How is Tyson not the greatest heavyweight puncher?

I've been looking at "greatest puncher" lists and I'm very surprised to see that people actually rate several heavyweights as better punchers than Tyson.

I get it, I get it. Rating old timers above relatively newer guys makes you look more knowledgable... yeesh.

Were there guys that hit harder? Probably. Were there guys with faster hands? Probably.

But who had that combination of technique, speed and power? The ability to hurt a guy with any punch (including a jab), the ability to switch up between the head and the body?

Someone actually rated Joe Frazier as a better puncher than Mike Tyson. I wish I could spit in his face in person.

i guess it depends on your definition of puncher then. i definitely think that he would be in the top 3. i dont think that he is a top 10 HW ever but as for a pure puncher, i agree that he should be among the top few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

i guess it depends on your definition of puncher then. i definitely think that he would be in the top 3. i dont think that he is a top 10 HW ever but as for a pure puncher, i agree that he should be among the top few.

---

The way he flattened Holmes is proof of his power, technique, skill, whatever. When an older Holmes can extend, beat and give a hard fight to Holyfield, Mercer and McCall and take all their best comfortably, it just goes to show what Tyson had. Whether it be quicker punches or better skill to get inside or bigger power altogether.

The mob that make me laugh more are the ones that say Tyson wasn't a big puncher it was the combinations.

The fuck can anyone seriously watch Tyson and think - nahh he's not a powerful puncher he just throws lots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

I've been looking at "greatest puncher" lists and I'm very surprised to see that people actually rate several heavyweights as better punchers than Tyson.

I get it, I get it. Rating old timers above relatively newer guys makes you look more knowledgable... yeesh.

Were there guys that hit harder? Probably. Were there guys with faster hands? Probably.

But who had that combination of technique, speed and power? The ability to hurt a guy with any punch (including a jab), the ability to switch up between the head and the body?

Someone actually rated Joe Frazier as a better puncher than Mike Tyson. I wish I could spit in his face in person.

---

i like this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

The mob that make me laugh more are the ones that say Tyson wasn't a big puncher it was the combinations.

The fuck can anyone seriously watch Tyson and think - nahh he's not a powerful puncher he just throws lots.

---

LOL, Tyson not a big puncher.

Hurricane Katrina was just a little bit of wind and rain, too then

Mike Tyson's one-punched so many dudes unconscious. I can't think of anyone who has so many KO's by one punch with either hand, except maybe Julian Jackson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

i guess it depends on your definition of puncher then. i definitely think that he would be in the top 3. i dont think that he is a top 10 HW ever but as for a pure puncher, i agree that he should be among the top few.

---

I define it as the combination of everything put together: speed, power, accuracy, combination ability, types of punches able to utilize, ect.

So many times when we mention big punchers we mention guys like Hearns, Frazier, Trinidad, ect, and fair enough, but they were more or less known for knocking guys out with one hand or even one particular punch. How many guys did Frazier KO with his right, or Hearns with his left? Tyson could take your jaw off your face with any punch in the book. He knocked guys out/down with everything, right hooks to the body, left uppercuts to the head. He was the perfect punching machine.

And then if you look at the guys who could knock guys out with either hand, did they have anywhere near the speed or technique that Tyson had? Hell no. I don't know who could possibly outrank Tyson? Marciano? Great puncher, two handed power, he was no Mike Tyson. Foreman was slow and wild.

Obviously he was devastating with one hand but ironically what would get any huge puncher in trouble was getting away from combination punching, loading up and leaving openings for guys who didn't shit themselves at the first incoming. Tyson's hand speed was top notch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

The mob that make me laugh more are the ones that say Tyson wasn't a big puncher it was the combinations.

The fuck can anyone seriously watch Tyson and think - nahh he's not a powerful puncher he just throws lots.

