BoxRec

""Power helps, but at the highest level only if you can also box. Plentiful fighters were able to dominate their divisions without applying a particularly powerful punch, as long as they punched fast and accurately and had good defensive skills. In fact, a fast, acurate, well-time punch can create havoc even if it is not particulalry powerful.""

Views.

pundit wrote:""Power helps, but at the highest level only if you can also box. Plentiful fighters were able to dominate their divisions without applying a particularly powerful punch, as long as they punched fast and accurately and had good defensive skills. In fact, a fast, acurate, well-time punch can create havoc even if it is not particulalry powerful.""

Views.

Sounds like common sense to me. Almost the only time having raw punching power and nothing else is enough is when you get two complete novices fighting like cave men.

Decagon wrote:Most people overrate power simply because they don't understand it. They say, "Mike Tyson had GREAT power," because they don't understand the training, technique and precision that went into those knockouts he had.

Handspeed, combination punching, timing - all this made Tyson's "power" so devastating.

I'll go along with all of that. Historically, a lot of power punching contenders were never champions. Lot of soft punchers were. The difference was defensive skill and boxing ability, the ability to hit and not get hit, to score and land punches, maybe even to hurt an opponent, even if the punches landed were not thrown with particularly bad intentions.

Of course, these boxer types were (and still are) not always the most exciting fighters to watch. For the sake of argument, let me just say I always would get more excited for a Shavers fight or a Foreman fight than I would before nearly every one of Holmes' title defenses, or even Ali's before as he was winding down his career, no disrespect intended.

Most people, I think, would rather see a train wreck than a bumper car exhibition. I mean, let's face it, that's why guys like Winky Wright, as good and as proven as he is, remains somewhat of a weak draw. He's great for the purists of the sport, but you know all his fights are going to go the distance ...

There's just not that same drama!

Decagon wrote:

pundit wrote:

Decagon wrote:Most people overrate power simply because they don't understand it. They say, "Mike Tyson had GREAT power," because they don't understand the training, technique and precision that went into those knockouts he had.

Handspeed, combination punching, timing - all this made Tyson's "power" so devastating.

Yet no one would dare say that Tyson was had "very good" power. You always have to say that he had "great" power. Rocky Marciano had great power. Lennox Lewis had great power. Earnie Shavers had great power. Can you imagine what Earnie Shavers would have been like with Tyson's speed, timing and precision(or vice-versa)? He would have killed one out of every seven of his opponents.

If Shavers had the speed & accuracy of Louis or Tyson, nature would have given him Bruce Seldon's chin or Frank Bruno's stamina as an equaliser.

Decagon wrote:He had both to start with!

D'oh!!!

That's true!!!!

if you only can beat a novice with raw power how come that guys like Jess Willard, Primo Carnera and some might argue Pre comeback George Foreman could hold the world heavyweight championship when all three lacked any real skill.

Thunder and Lightning wrote:if you only can beat a novice with raw power how come that guys like Jess Willard, Primo Carnera and some might argue Pre comeback George Foreman could hold the world heavyweight championship when all three lacked any real skill.

Foreman didn't lack skill at all, he was very hard to hit cleanly and he was a master in cutting off the ring. Carnera had an underrated jab, and his reach advantage alone won him many fights. Btw, he won quite often on points. Willard was a paper champ who gained the title by outlasting a n out-of-shape and old Jack Johnson..

I agree that power is somewhat overrated. Of course it's great to have power, but there are so many other facets that are important as well. You almost always have a punchers chance if you have great power, but a fighter has to have more than just power to be great.
On the other hand, if a fighter is very light hitting, it does make things difficult. You do need to have enough on your punches so that your opponent isn't walking through your punches.

I don't think its overrated if you have all of the necessary skills AND power.

Its great to have if you have a good jab to set the deal up. Otherwise a well schooled fighter can avoid the big shot.
Better to hit a guy with a .22 than miss him with a cannon.

TRUE PUNCH POWER

That's what evades today's jelly-belly heavyweights...

They thrudge around the ring for a few mintues then see an opening and thrown 1-2-3-4-5-6 big swings..... and then they are tubed, and hafta spend the rest of the round getting their breath back...

Not many heavyweights nowadays have great punch power...

The last champion who had it would have to be, Mike Tyson.

Crease wrote:TRUE PUNCH POWER

That's what evades today's jelly-belly heavyweights...

They thrudge around the ring for a few mintues then see an opening and thrown 1-2-3-4-5-6 big swings..... and then they are tubed, and hafta spend the rest of the round getting their breath back...

Not many heavyweights nowadays have great punch power...

The last champion who had it would have to be, Mike Tyson.

Oh boy.

You obviously confuse boxing with something esle.

