Better resume: Peter Maher vs Earnie Shavers

To the replies in yellow:

Box rec says Slavin was 34. Cyber boxing zone says Slavin was born January 5 1862. The fight was June 1896. Making Slaivn age 34. Those are two solid sources. Do you have a different birthday for Slavin? Either way the point that he too hd drinking problems was was past his best is a correct one.

Yes-- I agree Maher got the better of Choynski and that was his best win. But he also lost to him.

Lot of fighters were out on their feet. Ali for example said he was out on his feet more than once vs Foreman. History shows he finished the round, and I think Fitz would have too. The news read I have says Fitz won convincingly.

I view Ruhlin and Maher about even. A contender, but not good enough to beat say a top 3 man in his prime. The peak draw was a good fights, So I read, but in a good fight there is a give and take. If Maher hit as hard as some say, Ruhlin would not be standing. Ruhlin was stopped three times by punchers. Sharkey KO1, Fitz, KO6, Jeffries TKO 5. Maher in 4 fights should have been able to stop Ruhlin once, if he was puncher in that class. Or maybe it was skills. Something doesn't add up.


" Slavin, Godfrey, Klondike, Smith, Hall, McAuliffe, O'Donnell, Sharkey, Butler, Kennedy, Dunkhorst, Conroy didn't defeat him."

Well Slavin was 34 ( I say ) or 33, and on the bottle, Godfrey over 40. The rest of the names outside of Sharkey who I suspect would have stopped Maher if the fight wasn't halted to a draw are not to contenders. I agree Maher had no issues beating guys on this level. But when he took up a step in class, he wasn't Joe Goddard ( Avery good fighter who proved better even in older age ) and didn't rise above Ruhlin either. Maybe Maher was more like Rex Lanye?? Good puncher, lost more often than not vs the best. Either way an interesting guy who was active.

As for Wikipedia, I don't post it blindly, rather I read it and good work can be found there.

 

I don’t think any of them would even be on the radar as contenders, but that’s a different argument and shouldn’t take away from what they were in their own time.

 

For that to be true, you'd have to believe that their era was as strong as Shaver's - and even if that were the case (??), I have a hard time believing that big LHs/small CWs like Goddard and Slavin from the 1890s, would hold their own against modern heavies from Shavers' time. I just don't see it.

Also, it will take more than the opinion of old-timers, who watched Maher 120 years ago, to convince me that he was a bigger puncher than Shavers. I know, we will never be able to prove anything one way or the other - but I would file that idea away under "highly unlikely"!

 

So Shavers wasn't a modern fighter, because he fought 40 years ago? Really? What about Duran, Leonard, Hagler, etc.... are they also not "modern" fighters?

What evidence (that Maher was a bigger puncher than Shavers) would I like to see? As we both know, there's nothing to see! I simply take opinions formed 120 years ago with a grain of salt.

 

The fight is about resume, the two guys are very similar, some edges to Maher, longer peak, beat more contenders, less damning losses, Shavers had the better top end wins, beat better big fighters, probably was chinned less. Both were outstanding punchers, rerely had to go the distance to get the win.
As for Mendoza, Sharkey was the one in trouble when the police stopped his fight with Maher, having been floored heavely. Slavin was certainly over the top though he would stop Joe Butler in his next fight. I never disputed his age, 34.
The opinion of fighters, trainers and reporters who seen Maher is as valuable as the people who saw Shavers, no less, no more. I doubt any both seen both!

 

Goddard was weighing in the 170's at 33yo and well past it. He was still making the 170's at 40yo. The bottom line is that he was nothing akin to later heavyweights weight wise or even some of the guys Foster faced. The guy was probably a light heavyweight in peak condition at best.

His listed weights in his three matches with Maher were 187, 180 and 190. I like Foster's chances let alone Shavers.

He has a listed weight of 174 in his mid 20's. He has multiple listings in the low to mid 180's. He was quite likely mid 180's against Maher. Again not a genuine heavyweight in even late 70's early 80's terms.

O'Donnell has listed weights in some of their fights of 185, 181 and 180. Your guesses always end up on the high side of things that's for sure. At any rate he looks to be a 180 - 185 type fighter.

He looks to be a 190 type fighter. I could name any amount of heavies that reached this or that weight when they were fat and poorly conditioned.

He fought 190-200. His record is hardly awe inspiring.

Perhaps but yes lesser.

Maher himself weighed inside the light heavyweight limit for four fight in a row around the age of 30. Irrespective of what he did in his day we are not comparing apples to apples.

No doubt he punched above his weight in those days. He was mostly fighter small men by the 80's standards and those that were bigger were mostly ordinary. I would be worried Shavers might kill him in there to be honest as well as all these opponents mentioned.

 

Well their are plenty of listed weights. If they are wrong they would have come in under these weights just as often as over.