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:He had at times weighed just like Mayweather used to weigh 130lbs and Pacquiao 112lbs, can they both still do it?

Fitzsimmons was a 168/170lb man who felt comfortable at that weight, we can't apply modern conditioning to him because we would simply be guessing as to what the results would be.

Would he have been a blacksmith to start with in the modern era?
Would he weigh more or less?
How would these factors effect his power?

Its an educated guess based on emperical evidence on combat sports where weight cutting is the norm.

Yeah but Az, if Fitz had been ON the Titanic he'd have punched the iceberg out of the way and we'd have had snow in the UK for a month afterwards.

Way off Az, 172lbs against Jeffries, his lowest weight in the heavyweight division was 167lbs when he took the title from Corbett, it is funny seeing you try to be clever though, do carry on. Fitzsimmons could have made the light middleweight limit earlier on in his career but he soon started to build his weight and would be far more comfortable at light heavyweight.

BALTIMORA wrote:Yeah but Az, if Fitz had been ON the Titanic he'd have punched the iceberg out of the way and we'd have had snow in the UK for a month afterwards.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He had at times weighed just like Mayweather used to weigh 130lbs and Pacquiao 112lbs, can they both still do it?

Fitzsimmons was a 168/170lb man who felt comfortable at that weight, we can't apply modern conditioning to him because we would simply be guessing as to what the results would be.

Would he have been a blacksmith to start with in the modern era?
Would he weigh more or less?
How would these factors effect his power?

Its an educated guess based on emperical evidence on combat sports where weight cutting is the norm.

Using empirical (note the spelling) evidence Fitzsimmons would be taller and heavier than he was back then, can't apply some aspects that fit your opinion but not those that don't

Ghosty, no need for the snideness.

172 against Jeffries and he was just as successful as we'd expect Froch to be against Jeffries... took the title from Corbett, who was around the cruiser limit when fully hydrated.

Ghosty, why are you going on and on about how tall Fitz would be if he lived now, and other such utterly irrelevant details?

WE'RE TAKING HIM AS HE WAS. HIS HEIGHT, BUILD, FRAME...EVERYTHING.

Fitzsimmons would have beaten Jeffries were the fight held in the modern era on cuts much like Lewis/Klitschko but way ahead on the scorecards, doubt somehow Froch could do that

BALTIMORA wrote:Ghosty, why are you going on and on about how tall Fitz would be if he lived now, and other such utterly irrelevant details?

WE'RE TAKING HIM AS HE WAS. HIS HEIGHT, BUILD, FRAME...EVERYTHING.

In which case he doesn't cut weight does he because he didn't... taking him as he was

Wow. I'd have more success explaining this to my shoes. TAKE. FITZ. AS. HE. WAS. IN. TERMS. OF. HEIGHT. AND. BUILD. AND. OVERALL. PHYSICALITY. AND TRANSPLANT. HIM. INTO. A. MODERN. ENVIRONMENT. AND. APPLY. MODERN. THINKING. AND. WEIGHT. CUTTING.

SIMPLE.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He had at times weighed just like Mayweather used to weigh 130lbs and Pacquiao 112lbs, can they both still do it?

Fitzsimmons was a 168/170lb man who felt comfortable at that weight, we can't apply modern conditioning to him because we would simply be guessing as to what the results would be.

Would he have been a blacksmith to start with in the modern era?
Would he weigh more or less?
How would these factors effect his power?

Its an educated guess based on emperical evidence on combat sports where weight cutting is the norm.

Using empirical (note the spelling) evidence Fitzsimmons would be taller and heavier than he was back then, can't apply some aspects that fit your opinion but not those that don't

Ha. I wonder how many languages you can spell in.

But shifting goalposts once again. Carry on. Bottom line Fitz would have been a SMW at best and would only be a fringe contender. But is punch power could move planets.

That's what your doing wrong, applying modern thinking and weight cutting we don't have a clue what he would weigh

Well Az I can speak fluently in more than one language

Bottom line Fitzsimmons is considered one of the best light heavyweights of all time but would only be a fringe contender today... good one, like i've said numerous times you need to stop jumping to assumptions, I just don't rate Hayes power at heavyweight.

Jesus Christ, how hard can it be?? It's the same as taking a guy from some remote tribe in the middle of the Amazon. Behind all the myths surrounding Fitz he's still just human flesh and bones. If someone like Johnson or Mundine can move down in weight, why can't Fitz? He didn't have Mr Olympia levels of body fat, did he!?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Well Az I can speak fluently in more than one language

Bottom line Fitzsimmons is considered one of the best light heavyweights of all time but would only be a fringe contender today... good one, like i've said numerous times you need to stop jumping to assumptions, I just don't rate Hayes power at heavyweight.

