We can't tell, that's my point. We can only speculate. Personally I don't see Shavers as that big of a puncher.
Another one in a similar vein: Hearns/Barkley Fight one; fair enough, Barkley could punch and late 80s 160lbs Tommy could be taken out by many (not that I picked it; I figured Hearns at worse by decision). But fight two saw Hearns deservedly outpointed by Barkley! HOW?! Sure early 90s 175lbs Hitman was not the best version, but he came in having taken Hill's '0' on a comfortable decision, and even Leonard and Benitez could not outpoint the Motor City Cobra; but the Blade could?! This sport is ****ing weird sometimes...
Barkley was a ‘peculiar breed’ as Eubank described him. Totally fearless, relentless, willing to take one to give one and just no hesitation, and could take anything and keep in there. He was actually quite awkward in that he was very tall but fought from a crouch, bending at the knees all stiff and winging punches at times you didn’t expect them (usually slower than most on the first punch then more sudden on the second and third punches with no resets, the fourth wing was usually slow again so it was hard to time). Just weird.
Due to his record against what I'd call proper HWs (+215 lbs):11 KOs in 23 fights. Shavers was considered a dangerous KO'er based on KO'ing mainly cruisers and nobodies.
A lot of 70s heavyweights would be heavier men if they weight trained and (in some cases) ate too much like modern fighters do. How do you factor this into the 215 pound size bar?
They may end up bigger, but that's irrelevant. My point was that most of those he KOd were usually smaller HWs than now. There's no way to tell if he would have achieved the same thing against those men if they were bigger
That's true. I guess I'm getting at a different issue, though. Let me ask what seems like a really stupid question: Why would it make Shavers a bigger puncher if he typically KO'd 215+ pound heavyweights rather than guys around the cruiserweight limit?
