Who hit harder - Lewis or Tyson?

You could compare uppercuts or the Tyson left hook to the Lewis right hand, but generally, who was the bigger puncher?

 

Very close. But I'll say Tyson due to the fact that he could knock a man out with both hands.

 

Lewis. Lewis had immense power,clouded by the fact that he was naturally cautious and negative, especially relative to Tyson.

 

Who purely hit HARDER? With ONE punch? Lewis. I'd say Lewis' right hand was the single most FORCEFUL punch in heavyweight history.

However, the insane VELOCITY of Tyson's punches coupled with his vastly more diverse arsenal, made him a BETTER puncher than Lewis. To me, Tyson is the BEST puncher in heavyweight history (either him or Louis), even if not the most forceful.

If that all makes sense.

 

Tyson was the better puncher because that's what he did, punch.

1st round, throw bombs. 12th round........still thinking about throwing bombs.

It's like saying "Who eats more, a Shark or a Whale".........one of them rips chunks off it's prey, the other sort of floats around ingesting baleen at a snails pace.

It's easy to get the impression that the Shark is the more "Voracious".

 

Lewis. And agree with what Xplosive said.

 

Your argument is flawed because you're trying to say Lewis is the BETTER puncher because he was the HARDER puncher.

Lucas Matthyse I'm sure is a HARDER puncher than Alexis Arguello. But who was the BETTER puncher?

Tyson was a BETTER puncher than Lewis because he had everything in his repertoire an offensive fighter needs to be effective. Beautiful left hook, great right hand, beautiful uppercuts with either hand, devastating to the body with either hand. An EQUAL distribution of power in either hand, which is the main reason I say he was a BETTER puncher than Lewis.

Lewis had underrated power on his hook, but there sure wasn't an equal distribution. The VAST majority of his power came from the right, in the overhand and the right uppercut.

 

:bears: You show affects,...

the Komodo dragon has been slithering in toe for days,... :crafty:

 

Nah, a man could be an unbelievable puncher, but never be recorded as such because he never really goes for the KO.

For me, the only reason Tyson is even in the discussion is because he had power and was all about power.

The only reason Lewis is in the discussion is because he managed to mix in enough brutal KO's to show us what he had.

Statistically,after 30 fights, Vitali was hitting harder than either of them, but we know that's baloney.

For me, a better puncher comes down to a lot of things, as you say, but the ultimate decider is how much power there really was and how opportunely the fighter in question could unload it.

Lewis was a better puncher than Vitali because he hit harder and could uncork shots to drag himself out of trouble.

Lewis was a harder puncher than Tyson because, well, he just hit harder with more weight.

 

Agreed on all point

 

Wat the fudge are you on about now :dunno:

 

Thread says "Harder".........Lewis could lay more on his best shot than Tyson could, period. He hit harder.

 

Yes, for the sake of the thread's specific question, yes. Lewis was a harder puncher than Tyson.

 

Translate: My week of venomous incisions could have infected your writing fellow lunatic

 

Tyson was as big a puncher as Frazier, just with faster hands and better combinations.

Lewis, definately.

 

welcome back!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJpOyyVa6GY
1:30
A vote for Tyson by a guy who sparred with both.

Lennox has a few examples, but Tyson has a lot more examples of one punch ending things.

 

Wayne McCullough said Morales hit harder at 126 than Hamed.

And Tyson ended guys on one shot because he was looking to end guys on one shot.

 

Once again, this post isn't giving Tyson enough credit.

ANY fighter can LOOK to end a fight with one punch. Very few can actually do it, even if they try and land. The fact that Tyson could actually DO it, and CONSISTENTLY, is a testament to his power.

Don't get it twisted - Lewis doesn't have a HUGE edge here. There isn't much separation between Lewis' right and Tyson's hook.

Both had unreal power, just generated from different places. Lewis generated his through his massive upper body strength, while Tyson generated his via his massive lower body strength.

 

I agree with this post.

 

Watching this Youtube clip, Id orgotten how quick Lewis was in his early days before he piled on the weight: coming in anywhere between 220-230lb

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mhE3XlI1ZWM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He had a great uppercut...

 

Lewis always had fast hands for a big man. Even when he weighed 245-250.

 

Tyson hit harder with the left however

 

I'm kinda rethinking it. I think it's just fashionable to say Lewis hit harder, because he was so much bigger.

At the end of the day, Tyson has FAAARRRR more one punch KO's than Lewis. And Mike wasn't destroying Amir Khan chinned guys either. He was wasting guys KNOWN for their durability. And I don't buy that "That's cause he was looking for KO's!" Irish argument. "Like I said before", any fighter can LOOK to end a fight with every punch... only 1% can do it, and do it consistently.

There's a very valid case for Tyson hitting harder than Lewis.

 

The only common opponent Tyson dealt with easier was Bruno.

 

Well, Lewis certainly destroyed Ruddock in style. But let's not forget that Tyson broke several of Ruddock's ribs AND his jaw in their rematch. That has to take something outta a man.

Also, look at this way - Lewis hit Botha with a FULL POWERED combo, and Botha got up... was stopped on his feet. ONE flush Tyson right hand, and Botha was out cold.

 

I think Xplosive might be onto something....I mean Tyson hit that hard, that even the shots that barely/didn´t hit the target could cause knockouts:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JCkmqN5oe9A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

opcorn:

 

History has been unkind to Tyson, it seems. The poll would have been flipped 10+ years ago and a few of us would have been left trying to make a case for Lennox, although I'd still have leaned Tyson.

Graham Houston: Tyson #1, Lennox #9: http://www.espn.com/sports/boxing/news/story?id=3168817

Briggs Seekins: Lennox #3, Tyson #7: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...st-powerful-punchers-in-boxing-history/page/9

Blake Hampton: Tyson #3, Lennox #6: http://www.thesportster.com/entertainment/top-15-hardest-punchers-in-sports/

Ring: (but this is greatest not hardest so perhaps not on point: Tyson #16, Lennox #33 http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_punchers.htm

Abbas Dadhiwala: Tyson #1, Lennox NR (Wlad at #10): http://boxingtipster.com/2015/11/12/top-10-biggest-heavyweight-punchers-of-all-time/

 

Somebody ranked Edwin Valero as the third biggest puncher in history.


LMFFFAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

 

Lol, Pudzianowski rated as a better puncher than Lennonx ::