That's because Haye has been fighting MODERN SIZED heavyweights!! If he was fighting blown up light heavies and smaller guys his power would be more devastating, that much is a logical deduction. How many knockouts does Fitz have over guys who we'd consider heavyweights today?

Well having to cut weight would change the whole emphasise of his training at which point his natural weight changes, also Fitzsimmons walk around weight most certainly was higher than 170lbs at which point we're talking about cutting a couple of stone to make light middleweight.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Well Az I can speak fluently in more than one language

Bottom line Fitzsimmons is considered one of the best light heavyweights of all time but would only be a fringe contender today... good one, like i've said numerous times you need to stop jumping to assumptions, I just don't rate Hayes power at heavyweight.

That's because Haye has been fighting MODERN SIZED heavyweights!! If he was fighting blown up light heavies and smaller guys his power would be more devastating, that much is a logical deduction. How many knockouts does Fitz have over guys who we'd consider heavyweights today?

Hayes power really showed against the cruiserweight Carl Thompson

Far more knockouts than Haye currently has

First things first: 'most certainly' is anything but certain. Later in his career sure it's unrealistic he'd have made 154, but earlier he was weighing below that. If it's the case that he grew into his weight that makes him no different to Jones, Hopkins, Duran, Chavez...the list goes on and on.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Well Az I can speak fluently in more than one language

Bottom line Fitzsimmons is considered one of the best light heavyweights of all time but would only be a fringe contender today... good one, like i've said numerous times you need to stop jumping to assumptions, I just don't rate Hayes power at heavyweight.

And you are writing in your primary language.

Bottom line in Fitz wouldn't live with most middleweights today and I'd give Pac a decent chance on KOing him. He'd be a frimge contender at whatever weight he competed in.

But you think Fitz hits harder than Haye because he beat 9 men in a carnival freakshow.

Given Haye's had five fights at heavyweight that's hardly surprising... Come on then, list these fantastic super heavies that Fitz knocked out. You've picked an instance, Thompson, who was a tough, experienced pro. One instance. Well done.

It's comments like saying Pacquiao KO's him that makes your opinion so worthless, he's yet to knock anyone out above 140lbs yet knocks out a 170lber, whilst Fitz was vulnerable at heavyweight (Haye probably does knock him out) below that he was anything but. Give me Felix Sturm anyday though, what a great fighter that man is.

azania wrote:

Bottom line in Fitz wouldn't live with most middleweights today and I'd give Pac a decent chance on KOing him. He'd be a frimge contender at whatever weight he competed in.

Bottom line is that that is ridiculous.

I'm in your camp regarding the punching power in comparison to somebody like Foreman, Liston, Lewis, Louis, Dempsey, etc., but to dismiss Fitz at his own optimum weight division (s) is sheer ignorance.

BALTIMORA wrote:Given Haye's had five fights at heavyweight that's hardly surprising... Come on then, list these fantastic super heavies that Fitz knocked out. You've picked an instance, Thompson, who was a tough, experienced pro. One instance. Well done.

Which half decent heavyweight has Haye knocked out then Balti? The real guage of Hayes power will be if he faces Vitali and using the Thompson example I can highlight that Haye couldn't knock everyone out below Cruiserweight and that Fitzsimmons knocked out similarly sized men.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Bottom line in Fitz wouldn't live with most middleweights today and I'd give Pac a decent chance on KOing him. He'd be a frimge contender at whatever weight he competed in.

Bottom line is that that is ridiculous.

I'm in your camp regarding the punching power in comparison to somebody like Foreman, Liston, Lewis, Louis, Dempsey, etc., but to dismiss Fitz at his own optimum weight division (s) is sheer ignorance.

I'm not actually sure who they think i'm comparing his power to because at no point have I said it's anywhere near that of those you've listed

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It's comments like saying Pacquiao KO's him that makes your opinion so worthless, he's yet to knock anyone out above 140lbs yet knocks out a 170lber, whilst Fitz was vulnerable at heavyweight (Haye probably does knock him out) below that he was anything but. Give me Felix Sturm anyday though, what a great fighter that man is.

