Bigger one punch power? Shavers vs Tyson

Etienne was a chinny. He was knocked down 7 times by Fres Oquendo.
We're stretching the boundaries of "quality fighter" a bit to shoe-horn in the likes of Etienne.
Tyson hit the guy hard, no question.

Yes, Tyson did demonstrate fearsome power.
So did Shavers, very much so.
The fact that you argue against Shavers' reputation is a mistake.

And, no, Tyson didn't have many "one punch KOs" if you take the line that you're taking against Shavers.

On the contrary, I'm not making any strong argument about Shavers being a harder hitter than Tyson. I think those arguments are silly. Both of them hit really really hard.
I'm simply arguing against your inconsistent, double-standard argument. You're moving the goal posts in the argument every post it seems.

Well, you were trying to portray him as a FAIL when it comes to knocking guys down.
Again, you're moving the goal posts.
When Tyson knocks guys down ("quality fighters" in an increasingly broad sense of the term) you reference that as proof that when he landed he "often" had "a devastating effect" on his opponents.
When it's pointed out that Shavers DID knock guys down, you say "not sure why that merits fanfare".

And people have been saying throughout this thread that Shavers lacked finishing skill, so that's pretty much the same as you saying "not so hot at actually stopping them".
Isn't it?

 

Good post, and one I can't really argue much against.

One question though: what exactly do you mean when you say Shavers has more "raw power"? Do you mean he had greater heavy handedness? I'm not sure he clearly demonstrated enough of that to "set him apart" as you say.

 

You can pick any of his other clutch of one punch KOs if you like. I simply picked Etienne as it was his most recent.

That's my problem, though: I can't see this fearsome power of Shavers demonstrated on film. Everything is second hand evidence.

With Tyson it's clear to see.

Whatever standard you want to hold against Tyson he still has more one punch KOs than Shavers, as well as more devastating stoppages in general.

Why is it a mistake to argue against Shavers's reputation? Is he beyond criticism?

Shavers was a heavy handed dude no doubt. A dangerous puncher for anyone. And if that's as far as you want to take it then you won't hear a peep from me.

It's the "Shavers was the GOAT power puncher" brigade I'm mostly at odds with.

 

It's kind of tough to describe what I meant by raw power. I meant that if Tyson and Shavers should both launch a haymaker as hard as they can, the Shavers haymaker would have more force.

 

It's not close in my view, Tyson's power was tested against bigger, better and heavier athletes... Not only is he a far better and more effective puncher, but surely Tyson has more raw power too compared to Shavers, being the stronger and heavier boxer too...

 

I vote Shavers. Better overall puncher is Tyson by a mile, but Shavers hit like hell with one shot.

 

That's quite a speculation if you ask me. Shavers was smaller, slower and less technical than Tyson, and his punches had a markedly lesser effect on his opponents judging by the video footage we have available. I'm not saying that that alone settles the issue, but it doesn't really point to Shavers having the heavier hands either.

 

If you can feel the punches, then clearly you haven't been hit that hard.

 

Here is Larry Holmes casting his vote for Earnie :
http://www.boxinginsider.com/history/larry-holmes-the-champ-speaks/

 

Here is Absolutely! casting his vote for Tyson :
https://streamable.com/b0zz

 

So have most punchers.

 

fascinating read...

 

Yeah, not sure why Unforgiven keeps trying to chip away at certain fighters' credibility. Take a look at Foreman's resume, which is littered with cans and jobbers. Marciano has some rather chintzy KO's to his record. Joe Louis has a mixed bag of great and not so wonderful scalps. And if Lennox couldn't knock you out he struggled to steer his chin clear of danger.