---

His success did not just depend on his speed, combinations, huge punch with either hand, fierce competitive spirit or an innate ability to almost always be in position to deliver something big. His success depended on a combination of all these abilities, so I think you can say all the great punchers were combination punchers in that way.
Butterbean has a huge punch. Galento had a huge punch. Neither one of these guys are going to show up on an all time great punchers list, not anywhere near the top.
As to why Tyson comes before or after some other big puncher on a list, it's just an opinion and everyone has one.

We haven't even talked about the drugs and roids? Tyson took. Did those help or hurt him? What would they have done for Louis' or Marciano's careers?

I reckon that there were people who were a bit more heavy handed than Iron Mike, such as Big George Foreman and (arguably) people like Marciano and some fringe contenders like Gerry Cooney ....... But Tyson was one of the best FINISHERS I've ever seen.

Sure, he blew out lots of people early on with one punch, but by and large they were early career cannon fodder. Later on, if you notice, he didn't get that many one punch kayos. The ref either stopped it, of he was onto them and he closed the show.

Along with the Manassa Mauler, Iron Mike was an electrifying finisher and he stands comparison in that regard with any heavyweight that walked into a ring

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

I've been looking at "greatest puncher" lists and I'm very surprised to see that people actually rate several heavyweights as better punchers than Tyson.

I get it, I get it. Rating old timers above relatively newer guys makes you look more knowledgable... yeesh.

Were there guys that hit harder? Probably. Were there guys with faster hands? Probably.

But who had that combination of technique, speed and power? The ability to hurt a guy with any punch (including a jab), the ability to switch up between the head and the body?

Someone actually rated Joe Frazier as a better puncher than Mike Tyson. I wish I could spit in his face in person.

---

Tyson has the best mix of speed, power and accuracy for a heavyweight ever known to man. What lacked in Tyson was his mental stability. But no one could question his raw and pure fighting ability.

Wonder how much fear has to do with the effect on punch power.?

Dont get me wrong, i rate tyson to the max and he easily in my top five heavyweights of all time.

But i wonder if you are already shook in the ring or not as confident as you would normally be whether your punch resistance would decrease.

Alot of fighters were scared of tyson but im sure it wouldnt have affected their chins as the result would have been the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ykdadamaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

I've been looking at "greatest puncher" lists and I'm very surprised to see that people actually rate several heavyweights as better punchers than Tyson.

I get it, I get it. Rating old timers above relatively newer guys makes you look more knowledgable... yeesh.

Were there guys that hit harder? Probably. Were there guys with faster hands? Probably.

But who had that combination of technique, speed and power? The ability to hurt a guy with any punch (including a jab), the ability to switch up between the head and the body?

Someone actually rated Joe Frazier as a better puncher than Mike Tyson. I wish I could spit in his face in person.

---

Tyson has the best mix of speed, power and accuracy for a heavyweight ever known to man. What lacked in Tyson was his mental stability. But no one could question his raw and pure fighting ability.

---

Both great posts. ^^

And lets not forget the fact that tyson was smaller than everyone else.

It has its advantages/disadvantages but he was smaller and at 5.11 he had to have superb head movement and defense to even have a chance..which he did.

Tyson may not be the greatest puncher of all time because he relied too much on speed, timing, combinations and not raw power. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson may not be the greatest puncher of all time because he relied too much on speed, timing, combinations and not raw power. :)

---

Tyson's timing was impeccable... accurate and timed precisely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ykdadamaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson may not be the greatest puncher of all time because he relied too much on speed, timing, combinations and not raw power. :)

---

Tyson's timing was impeccable... accurate and timed precisely.

---

He also weighed only 220lb. I am sounding like Max Power now, where is that twat gone? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X

Sure, he blew out lots of people early on with one punch, but by and large they were early career cannon fodder. Later on, if you notice, he didn't get that many one punch kayos.

---

Ok well from when he fought the world champ on, I can think of...

Berbick, Tubbs, Spinks, Carl Williams, Tillman, Frans Botha, Etienne as one punch KO's. Those are world class guys (at the time anyway) going down from one punch.

I will probably get alot of shit for saying this but Tyson is underrated. Even tho he is underrated he still should have been better than what he was.