And claiming Fitz hit harder that Haye makes your opinion valuable? Its as much BS as mine is. Berto then. He would KTFO of him.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Bottom line in Fitz wouldn't live with most middleweights today and I'd give Pac a decent chance on KOing him. He'd be a frimge contender at whatever weight he competed in.

Bottom line is that that is ridiculous.

I'm in your camp regarding the punching power in comparison to somebody like Foreman, Liston, Lewis, Louis, Dempsey, etc., but to dismiss Fitz at his own optimum weight division (s) is sheer ignorance.

I'm not actually sure who they think i'm comparing his power to because at no point have I said it's anywhere near that of those you've listed

I wasn't having a pop at you, Ghosty.

I was merely pointing out to az that there is middle ground between claiming Fitz hits as hard as Foreman and his ludicrous and ill - informed ( again, ) dismissal of Fitz as a force at middle or lightheavy.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It's comments like saying Pacquiao KO's him that makes your opinion so worthless, he's yet to knock anyone out above 140lbs yet knocks out a 170lber, whilst Fitz was vulnerable at heavyweight (Haye probably does knock him out) below that he was anything but. Give me Felix Sturm anyday though, what a great fighter that man is.

And claiming Fitz hit harder that Haye makes your opinion valuable? Its as much BS as mine is. Berto then. He would KTFO of him.

Your going to be hard pushed to find anyone with half a brain cell who agrees that Pacquiao knocks Fitzsimmons out

Fitzsimmons knocked out men the same size as Haye has, having not really made a dent in Thompson I doubt Haye could make much of a dent in Jeffries either

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Bottom line in Fitz wouldn't live with most middleweights today and I'd give Pac a decent chance on KOing him. He'd be a frimge contender at whatever weight he competed in.

Bottom line is that that is ridiculous.

I'm in your camp regarding the punching power in comparison to somebody like Foreman, Liston, Lewis, Louis, Dempsey, etc., but to dismiss Fitz at his own optimum weight division (s) is sheer ignorance.

And to claim Fitz hits HARDER than Haye is reasoned? Transport Fitz to today and he would have been conditioned to a MW or SMW at best. P4P he may hit harder that Haye. I wouldn't argue much. But to say that at his optimum weight, he hit harder than Haye is beyond ridiculous.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Bottom line in Fitz wouldn't live with most middleweights today and I'd give Pac a decent chance on KOing him. He'd be a frimge contender at whatever weight he competed in.

Bottom line is that that is ridiculous.

I'm in your camp regarding the punching power in comparison to somebody like Foreman, Liston, Lewis, Louis, Dempsey, etc., but to dismiss Fitz at his own optimum weight division (s) is sheer ignorance.

And to claim Fitz hits HARDER than Haye is reasoned? Transport Fitz to today and he would have been conditioned to a MW or SMW at best. P4P he may hit harder that Haye. I wouldn't argue much. But to say that at his optimum weight, he hit harder than Haye is beyond ridiculous.

You have no idea what you are talking about, as per usual. Transporting Fitzsimmons to today is irrelevant. Besides, if we were to transport him he would stand two inches taller than he did and weigh at least eighteen pounds heavier. That is STATISTICAL FACT.

He was a lightheavy weight in his prime, with the upper body of a heavyweight. You have no more idea than anybody else whether or not he hit harder than Haye does, but there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that he hit a damned sight harder than the average middle / lightheavy.

Do I think he's one of the hardest hitters at heavy ? Probably not, but many would disagree with me. Jack Johnson, for example, reckoned Fitz hit him plenty hard enough, and so did Jeffries.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It's comments like saying Pacquiao KO's him that makes your opinion so worthless, he's yet to knock anyone out above 140lbs yet knocks out a 170lber, whilst Fitz was vulnerable at heavyweight (Haye probably does knock him out) below that he was anything but. Give me Felix Sturm anyday though, what a great fighter that man is.

And claiming Fitz hit harder that Haye makes your opinion valuable? Its as much BS as mine is. Berto then. He would KTFO of him.

Your going to be hard pushed to find anyone with half a brain cell who agrees that Pacquiao knocks Fitzsimmons out

Fitzsimmons knocked out men the same size as Haye has, having not really made a dent in Thompson I doubt Haye could make much of a dent in Jeffries either

I think you would be half pressed to find a sober person who would support your ridiculous claim that Fitz hit harder than Haye.

Also there's a huge difference between ko'ing a trained boxer than a toughman dragged out of a slaoon to fight for $10.

