Archie Moore vs Earnie Shavers

No one in history had this type of effect in his rivals with a single punch. No Foreman ,shavers,Tua ,Tyson.. Jackson was the pfp hardest hitter ever

 

You are cherry picking their weights in order to make look the difference of natural size much less than it actually was. you pick the weight of his fight against Lyle but curiously don't use his weight against Ali,Holmes,roy willians,jerry quarry,henrry clark, howard smith,bob felstein,ken norton ...

It is your curtis sheppard
Record
51wins(33ko)- 33 losses

He started his carreer at 177 pounds. He weighed 186 pounds in his prime and he fought MUCH MORE TIMES in the 180s range than the times that he fought over 195. He was the same size of marciano.
This guy had a crappy record with a reputation based on words but he has a joke % of ko and he was well past his prime when he faced moore.

Earnie shavers weighed 210 pounds in his peak and he could carry more weight too.
So prime vs prime shavers weighed 210 pounds and shepard 186.
Because if you cherry pick his 198 pounds for sheppard, then i can pick 220 pounds for shavers when he won the fights between 1978 and 1979 against harry terrel 221pounds, for harold carter 220 pounds, for eddie parote 219 pounds.

Shavers was the bigger puncher by a country mile and the record speak for itself
74(68kos) - 14

 

What does shavers weight factor into the equation? In all seriousness here. Moore beat men much larger then Shavers. The point of bringing up other decent punchers was not to compare them to shavers power but to say he’s not going to get knocked out right off the bat. He’s going to take Shavers into the later rounds and probably decision him or knock him out.

 

Other poster said that sheppard and shavers weighed similar and it is a bull****

archie moore was much better boxer than earnie shavers but in a h2h match it does not work like that,ken norton even at the time he fought shavers was a much better boxer than earnie and Norton would beat archie moore everyday of the week. Moore was naturally much smaller man and he did not have a chin ti survive against the hardest puncher in boxing history, the simple idea of thinking that moore would avoid every single shot from shavers and then would ko him late or beat him by ud is a joke sorry, in some point of the fight shavers probably would catch him and good night

 

If you went strictly with historians you would find Fitz ahead of Jackson.

Rings 100 Greatest Punchers of All Time found Fitz at 8 and Jackson at 25.

 

Hahah i was waiting for somebody mentioning this list(wich i saw too) . they are taking in count clearly the quality of the fighter because if you judge strictly the one punch knock out power of the guys on this list. The place 25 for jackson is a joke and i know that you agree with this. Plus you have Foreman 1 place over shavers so this list has poor credibility if we are talking about pure power. Anyway this list is called. GREATEST PUNCHERS. NOT HARDEST PUNCHERS. it is why Louis is ranked above Foreman and shavers.

Curiously shavers is in the number 10 and where is curtis sheppard? Hello curtis are you here? Lol

 

I don’t think Norton or Shavers beats him lol. I think you severely under rate the old mongoose. He has the credentials to prove it. That doesn’t mean they can’t win I just think Archie would beat them. Archies record speaks for itself. Only men to beat him at Hw we’re some of the best ever and he was over 38 for those fights. That should speak to how good a fighter he was at HW.

 

Certainly i would not argue against Jackson being considerably higher.

I am even dubious on Fitz but he has the feats behind him i guess. I don't rate guys that i can't overly see much in punching and H2H stuff. This does tho go against you a little as you have seen so many of Jackson's dramatic stoppages in full color but basically none of Fitz's and certainly not via that quality obviously. Is it to his advantage or disadvantage?

Good job picking out "Greatest" as the criteria. I would say Jackson is low because he has no ko's over top shelf opposition. Terry Norris was a very good fighter but he had a weak chin. I think they've gone for quality over how conclusive they looked. Wilder's a bit like Jackson in the way his punches impact people in rare ways but he lacks quality opponents. Jackson is more proven than Wilder of course.

Foreman is above Shavers precisely because he knocked out a reigning ATG and a very good fighter among others.

It's interesting that after all our years of arguing over Foreman and shavers power you have actually come around to my way of thinking! There would surely not be much in it tho and Foreman was a much better fighter and stopped better guys.