Foreman was more proven as you say, but then you have all the testimonies of people who fought them both who tend to side with Shavers. It's tough to say. If forced to answer I'd side with Foreman, who just looked like he hit guys with a lot more force, though Shavers was the faster and more explosive puncher, and tended to really get his body into shots. I'd consider Foreman a more dangerous fighter over the course of the fight, and Shavers the more dangerous in the early rounds. Both fighters didn't have the greatest stamina, but Foreman's strength still enabled him to hurt guys with slow or glancing shots, while Shavers's power badly dropped off if he didn't pace himself.
Both had stamina problems...neither really carried their power into the later rounds...probably Foreman.
Shavers is the harder hitter and Foreman the much better fighter. Every single common opponent, and there's plenty of them, named Shavers. Mostly without any doubt in their mind.
Watch for Leroy Caldwell view on the power of both at 1 min 30 secs. Common synopsis of common opponents that Shavers hit harder. Foreman had a better career because of imposing his size , physical strength , better chin and boxing skills. This content is protected
Well call me a coward but i sure as hell would not want Shavers or Foreman hitting me on the whiskers, either one catching any boxer on a unprotected jaw would put that boxer in the land of nod for some ZZZZZZZZZZs
I've watched both fighters train in the mid 70's. Based upon this I would say Foreman hit harder punch for punch.
I've seen this thread a thousand times it seems. Shavers hit harder, Foreman was better in all other areas.