Jeffries wouldn't last a minute against Haye. Hopking would beat him and current RJJ would slaughter him.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Given Haye's had five fights at heavyweight that's hardly surprising... Come on then, list these fantastic super heavies that Fitz knocked out. You've picked an instance, Thompson, who was a tough, experienced pro. One instance. Well done.

Which half decent heavyweight has Haye knocked out then Balti? The real guage of Hayes power will be if he faces Vitali and using the Thompson example I can highlight that Haye couldn't knock everyone out below Cruiserweight and that Fitzsimmons knocked out similarly sized men.

Please; the only world class GENUINE heavy Fitz fought stopped him twice. You still haven't actually listed how many of these super heavies Fitz stopped. His record is largely guys around middle through to 'cruiser' (which would be blown up light heavies)...big difference.

azania wrote:

Jeffries wouldn't last a minute against Haye. Hopking would beat him and current RJJ would slaughter him.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Sheer, ill - informed, ignorance.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Bottom line in Fitz wouldn't live with most middleweights today and I'd give Pac a decent chance on KOing him. He'd be a frimge contender at whatever weight he competed in.

Bottom line is that that is ridiculous.

I'm in your camp regarding the punching power in comparison to somebody like Foreman, Liston, Lewis, Louis, Dempsey, etc., but to dismiss Fitz at his own optimum weight division (s) is sheer ignorance.

And to claim Fitz hits HARDER than Haye is reasoned? Transport Fitz to today and he would have been conditioned to a MW or SMW at best. P4P he may hit harder that Haye. I wouldn't argue much. But to say that at his optimum weight, he hit harder than Haye is beyond ridiculous.

You have no idea what you are talking about, as per usual. Transporting Fitzsimmons to today is irrelevant. Besides, if we were to transport him he would stand two inches taller than he did and weigh at least eighteen pounds heavier. That is STATISTICAL FACT.

He was a lightheavy weight in his prime, with the upper body of a heavyweight. You have no more idea than anybody else whether or not he hit harder than Haye does, but there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that he hit a damned sight harder than the average middle / lightheavy.

Do I think he's one of the hardest hitters at heavy ? Probably not, but many would disagree with me. Jack Johnson, for example, reckoned Fitz hit him plenty hard enough, and so did Jeffries.

Good one windy. Yes he would be 2 inches taller because of the improved diet and nutrition. But transport him AS HE WAS he would be trained and made into a SMW or MW.

Te argument isn't if he was the hardest hitting HW ever. Obviously no sane person would claim he was. The issue is the claim that he hits harder than Haye, who is recognised as a hard hitting HW. Of course I have no evidence to suggest he doesnt. Neither does the person who claims that he does. Empircial evidence would suggest that he doesn't because the people he fought were toughmen with the exception of a few notables.

I cant recal who it was, but someone claimed Pipino Cueavas hit as hard as a HW. Same thing was said about McClellan.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Jeffries wouldn't last a minute against Haye. Hopking would beat him and current RJJ would slaughter him.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Sheer, ill - informed, ignorance.

Nope. I dont rate them as fighters in comparison to the modern sport. All this talk about savvy, guile, savvy yadda yadda is amusing. Skill trumps them and RJJ has enough skill now to embarass them.

Those guys were skilled toughmen who duked it out until one vomitted or dropped.

Do you have any evidence to back up that they were toughmen or are you just guessing as per usual?

Taking into account the words of those who saw and faced Fitzsimmons it's safe to assume he could punch pretty damm hard

azania wrote:Yes he would be 2 inches taller because of the improved diet and nutrition. But transport him AS HE WAS he would be trained and made into a SMW or MW.

' Transport him as he was ' means that you don't fiddle about with boiling him down, etc., He was what he was - a lightheavy when fully mature - and a man who DEFINITELY punched above his weight.

You can't have it both ways. If you are to whisk him into the twenty first century then you either leave him exactly as he was or you give him the statistically correct evolutionary adjustments.

Yeah, Windy the argument wasn't about if Fitz had grown up in this day and age, it was simply if he'd been transplanted here at any given point in his development.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Jeffries wouldn't last a minute against Haye. Hopking would beat him and current RJJ would slaughter him.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Sheer, ill - informed, ignorance.

Nope. I dont rate them as fighters in comparison to the modern sport. All this talk about savvy, guile, savvy yadda yadda is amusing. Skill trumps them and RJJ has enough skill now to embarass them.

Those guys were skilled toughmen who duked it out until one vomitted or dropped.

