Classic Forum Chat: Size isn't the only factor.

Simple. He beat many bums, and the few good/decent men I mentioned.

In a way, yes I am. But it did not evaporate, but rather diminished against big HWs, roughly at or above the weight limit I mentioned.

It's just an approximate estimate as to how much a proper HW should weigh, It's also the lower limit for most modern HWs, who usually weigh above that.

The damage I saw his punches did to his opponents.

Cleveland Williams was bigger than anyone Shavers took out. And he was in his prime too.

Machen was very elusive and hard to land clean on. Sonny had to box him.

I don't really see the corelation. I rate Shavers as featherfisted in relation to guys like Wlad, Lewis, Wilder, not in relation to all HWs.
I also see Liston as having an extra 30-40 % more punching power.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

I've highlighted them different colors, so let me explain what that means:
-

This content is protected

;
-

This content is protected

;
-

This content is protected

. I give them the edge in terms of impact on the sport, but their era wasn't really that great and they sure as hell can't beat him h2h;
-

This content is protected

(Fury) can definitely surpass him in the future, but we need to wait and see how his career pans out after he's done;
-

This content is protected

. For example, Sullivan fought in the barecnuckle era.

So that's 11 that are greater, another 2 that might be or might not, plus 1 who has the potential to be.
Thus Bowe ranks no. 15 in the worst case scenario.

 

Fair enough. Would it bother you if someone picked Tua over Marciano in large part because of attributes related to Tua's size (his power, chin, and durability)?

 

I'd agree that it was a healthy reminder, but it has always seemed to me that the majority has favoured Ali, and even Tyson, over Lewis and Wlad etc. That some haven't doesn't become crazy to me because of Saturday.

 

Or their names? lol

 

They always were,imo

 

Only Hide was a ranked contender during Bowe's prime, the rest were not.
And no, Walcott, Conn and Schmelling would not be top 10 in the early 90s.

 

I think most would have seen it as a bit far fetched that Ortiz would have been Liston already before Saturday.

 

Brilliant lost!

 

Two things occur to me here.

First, how did he beat the good ones? If he lacks skill and power, what's left?

Second, you're relying on "bums" for Shavers's stoppage-to-weight-ratio stats, so beating bums is apparently significant.

That doesn't quite sound "featherfisted."

Many of the top heavies in the 70s -- which you consider comparable to Bowe's era -- were cruisers by modern standards.

If Shavers could knock them out, despite having weak power [EDIT: Or mediocre power?] and no good skills to speak of, why doesn't a modern heavyweight just annihilate them?

Norton was as big or bigger than Williams.

Lyle was at least the same size, and Shavers hurt him as well.

Also, how good could Cleveland Williams have been? He beat cruiserweights who would consider a featherfisted Shavers to be a hard puncher.

I also think you have a potential issue if the main way you differentiate Liston and Shavers is their apparent differences in power on film when hitting cruiserweights. That's no less subjective than the guys who faced Shavers (and sometimes Shavers AND Liston) saying that Shavers hit incredibly hard

Ellis was also slippery. Shavers got to Young the first time, too.

If I checked the Ring rankings, I suspect there were more ranked guys he knocked out as well. And he KD'd most of the people he faced, or hurt them, which should count for something.

Oh, ok. When most people say "featherfisted," they mean somebody like Chris Byrd. I think the Heavyweight Blog Guy means that, too.

So you're saying Shavers hit hard, but wasn't in the league of the absolute best guys? More like, say, Ron Lyle?

I can see why you'd rank them that way under your criteria. Since I use different criteria, and might also differ somewhat on head to head, I come to a different conclusion.

How do you separate Moorer, Spinks, and Schmeling from Bowe? Also, come to think of it, how do you distinguish him from Buster Douglas or Hasim Rahman?

Also, how do you differentiate Bowe from other good, non-champion fighters from the 70s thru 90s who faced more top contenders?

 

It will still mean that a 34 year old Usyk beat Joshua first time around. And that’s still enough.

This us a sensible argument. Bottom line, Spinks did show that he could beat the worlds best fighter over 15 rounds. And hindsight shows that Larry was a still a very good fighter for a good deal longer afterwards.

Absolutely not true. Joe Bugner was bigger than Cleveland Williams.