically, he stated that his jab was so strong that it would knock his opponent back. By knocking them back, they were then out of position for his overhand right to knock them out. In essence, he stated he had to tone back on his punching power when fighting Moorer so that he could set up the right hand.

Foreman has said alot of nonsensical things and this is certainly one of them. He also said that the whole Moorer fight was planned out 3 months in advance. Fact is that Foreman did not have anything near the power he once posessed when he came back. He still hit hard mind you but to say that he scaled back on the jab because it was too hard strikes me as bullshit.

Wen u throw the 1-2 u only put about 60% of power on that jab, that is cos u want the power for the right cross. Also wen he KOd Moorer wiv that str8 right that only traveled about 7inches it showed he carried alot of power. I don't think u can say he did not have anything near the power he once posessed when he came back. He lost a bit of speed. But I think he might of been stronger wen he came back. He didnt throw so many punches as the young Foreman. But for 1 punch Ko power, I think he still had it on the comback.

gambler49 wrote:I don't think u can say he did not have anything near the power he once posessed when he came back.

Oh, but I can and I did. Do you think the likes of Schulz, Grimsley and Savarese would have heard the final bell against 73 Foreman? They'd be lucky to last a single round. All you have to do is watch the tapes, it's a world of difference.

gambler49 wrote: He lost a bit of speed. But I think he might of been stronger wen he came back. He didnt throw so many punches as the young Foreman. But for 1 punch Ko power, I think he still had it on the comback.

You don't grow stronger into your 40's, you grow weaker and slower. He was still a freakishly strong man when he came back but stronger than before he was not. The only aspect of his game that I think was as good or possibly even better after the comeback was his timing.

"Foreman has said alot of nonsensical things and this is certainly one of them. He also said that the whole Moorer fight was planned out 3 months in advance. Fact is that Foreman did not have anything near the power he once posessed when he came back. He still hit hard mind you but to say that he scaled back on the jab because it was too hard strikes me as bullshit." - Hhaere

What he said, I saw happen in at least one fight. Against Ladislao Mijangos, Foreman drives his man backward with the jab, & misses two or three times with follow-up right hands, as Mijangos is jolted into reverse gear by the force of the blows.

Foreman fought a lot of scrubs between 1987-1990. I could see what he's saying as having happened more than a few times. One guy who wasn't pushed back during that time, & who took a terrific licking with heart a-plenty, though, was Rocky Sekorski. Out-gunned, but a lot braver than some of Foreman's adversaries from the same period.

Easily Foreman here. I thought he had unbelievable raw power. I didn't think he was a very good boxer though, but didn't need to be I guess. Liston and Shavers I would rank 2 and 3, and Tyson 4. What Tyson had was accurate chin and jaw shots that were quick and powerful. I don't think most seen them coming, which would have KO'd anyone. Tyson was exposed though when someone used good boxing.....Buster Douglas. Tyson was only 26 and 35+ wins unbeaten. Past his prime only 5 yrs in? Maybe so, or just took Douglas too lightly. I predicted back then that Holefield would beat Tyson, and won some.

For me Foreman was the harder puncher, its just that Tyson got his shots off quicker.

I'd favour Foreman over Tyson and would want a ringside seat.

Badhusker wrote:Easily Foreman here. I thought he had unbelievable raw power. I didn't think he was a very good boxer though, but didn't need to be I guess. Liston and Shavers I would rank 2 and 3, and Tyson 4. What Tyson had was accurate chin and jaw shots that were quick and powerful. I don't think most seen them coming, which would have KO'd anyone. Tyson was exposed though when someone used good boxing.....Buster Douglas. Tyson was only 26 and 35+ wins unbeaten. Past his prime only 5 yrs in? Maybe so, or just took Douglas too lightly. I predicted back then that Holefield would beat Tyson, and won some.

Don't rule out Baer in your calculations. He is desperately under-estimated & forgotten in these debates, yet I truly believe Baer can mix it in raw power with the best of them --- Dempsey, Tyson, Foreman, Liston --- you name 'em. Baer was a fucken demonic puncher.