One of the better examples of this that comes to my mind is Courage Tshabalala...he had unbelievable raw physical power, which might have served him well in the amateurs against weak opposition, but it did not take him very far at all in the professional ranks, even against weaker professional opposition...and to think that Larry Merchant praised that he would certainly be world heavyweight champion...basing the statement entirely on his raw power.

No raw power is pretty much useless if the person does not have the ability to box and the ability to harness that power and use it...raw power usually runs completely out of gas in a couple of rounds and unless they can land a lucky punch then they will lose 10 out of 10.

Power can be an over-rated quality. But it also depends on the body type of someone. If someone is too overally muscular, then they lack fluidity in their punches, ain't as quick and as sharp. You could take for example Rocky Marciano, when he originally became a boxer he lifted weights, but later on, he worried about being too muscular, so he swam more.

Paul E. Anderson was the world's strongest man, once lifting more than three tons on a back-lift, and once was the record holder for the bench press, he tried boxing, but ultimately failed. He had more brute strength than anyone, but his great power was his Achilles heal, as he was too bulky.

Now as far as someone who has power naturally, facing against a man who is a speedy boxer, by and large the boxing master would win over the man who hits harder. It depends really on styles, rather than who hits harder than whom---if the guy who hit harder was a swarmer, he would be a better infighter than the boxer-boxer. There is various advantages and disadvantages to different styles.

..pundit makes a good point about foreman's skills...especially his ability to cut off the ring, at which he was about as good as they come. ali said in a couple of interviews that he found out right away in their match that he was taking two and even three steps for every one foreman took....and the ring kept getting smaller. he wasn't high on foreman as a boxer but he did praise this aspect.....and it was one reason he started to use the rope-a-dope.


i agree with most of the comments here about pure power alone. shavers, bob satterfield, rocky graziano (to a lesser degree) are just s few names who come to mind. power will get you into the main events and good paydays and even into the top ten for a while, but it can carry you for only so long. i never saw a harder hitter than nick wells..southpaw amateur who was scary....but he didn't train and relied solely on his getting the guy out of there early...and one punch often did it. in the amateurs duane bobick beat him, and wells never ammounted to anything in his brief pro career.

One thing in defense of power though. It usally is the last skill to go.
A good puncher can maintain his heavy hands late into a career as Foreman did.

One of the better examples of this that comes to my mind is Courage Tshabalala...he had unbelievable raw physical power, which might have served him well in the amateurs against weak opposition, but it did not take him very far at all in the professional ranks, even against weaker professional opposition...and to think that Larry Merchant praised that he would certainly be world heavyweight champion...basing the statement entirely on his raw power.

Probably the perfect example of the point, Barry. This guy was scary powerful but looked inept when someone refused to stand directly in front of him, or actually punched back. Sam Peters reminds me of him alittle bit except with substantially more skill.

Another recent fighter that comes to mind is Gustavo Magallanes, or at least the couple of fights that I have seen of him he showed absolutely nothing but raw power and how he made it through 28 bouts without a loss is beyond me, even though it was almost all weak opposition.

Also, I think that David Tua falls into the category, but he actually does, or did have pretty good skills which he use to demonstrate before he turned into a one punch left hooking headhunter. He should have been champion if he would have only tried to box against Lewis instead of that one humongous left hook that he threw what seemed like every 30 seconds.

Also, I think that David Tua falls into the category, but he actually does, or did have pretty good skills which he use to demonstrate before he turned into a one punch left hooking headhunter. He should have been champion if he would have only tried to box against Lewis instead of that one humongous left hook that he threw what seemed like every 30 seconds.

The problem Tua had with Lewis was that Lewis was weary of his power. When Lewis fights catiously he is extremely hard to beat. Also, I believe Tua felt and was actually hurt by a few of Lewis's punches and was kind of intimadated to take any chances.

Whatever happened to the boxer-puncher? Tommy Hearns can slug AND box. When punchers meet guys w/heart, chin, and superior boxing skills, they get easily dismantled.

Whatever happened to the boxer-puncher? Tommy Hearns can slug AND box

.

Hell yeah. i dont think anyone outboxes prime time Hearns at welter or Jr. Middle. Nobody. It would take someone like prime Robinson or Ray Leonard who possessed all the elements of a great fighter to beat him, and they would have to go for the ko to do it.

theone wrote:

Whatever happened to the boxer-puncher? Tommy Hearns can slug AND box

.

Hell yeah. i dont think anyone outboxes prime time Hearns at welter or Jr. Middle. Nobody. It would take someone like prime Robinson or Ray Leonard who possessed all the elements of a great fighter to beat him, and they would have to go for the ko to do it.

Not to mention that Tommy was ahead on the cards, and closing Ray's eye round by round.

I would have to say the most overated asset in boxing is reach advantage.

kick asner wrote:I would have to say the most overated asset in boxing is reach advantage.

To a certain extent, I can see what your saying (Especially when a fighter has no skills, height and reach are irrelavant). But most fighters don't use their height and reach.