If Wilder fought Fury again, picking Wilder to win by knockout would not be an embarrassing pick. Take Fury out of boxing, Wilder might have been undefeated when he retired. Wilder is a different fighter than any that came before him. He has/had the confidence that he was going to land a big punch, he didn't worry about losing a round(s), he didn't participate in his opponent's fight plan. If an opponent was excellent at a given range, Wilder just didn't participate at that range. He just waited for the chance to use his length, speed, and power to take the judges out of the fight.
No, I want you to give me the source to the specific numbers you provided. Why are you done, am I asking for too much?
I don't think you want me to bring back your posts from that time... I didn't make any research, I just provided numbers. I don't need any research to know how good Shavers was. He was relevant for a brief moment, but he was nothing special in historical terms.
Dude, this is my last post to you. You admitted yourself don't know anything about the 70s boxing scene. That was clear by your lack of knowledge that Shavers was actually the #1 contender at the end of the decade. Even people who disagree with me in this thread know that. Now you seem to be embarrassed so you are trying to "threaten" me by posting that I thought Wilder would knock out Fury in the rematch (I DID ... so did a ton of people, he knocked out every man he fought before that and floored Fury twice in their first fight) ... like that means anything with what we're talking about. You're clearly now just trying to derail this thread. I thought you knew about the era we were talking about until you admitted you don't. If you want to research that era, feel free. You don't have to go too far. They tended to show fighers' ratings at the beginning of the fight. See: This content is protected This content is protected It's not freaking brain surgery. Search the NY Times and other major papers in that era. They posted monthly ratings. Basing your opinions on a single Ring Magazine rating each year (which had nothing to do with who got title fights, especially then), is dumb. Look up the Ring Ratings Scandal, because you clearly don't know about that, either. When you learn something, like even who the hell Earnie Shavers was, come back. Until then, I'm done with you. Troll someone else. I'm blocking you. (Side note: Don't take cues from a guy named after a ***** - JohnThomas)
So being number one for a split second means that you are top tier contender? Would you call someone like Tony Galento top contender of his era? I'd love to hear any reason to block me based on this discussion, but I won't get the answer probably. Again, stop being so emotionally attached to Wilder related thread.
Holmes wasn't iron chinned he was a excellent ring general with good reflexes and defense but lb for lb I think I might go with Shavers at this point....I haven't seen Wilders power put up against the top chins consistently
This is an insult I'd expect from someone not even out of grade school. If you're as old as you proclaim, this is truly pathetic. Grow up.
Pound for pound? Wilder and Shavers were basically the same weight throughout their careers. Wilder just knocked out much bigger fighters, and Shavers fought a large number of guys in the 180-190 range and still couldn't knock them all out, not even some of the bad ones. Not too many fights with 270/280 pound world champions on Shavers' log. But a number of no-name 180 pounders, at least one of whom floored Shavers and beat him.
I'm not mad. Just disappointed and experiencing second hand embarrassment. You claim to have been following boxing since the 70s, which would put you in your 50s at least. And you're making ***** jokes? I grew out of that when I hit middle school.
I can agree with this but despite weight Wilder is a natural rawboned lean huge man and Shavers was a short stocky stout man....I have seen a break of his KO's and Foremans KO's where the bigger the opponent the more rounds they went and in both cases his power was far less pronounced as his opponents started to scale over 200+ Something else to note is Wilders height and weight puts his stature into another era and even in Louis era 220 was borderline thin for his height in comparison to Carnera, Buddy Baer and other bigger men of the time
Right, but pound for pound has nothing to do with height, or who is tall and who is stocky. It has to do with weight. They've been roughly the same weight during nearly their entire careers. Wilder never fought anyone as a pro below 200 pounds. Shavers fought like 30 times against guys who weighed from 167 to 199 and he failed to stop Vicente Rondon, Stan Johnson and Rahim Muhammad. (He lost to Stan Johnson.) Wilder hasn't outweighed an opponent in nearly 10 years. He's only outweighed his opponents in seven fights (stopped them all). Shavers outweighed his opponent in 47 fights (more than half). Shavers fought one guy who weighed at least 250 pounds, a three win, 19 loss journeyman named Mike Rogers. Wilder fought 13 times against guys who weighed more than 250 (he stopped 10 of them - seven in the first round, one in the second, one in the third round, one in the fourth). Five of Wilder's title fights came against guys who weighed more than 250 pounds (and he stopped two of them in one round and dropped Fury four times). The only guy Wilder didn't stop who weighed more than 250 pounds was Fury (the only guy he faced who he never stopped in his career.) Not Stan Johnson. Not Bob Stallings. Not Rahim Muhammad. Not Ron Stander. Not Leroy Boone. Not Ali Haakim. Not Vicente Rondon ... Tyson Fury. I don't know what George Foreman, Buddy Baer or Primo Carnera have to do with this comparison. Ernie Terrell was as tall or taller than all of them. He wasn't exactly considered a banger. Julius Long is 7'1" and he can't punch worth a damn. This is about Wilder and Shavers and who hit harder.