Depends if Jones was on PEDS or not for the fight

azania wrote:Good one windy. Yes he would be 2 inches taller because of the improved diet and nutrition. But transport him AS HE WAS he would be trained and made into a SMW or MW.

Te argument isn't if he was the hardest hitting HW ever. Obviously no sane person would claim he was. The issue is the claim that he hits harder than Haye, who is recognised as a hard hitting HW. Of course I have no evidence to suggest he doesnt. Neither does the person who claims that he does. Empircial evidence would suggest that he doesn't because the people he fought were toughmen with the exception of a few notables.

I cant recal who it was, but someone claimed Pipino Cueavas hit as hard as a HW. Same thing was said about McClellan.

George Foreman said RJJ hit as hard as a Heavyweight with the movement of a Lightweight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Do you have any evidence to back up that they were toughmen or are you just guessing as per usual?

Taking into account the words of those who saw and faced Fitzsimmons it's safe to assume he could punch pretty damm hard

No, you're absolutely correct there Ghosty: Fitz faced however many it was (9?) truly world class genuine super heavyweights all on the same day. How could I be so silly as to think it was a mere publicity stunt?

Re: Jeffries-Haye; Jeffries would be a very tough opponent given his height and build. Deciding factor would be pace and length of fight.

azania wrote:
Nope. I dont rate them as fighters in comparison to the modern sport.

As I say. Ill - informed and ignorant. Nobody who saw Jeffries dismissed him so lightly ; nobody who fought him did so, and no historian does so. Do you think everybody just died when Jeffries retired ? Many who saw / fought / sparred with him lived to see newer generations and still regarded him as an ATG.

Your track record here with regard to the old timers has rendered you a laughing stock.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Do you have any evidence to back up that they were toughmen or are you just guessing as per usual?

Taking into account the words of those who saw and faced Fitzsimmons it's safe to assume he could punch pretty damm hard

No, you're absolutely correct there Ghosty: Fitz faced however many it was (9?) truly world class genuine super heavyweights all on the same day. How could I be so silly as to think it was a mere publicity stunt?

Re: Jeffries-Haye; Jeffries would be a very tough opponent given his height and build. Deciding factor would be pace and length of fight.

Thats not part of his official record though Balti, they were exhibitions which were effectively glorified sparring sessions

BALTIMORA wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Do you have any evidence to back up that they were toughmen or are you just guessing as per usual?

Taking into account the words of those who saw and faced Fitzsimmons it's safe to assume he could punch pretty damm hard

No, you're absolutely correct there Ghosty: Fitz faced however many it was (9?) truly world class genuine super heavyweights all on the same day. How could I be so silly as to think it was a mere publicity stunt?

Re: Jeffries-Haye; Jeffries would be a very tough opponent given his height and build. Deciding factor would be pace and length of fight.

Valuev would have been considered a highly skilled champ as opposed to the lumbering oaf he is. And those 9 supermen. Say no more.

But the deciding factor between Haye-Jeffries would be skill. Haye has it in abundance and is way ahead in that depertment to the limited Jeffs.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Do you have any evidence to back up that they were toughmen or are you just guessing as per usual?

Taking into account the words of those who saw and faced Fitzsimmons it's safe to assume he could punch pretty damm hard

No, you're absolutely correct there Ghosty: Fitz faced however many it was (9?) truly world class genuine super heavyweights all on the same day. How could I be so silly as to think it was a mere publicity stunt?

Re: Jeffries-Haye; Jeffries would be a very tough opponent given his height and build. Deciding factor would be pace and length of fight.

Thats not part of his official record though Balti, they were exhibitions which were effectively glorified sparring sessions

Exactly. And outside of guys like that he has a real dearth of wins over big heavyweights, let alone top class ones.

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?

Az, Valuev would be a wooden stiff regardless of era. Jeffries-Haye I think would depend mostly on Jeffries' durability, much like the Thompson fight.

azania wrote:

But the deciding factor between Haye-Jeffries would be skill. Haye has it in abundance and is way ahead in that depertment to the limited Jeffs.

You mean, like Saddler v Pep ? Frazier v Ali ? Foreman v Norton ? Basilio v Robinson ? Fullmer v Robinson ? Marciano v Walcott ? Greb v Tunney ?

Or Thompson v Haye ?

I see.

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?

Anyway, fellas, we're veering off topic a wee bit. Out of respect for Sugar Boy's thread I think we need to re address the issue of punching power among the heavies and not get side tracked.

Foreman, Shavers, Marciano, Dempsey and Tyson would be my top 5