Better resume: Peter Maher vs Earnie Shavers

Thank you for the correct data.

 

The opinion that he hit harder etc without film verification is just speculation based on reports and testimony but so is the converse. The stamina opinion is based on the twenty round Ruhlin fight, fought at a furious pace and the film evidence of Shavers. BTW maybe there is a clue in how many times they went over 8 rounds?

 

Shavers stated boxing at 22, pro at 25, Maher at 21, pro at 24. Very similar career trajectory also, lots of ko's over stiffs, some good wins over contenders, defeats at the very top. Resume-wise Maher had less damning defeats until he was 34 and a drunk. Shavers didn't start picking up as many losses post prime as Peter while neither had great success in the twlight years, Maher maybe Russell, Harris and Jeffords, Earnie had Simms and Bugner.

 

Shavers KO1 over the super middleweight McMoustache

 

Why are we talking about stamina? Mike Tyson versus Ultramarathon runner - who you got?

 

I still think crude is harsh. Shavers was very close to outpointing a 1977 Ali. He drew with Jimmy Young, and Ko'd Young. You meed some skills for those the of results.

On Maher, who did he really beat that was decent on points? I don't know enough about his resume to determine if he was behind on points or even with before landing his bomb.

Shavers clearly fought a better class of opponents. There is no one on Maher's resume close to Holmes or Ali.

 

Maher simply didn't box for "Points" he went for the ko, pure and simple. He was pretty fast and a straight and combination puncher. The few fights he won on points were usually due to multiple knock-downs. He was behind Fitz on points when stopped, ditto with McCoy. He drew with Ruhlin and Sharkey on points, that was his level, just under the cleverest boxers.

 

It seems to me that we're working from incomplete records, steeped in a good deal of uncertainty, where Maher is concerned. The records, readily on display in boxrec, are not to be relied upon, as far as I can tell.

If I have this^ correct, then I think it renders any comparison quite questionable, save for the fact that we know some of Shavers' best performances (even in defeat) were against those counted amongst the elites in Heavyweight Boxing History.

I can keep an open mind, but I think a stronger case needs to be built for Maher who, at a glance, looks to have ploughed his way through a litany of debutantes and novices; losing more often than not, whenever he stepped up in class.

 

I was joking.

 

I think their is going to be an inherent bias simply because we have no film of Maher. We have have footage of Shavers against big all time great fighters. As time marches on the old guys become more and more forgotten. Maher’s resume is good - not great. It’s as good as Shavers imo if not better but that won’t stop him from losing out to the sands of time

 

Maher was badly outboxed by Kid McCoy and stopped. He lost to Choynski too. And to Goddard. And to Ruhlin. Fitzsimmons flattened Maher in round one, and made him quit after 12 in the first fight. I don't think the 1st fight was close. Jack O'brein had his way. I don't see why Corbett would not have beaten Maher.

I disagree, doing well vs. Ali in 1977 sill meant something. Shavers bought into Ali's acting, otherwise he could have stopped him.

On Maher, I agree he was a big right hand puncher, but are there any testimonials that say he was in John L Sullivan's class as a puncher? Or Fitzsimmons or Jeffries class as a puncher? If so I'd to read it. Maher's power doesn't seem to show post 1899 -1905 when the competition at heavyweight increased. So what it the skills to land it or the power being over rated? You tell me.

I don't picture Maher as skilled on defense, nor to I think he was as skilled on offense as Shavers was. With no film its hard to say for sure, but to my point on Shavers did well vs. Boxers ( Ellis and Young ), and I see Maher losing to his ( O'Brien, and McCoy )