Why is he underrated? For the exact reason the OP started this thread. Tyson has more 1st round KO's than anyone ever im sure and this in itself proves he is the best puncher/KO artist of all time. No one KO'd dudes like Tyson.

Its easy to forget what Tyson did and remember what he didnt do (understandably so).

We have never had to wonder so much about what a fighter could have been. And we have never seen a fighter not live up to there potential so much has Tyson but he is still an ATG. Its as amazing as it is disappointing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

i guess it depends on your definition of puncher then. i definitely think that he would be in the top 3. i dont think that he is a top 10 HW ever but as for a pure puncher, i agree that he should be among the top few.

---

I define it as the combination of everything put together: speed, power, accuracy, combination ability, types of punches able to utilize, ect.

So many times when we mention big punchers we mention guys like Hearns, Frazier, Trinidad, ect, and fair enough, but they were more or less known for knocking guys out with one hand or even one particular punch. How many guys did Frazier KO with his right, or Hearns with his left? Tyson could take your jaw off your face with any punch in the book. He knocked guys out/down with everything, right hooks to the body, left uppercuts to the head. He was the perfect punching machine.

And then if you look at the guys who could knock guys out with either hand, did they have anywhere near the speed or technique that Tyson had? Hell no. I don't know who could possibly outrank Tyson? Marciano? Great puncher, two handed power, he was no Mike Tyson. Foreman was slow and wild.

---

if thats your definition then i would say its definitely between him and joe louis (sorry about using the old fighter reference).

Couple of things that Tyson did that others couldn't that show Tysons class.

Nail Holmes to the canvas.

Unify all three belts and keep them unified for 7 defences (simce the emergence of the three major belts don't think anyone from any weight has done that!). He beat 3 seperate title holders then defended against the rest of the top ten and then lineal champ leaving absolutely no argument over who was the best and this was done in just 3 years!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X

Sure, he blew out lots of people early on with one punch, but by and large they were early career cannon fodder. Later on, if you notice, he didn't get that many one punch kayos.

---

Ok well from when he fought the world champ on, I can think of...

Berbick, Tubbs, Spinks, Carl Williams, Tillman, Frans Botha, Etienne as one punch KO's. Those are world class guys (at the time anyway) going down from one punch.

---

yeah, you could argue that. The point I was trying to make is that Berbick and Williams (at least) were actually stopped on their feet. They had got up but were in no fit state to continue. Spinks had already been knocked down, and Tyson then finished him off. I think Tyson was a fearsome puncher, but in his prime he didn't overly rely on that like he did later, he threw combinations and it was his skill at finishing off people that was his greatest strength rather than his pure punching power.

Combination of technique, snap, and punch placement, prime tyson was the best HW puncher of all time.. plus he was probably the best body puncher too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X

Sure, he blew out lots of people early on with one punch, but by and large they were early career cannon fodder. Later on, if you notice, he didn't get that many one punch kayos.

---

Ok well from when he fought the world champ on, I can think of...

Berbick, Tubbs, Spinks, Carl Williams, Tillman, Frans Botha, Etienne as one punch KO's. Those are world class guys (at the time anyway) going down from one punch.

---

yeah, you could argue that. The point I was trying to make is that Berbick and Williams (at least) were actually stopped on their feet. They had got up but were in no fit state to continue. Spinks had already been knocked down, and Tyson then finished him off. I think Tyson was a fearsome puncher, but in his prime he didn't overly rely on that like he did later, he threw combinations and it was his skill at finishing off people that was his greatest strength rather than his pure punching power.

---

The ref stopped Berbick from falling back down!

tyson was also Brunos bogey man

bruno being the best HW of all time thats something not to be sniffed at

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

I've been looking at "greatest puncher" lists and I'm very surprised to see that people actually rate several heavyweights as better punchers than Tyson.

I get it, I get it. Rating old timers above relatively newer guys makes you look more knowledgable... yeesh.

Were there guys that hit harder? Probably. Were there guys with faster hands? Probably.

