BoxRec

Wayne Alexander?

bruno

wilde

Ever? Colin Jones?

naz had thunder in his gloves for a little'un

banjo wrote:Ever? Colin Jones?

The welsh welter from late 70s early 80s has got to be up there banjo good shout

From my era of been a boxing fan I'd have to go with Benn, not many keep on banging them out when they go up in weight but he did with ease.

game of trumps?

KO percentages

Jones 77% at Welter
Benn 73% at Middle/SMW
Hamed 84% at Feather

P4P - Prince is strong.

vxrandall wrote:game of trumps?

KO percentages

Jones 77% at Welter
Benn 73% at Middle/SMW
Hamed 84% at Feather

P4P - Prince is strong.

You need to implement some sort of scale of quality of opponent before you use a KO % imo. A lot of Benns early opponents were utter gash but from the halfway point of his career he stopped a lot of world class fighters. Hamed fought and chinned some very good fighters that Joe Public didn't have a clue who they were.

He unified the featherweight division but for belts been given up etc to make fights he was never recognized as the undisputed champion.

Jones I can't comment on as I've only ever seen a handful of his fights which consisted of 2 loses and a draw.

That scouse featherweight Hodkinson could bang a bit if I remember rightly.

banjo wrote:That scouse featherweight Hodkinson could bang a bit if I remember rightly.

I remember watching him in some great fights live on ITV, he certainly packed a punch. And at world level.

Hagler2002 wrote:

vxrandall wrote:game of trumps?

KO percentages

Jones 77% at Welter
Benn 73% at Middle/SMW
Hamed 84% at Feather

P4P - Prince is strong.

You need to implement some sort of scale of quality of opponent before you use a KO % imo. A lot of Benns early opponents were utter gash but from the halfway point of his career he stopped a lot of world class fighters. Hamed fought and chinned some very good fighters that Joe Public didn't have a clue who they were.

He unified the featherweight division but for belts been given up etc to make fights he was never recognized as the undisputed champion.

Jones I can't comment on as I've only ever seen a handful of his fights which consisted of 2 loses and a draw.

i think that would be impossible without the aid of some big data crunching, i think we have to make an assumption in the same way that we are talking about a 'p4p' comparison that all faced a broadly equal level of opposition across their entire careers.

Hamed floored 80+% and fought at world championship level. i'd be keen to see anyone with a bigger percentage and similar credentials without having to do a detailed line by line on each opponent. thats just not viable

vxrandall wrote:game of trumps?

KO percentages

Jones 77% at Welter
Benn 73% at Middle/SMW
Hamed 84% at Feather

P4P - Prince is strong.

David Haye 85.71%

Nigel Benn is easily one of my favourite fighters of all time. However, I don't think he had the same chilling power up at Super Middle, he seemed to have to wear fighters down more, and probably became a better fighter for that. Not many Barkley-style one rounders up at 168lbs.

chad wrote:

vxrandall wrote:game of trumps?

KO percentages

Jones 77% at Welter
Benn 73% at Middle/SMW
Hamed 84% at Feather

P4P - Prince is strong.

David Haye 85.71%

there you go. and i wonder if there is someone with an even higher % and similar pedigree.

so if we disregard opponent quality because thats just impossible. the question is P4P - if they were the same weight....who would be the bigger puncher? haye is a biggie - they tend to hit harder and throw less, does Naz's lighter weight tip in his balance because of the naturally lower KO rates in the lighter divisions?

The question is the biggest puncher not the best KO %!

If they are they best 3 KO percentages available the debate is surely their respective level of opponent to determine who was the biggest puncher is it not?

Its hardly number crunching.

Hagler2002 wrote:The question is the biggest puncher not the best KO %!

If they are they best 3 KO percentages available the debate is surely their respective level of opponent to determine who was the biggest puncher is it not?

Its hardly number crunching.

you give me a better indicator of how big someones punch is than their KO % then boff and i'll happily fold in line with your logic.

if we have to look at each of their opponents then we have to look at their opponents opponents to determine their quality and potentially so on and so forth. its a subjective question prima facie and i'm only seeking a simple formula to try and help determine some sort of consensus

vxrandall wrote:

Hagler2002 wrote:The question is the biggest puncher not the best KO %!

If they are they best 3 KO percentages available the debate is surely their respective level of opponent to determine who was the biggest puncher is it not?

Its hardly number crunching.

you give me a better indicator of how big someones punch is than their KO % then boff and i'll happily fold in line with your logic.

if we have to look at each of their opponents then we have to look at their opponents opponents to determine their quality and potentially so on and so forth. its a subjective question prima facie and i'm only seeking a simple formula to try and help determine some sort of consensus

All I'm saying is if Billy from the pub fights Joe from the pub 10 times and stops him then retires due to injury with a 100% KO record that makes him better than a boxer with a 80% KO record who had 15 world title fights?

Hagler2002 wrote:

vxrandall wrote:

Hagler2002 wrote:The question is the biggest puncher not the best KO %!

If they are they best 3 KO percentages available the debate is surely their respective level of opponent to determine who was the biggest puncher is it not?

Its hardly number crunching.

you give me a better indicator of how big someones punch is than their KO % then boff and i'll happily fold in line with your logic.

if we have to look at each of their opponents then we have to look at their opponents opponents to determine their quality and potentially so on and so forth. its a subjective question prima facie and i'm only seeking a simple formula to try and help determine some sort of consensus

All I'm saying is if Billy from the pub fights Joe from the pub 10 times and stops him then retires due to injury with a 100% KO record that makes him better than a boxer with a 80% KO record who had 15 world title fights?

i did say this a few posts ago - i'll repost in case u didnt hear it first time

i think we have to make an assumption in the same way that we are talking about a 'p4p' comparison that all faced a broadly equal level of opposition across their entire careers.

Hamed floored 80+% and fought at world championship level.i'd be keen to see anyone with a bigger percentage and similar credentials

Surprised there's no mention of Lennox Lewis?

His KO% maybe a little lower than those mentioned, but that was more to do with his style, he only banged people out after he'd softened them up, but it would be hard to bet against his power.

Benn's drop in KO % coincided with his move up to super middle, where he'd already changed style considerably and also faced better opposition, broadly speaking.

Colin Jones could hit but he faced Geography teachers from Ghent in some fights so it's hard to gauge, the same with Pat Barrett - Their KOs dried up when they faced top level guys but it's somewhat disingenuous to criticise Jones for not knocking out the likes of McCrory and Curry.

Ever, definitely Hamed in my view. The guy had unreal power and ko'd some top level opponents.

Of the current fighters, probably David Price, although that power has yet to be tested at a high level. Over the last few years Haye at cruiserweight would definitely have been the number 1.

80/20 wrote:Wayne Alexander?

Hi Wayne

Froch said Haye could really whack in sparring.

Since them days he's filled out, but still pretty explosive. He wobbled the giant !

I think it's between Naz and Haye.

Paul Ryan could hit so could Crawford Ashley.