Better resume: Peter Maher vs Earnie Shavers

I am surprised at just how similar these two fighters are when looked at in this manner. Shavers is so much more well known by most, but it really does go to show just how easy it is to forget older fighters. I think Maher actually was slightly better, as were his opponents (for their own times) but both very similar. I wonder if there are any examples of two other fighters with such similarities.

In time, I will go back through this thread and look at the lineal rankings (that i did on the other thread) of all the different contenders raised here, but for what it is worth, I had Maher ranking at 43 and Shavers at 113. Without stydying their records, Apart from (i think) slightly better wins at the top end, maher would have been beating top contenders for a slightly longer period of time, wouldnt he.?

 

Looking at Peter Maher,(directly from boxrec) he started with an impressive win streak, being stopped by Peter Jackson. The lineal rankings had Peter Jackson at number 18 of all time. Jackson would have been in good from and prime. IN fact, Matt's rankings had him as the no 1 fighter this year, although in reality, many or even most people did consider Sullivan as the number 1 fighter in the world.

Maher continued winning until he fought a prime Bob Fitzsimmons, who stopped him. Fitzsimmons was ranked as no 4 all time great heavy under the lineal system. He was in his prime at this time.

Maher's next fight against a ranked opponent was in 1892 against Joe Goddard, who stopped him. Goddard was ranked as 66 of all time, and Matt had him at no 3 in the world when this fight took place. Goddard did win by stoppage. Goddard did defeat Denver Ed Smith who is at 192 in the rankings, (although i may have not counted a result and a recount may lift him to 170 or so on the all time list). There was then a draw with McAulliffe (176), a win over George Godfrey (29) and Gus Ruhlin (26), and a draw against Jim Hall (154),

By 1894-95, Maher fought O Donnell X2 (267) , Fitzsimmons(4), Choynski(45) and CC Smith(236), winning all of them except the Fitz fight. He also had a draw with Tom Sharkey (33). In 1898, he split a series 1-1 with Joe Goddard and followed it with a draw with Gus Ruhlin. This seemed to be the start of his downfall as age and presumably alcohol started to catch up with him. He lost to Kid McCoy (124) and choynski. Although he did still have enough left to beat ODonnell, Klondike Haynes and Draw with Ruhlin.

By the time he got around to losing to OBrien ( 23) Gardner (135), Sailor Burke(258) , and others, it is probably not really fair to consider this part of his career, although it is worth noting that the only fighters that beat him, even in his alcoholic past prime fights were actually decently ranked fighters at the time.

Clearly Maher has a lot more depth than he is usually given credit for. It will be interesting to see how Shavers stacks up, although i cant see him bettering this, to be honest.

 

Shavers first notable loss was to Ron Stander who ranked 764 on the all time list. Shavers then had a 3 year win streak where his wins included Jimmy Young (121) and Jimmy Ellis (42). He lost to number 30 Jerry Quarry. This was followed by losses to Bob Stallings (171) and Ron Lyle(167). He steadied with wins over Clarke (499) and others but lost to both Ali (3) and holmes (8). He then recovered with his best win streak which included wins over Terrell(1066), and Norton (39) before losing to Holmes (8), Mercado (160) and Cobb(234). He really was finished by this stage, despite winning a few fights.

 

So, when i compare those two results, Maher really does have a resume which is quite a bit better for his time. SHavers best win was obviously Norton, where he earned his world title shot and it was a great win. Though it is hard to say the Norton win was any better than the choynski win. Norton did rank 6 places higher than Choynski on these rankings, but that is not much in an all time sense. They were clearly a similar win. And even looking at both, both of these had big wins over definite top 10, probable top 5 and arguably top 3 opponents) in johnson and Ali repectively.

So far as losses go, clearly it took a better caliber of fighter (in terms of ranking within there own time to beat) Maher than it did Shavers. Maher was more proven against fighters in the 150 - 250 bracket with several wins, whereas Shavers seemed to struggle with this caliber of opponents.

All in all, i think it looks like Maher's resume is quite a bit better than Shavers. He proved himself against better fighters (relative to his own time), he was successful for a longer period of time, was much more consistent, and was only ever stopped by a better caliber of fighters. Even when his career dragged on longer, he was still beating and fighting better fighters than an old Shavers, whose career was quite a bit shorter.

If Maher was born in the same time frame (assuming he was as successful), he would have been very very well known and rated on these boards.

 

Assuming he was as successful, I think he would have been a well known and rated Light Heavyweight.