But who had that combination of technique, speed and power? The ability to hurt a guy with any punch (including a jab), the ability to switch up between the head and the body?

Someone actually rated Joe Frazier as a better puncher than Mike Tyson. I wish I could spit in his face in person.

---

You know that could be true at times for people but its also true that there have been many big heavyweight punchers throughout boxing history. By saying what you did, you are doing the very same thing that you accuse others of doing. You are saying Tyson "is" regardless. I was going to chuck a few names out there but I wont. Tyson is the biggest puncher ever and nobody else even matters. I wouldn't want anybody to think that I'm acting smart or making it seem like I know something. Power in the heavyweight division begins in 1985 and ends in 2005.

Tyson's detonation of Botha was one of his most impressive one and done for me. He looked like he was hit with a 100mph bowling bowl. Tubbs though had been sparked more impressively by a Butler. Etienne. No ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

You know that could be true at times for people but its also true that there have been many big heavyweight punchers throughout boxing history. By saying what you did, you are doing the very same thing that you accuse others of doing. You are saying Tyson "is" regardless. I was going to chuck a few names out there but I wont. Tyson is the biggest puncher ever and nobody else even matters. I wouldn't want anybody to think that I'm acting smart or making it seem like I know something. Power in the heavyweight division begins in 1985 and ends in 2005.

---

Now don't start getting butt hurt and using that sarcasm nonsense, let's talk about it like two boxing fans.

Who do you have in mind?

And I'm not talking about pure power. There is absolutely no doubt it my mind that guys like Shavers, Foreman, and probably quite a few others had more pure power than Tyson. Foreman had to have insane pure power because he was a wild-swinging, inaccurate slow motherfucker.

I'm talking the whole package: one-punch KO power in each hand, speed, technique, combination ability, types of punches used, ect.

Who do you have in mind? I'm totally open to suggestions.

But if you say John L Sullivan, Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, or something along that line... you gotta get real man!

Joe Louis had power, he had great timing. Jack Johnson knocking out Ketchell was brutal too. Rocky had raw power, did you see the shoulders of Dempsey? Murderous punchers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Joe Louis had power, he had great timing. Jack Johnson knocking out Ketchell was brutal too. Rocky had raw power, did you see the shoulders of Dempsey? Murderous punchers.

---

Great punchers. Murderous punchers.

I'm not saying everyone else stinks, Joe Louis and Marciano were brutal.

I just think when you consider everything, putting it all together, Tyson was the perfect punching machine.

He's in my top 3 because of his delivery of punch, and all aspects together.

But in terms of pure power alone, it's close between a lot of fighters.

Frank Bruno had an absolutely, devastatingly powerful right hand, but nowhere near the speed, agility or technique Tyson had. I remember reading something about a test they did with Bruno on his punch and the power was apparently incredibly high.

Lots of people have power but Tyson knew how to use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendettos

He's in my top 3 because of his delivery of punch, and all aspects together.

But in terms of pure power alone, it's close between a lot of fighters.

---

Agreed 100%. In terms of pure power, I think there are probably a bunch of guys that trump Tyson. Guys like Foreman and Shavers had more pure power than him I'd be willing to bet.

If we're talking about the overall force of the punch, I'd say Tyson's speed and technique probably leveled it out though.

But who are your other top 3 punchers, or specifically the ones you would rate above Tyson at HW?

Tyson is up there, fast hands, good power with both hands.


Joe Louis
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Rocky Marciano
Jack Dempsey
Vitali Klitschko
Wladimir Klitschko
Ron Lyle
Earnie Shavers

There are plenty to consider, but I'd say Prime Tyson is no lower than Top 5. I would put Louis, Marciano, and Foreman at or around the same ranking...not much between those 4. All knocked fighters out consistently, all had KO wins vs some very solid competition at the very top of the division.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

There are plenty to consider, but I'd say Prime Tyson is no lower than Top 5. I would put Louis, Marciano, and Foreman at or around the same ranking...not much between those 4.

