Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
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?