---

What's the logic for ranking Foreman above Tyson? He had godlike power in his fists, but his technique was awful, he was very slow and inaccurate with his punching. He was just fortunate enough to have two wrecking balls in his fists and destroyed whatever they managed to land on.

I think Louis and Marciano are great names to consider, but I think Tyson's superior speed and power would put him over the top of those guys.

George Foreman had poor technique to start with, but 68 KO's out of 76 wins shows how long he carried his power and how good he was at finishing a fight.

Foreman 89.47% KO rate
Tyson 88% KO rate

They're closer than you want to give Foreman credit for.


And just for shits and giggles

Louis 78.7% (lower than I expected honestly)
Marciano 87.7%
Vitali 91.11%
Wlad 83.6%
Shavers 91.89%
Lyle 72%
Dempsey 77.27% (lower than I expected again)

So there are the actual KO percentages

He may have better way to delver the punch but hell Foreman as slow as he was fucking put people way just by tapping them. I think Foreman's gifts make him better heavyweight puncher because he didn't even have to land to well or through fast to knock you out. Also Tyson when faced with a great fighter in Holyfeild i don't think he mange to hurt Holyfeild as much as Foreman did and that man was like 40 i think maybe older not sure exact age so i don't have a problem with Foreman being better puncher or rated higher because he didn't need technique and he was able knock people out in his late 40's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

George Foreman had poor technique to start with, but 68 KO's out of 76 wins shows how long he carried his power and how good he was at finishing a fight.

Foreman 89.47% KO rate
Tyson 88% KO rate

They're closer than you want to give Foreman credit for.


And just for shits and giggles

Louis 78.7% (lower than I expected honestly)
Marciano 87.7%
Vitali 91.11%
Wlad 83.6%
Shavers 91.89%
Lyle 72%
Dempsey 77.27% (lower than I expected again)

So there are the actual KO percentages

---

You missed out the great Bruno from your list. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

George Foreman had poor technique to start with, but 68 KO's out of 76 wins shows how long he carried his power and how good he was at finishing a fight.

Foreman 89.47% KO rate
Tyson 88% KO rate

They're closer than you want to give Foreman credit for.


And just for shits and giggles

Louis 78.7% (lower than I expected honestly)
Marciano 87.7%
Vitali 91.11%
Wlad 83.6%
Shavers 91.89%
Lyle 72%
Dempsey 77.27% (lower than I expected again)

So there are the actual KO percentages

---

I'm not really interested in KO percentage because it isn't really relevant to who was the better puncher because there are a ton of other factors that enter into a guy's KO percentage as well.

I'm talking about the whole package, not necessarily who hits the hardest, who had their power the longest, who knocked out more guys, ect.

We all know Tyson, Foreman, Marciano, Dempsey, Shavers, Louis, ect were great KO artists. But watching them and examining everything: technique, speed, power, combination ability, the variety of punches used effectively, ect, who could possibly be a better "puncher" than Tyson?

There are guys in that list that no doubt trump in in certain aspects (Foreman probably trumps him in pure power), but when added all up who has a better combinaton of all those factors than Tyson?

I understand that, Tyson was intriguing because he threw punches the way a middleweight would only he was a heavyweight and they landed with fury

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendettos

He's in my top 3 because of his delivery of punch, and all aspects together.

But in terms of pure power alone, it's close between a lot of fighters.

---

Agreed 100%. In terms of pure power, I think there are probably a bunch of guys that trump Tyson. Guys like Foreman and Shavers had more pure power than him I'd be willing to bet.

If we're talking about the overall force of the punch, I'd say Tyson's speed and technique probably leveled it out though.

But who are your other top 3 punchers, or specifically the ones you would rate above Tyson at HW?

---

Honestly I'd say Foreman and Shavers, but there's some others like Bruno, Briggs, etc, but those guys are just power really.

I don't rate Marciano up there based on his era of very small heavyweights, granted he could bang but what would really have done against a Wlad Klitschko?