Classic Forum Chat: Size isn't the only factor.

Bowe’s prime was like three fights. Are you aware that Alex Garcia, Michael Bentt, Gonzalez and Phil Jackson graced the Ring annual rankings during Bowe’s time?

 

Yes I am aware.

 

Bugner lost due to a cut, that's not a proper win

 

I already explained: Bugner on a cut, and Ellis when holding and then uppercutting (he should have been DQ). Only Norton remains.
And he does have power, just not as much as the biggest HW punchers.

Yes, but for some, their frame allows them to put a bit more weight (Ali, Foreman, Lyle, etc)

Shavers couldn't knock out any of the top dogs, he lost.

Yet he lost.

Those cruisers also considered Williams a hard puncher.

Wlad, Foreman, Lewis, Liston, Wilder, Tyson etc.

Simple. Bowe beat Holy twice, a feat which surpasses any of theirs.

Simple again. They were one hit wonders, who won mostly due to their opponents not being at their best.
Bowe beat Holyfield at his best.

Being champ in the greatest HW era ever ranks higher.

 

And Young.

Right, but I thought you said earlier in another thread that we weren't considering what a fighter's natural frame is (which was the basis for denying that Shavers was the same size as somebody like Peter, minus the steroid era and weightlifting.)

Also, the larger framed 70s guys were at their peak weights barely on either side of the 215 pound boundary. And they were *losing* to cruiserweights, so how can they measure up to 90s guys?

Norton was a top dog.

And knockdowns count when assessing power. We aren't evaluating three-dimensional boxing ability here.

How is that decisive on the narrow question of how hard the guy hit? Far more skilled punchers than Shavers have also lost.

I agree with them. Williams *was* a hard puncher. Even though he mostly used his power in cruiserweights. That's my point.

As to Shavers, he was rated as the hardest hitter ever faced by guys stretching from Liston era to Tyson era.

Liston was Shavers sized, basically. And he fought / stopped similar sized opponents to Shavers.

I almost think that your point about cruiserweights-vs-215+-pounders that you cited from the Heavyweight Blog Guy is overcomplicating your argument. The core of your approach to Shavers doesn't actually rely on size. Your basic issue with Shavers seems to be that Shavers just wasn't that great a puncher against quality heavyweights of ANY size, period.

Especially since you acknowledge Liston as a world class puncher, I think the size issue is a third wheel to your main argument about Shavers. Namely, that Shavers was just a generic, hard puncher who fouled people to win and feasted on weak opposition.

I assume here that you are considering the head to head abilities of Holyfield compared to, say, Louis. Since Louis on paper is the greater opponent to beat.

Spinks beat Holmes twice, and never lost to him. Holmes was better than Holyfield on pretty much any metric.

Moorer was 1-1 with Holyfield, and IIRC, beat more ranked fighters than Bowe. Never had a rubber match. Bowe holds a loss against Holyfield, too. The case can be made.

Problem is that everyone has excuses for these losses. Tyson lost focus, Lennox lost focus, Holyfield fought the wrong fight (and was older during the second defeat), Louis was green, etc.

But yes, if you rate the 90s as the best decade ever, then Bowe has a stronger case.

 

But even so, Bowe only beat one top fighter of that decade. Only one of the perhaps top 20 fighters that decade, or even top 30.

He did look great doing so, but still...

 

I did not mention steroids. But since Ali and co. were fighting 15 rounds, if they only have to go 12, they can add a few extra pounds.

Their size is decent enough, and their skills are also good. That's why they are close. But I'd bet my money on Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson and Bowe to beat Foreman, Ali, Lyle and Frazier.

70s top dogs are: Foreman, Ali, Frazier. That's it. Norton is in the next tier, with Lyle and perhaps even Young.

Yea, but like I said in another thread, he put everything he had into his shots, the others rarely managed to do that.

Liston was bigger (taller, heavier and with a longer reach) and stronger.

No, I'm just saying that when HWs got bigger, his KO ratio dropped bigtime. Not all the bigger HWs he faced were elite boxers, in order for us to be able to excuse him due to that.

Yes, but not only that. Louis was still a bit green when Schmelling beat him, while Holyfield was in his absolute prime when Bowe beat him.

Yeah, but Spinks beat a Holmes at the back end of his prime. He was still good, but not quite 100 %. And their second fight is controversial.
And I disagree about Holmes being better than Holyfield on every metric.

Being 1-1 is not the same as being 2-1.

Those are facts, not excuses.

I do rate it.

 

what do you mean Holmes was at the back of his prime? At 34 Usyk is exactly the same age as Larry was.

you could say Joshua was beaten by a guy as past it as Larry was.

Larry busted Evander up as an old man. Sure Holmes lost that time. But right after watching that fight, nobody, absolutely nobody, thinks prime Evander would beat prime Larry.

 

We were discussing modern training and nutrition, from what I remember. I usually take that to include the steroid issue, and I think I was the one to bring them into that conversation. My basic point was that, once you account for the different training styles, Shavers would be modern-sized today. He had the frame to accommodate it.

Frazier was just as cruiserweight sized as anybody Shavers can be accused of beating up, though. I agree that their skills and size were adequate, but they were losing to sub-215 pound guys. Foreman to Young, Ali to Frazier. Lyle I don't think was ever in the running for being a great fighter in that era. They were also having close, competitive fights with cruiserweight fighters.

If there's a huge gap between a 216 pound guy and a 200 pounder, the results in the 70s should look different than they do.

Well, wait a moment. Wasn't the "top dogs" issue first brought into the discussion to show why Shavers wasn't a massive puncher? If by "top dogs" you meant only the three best fighters, I don't think that proves much.

It does not seem fair to expect Shavers to have to KO the three best fighters of his decade before he's allowed to claim huge puncher status. Tyson didn't stop the three best fighters of his era, either, but he's in your hardest puncher list. Wilder has yet to stop Fury, AJ, or Wlad. Liston failed to even hurt Ali, and while he KOd Patterson, he never faced Johansson or early Frazier. And so on.

Worse, Shavers didn't get the opportunity to face all three guys, so we don't know whether he would have stopped them or not.

Foreman says he ducked Shavers. Frazier never fought him. Ali did fight him, and Shavers hurt Ali a lot worse than Foreman ever managed.

On your next tier down, Shavers stopped Young the first time they fought. He knocked down Lyle. Lyle, incidentally, said that Shavers hit harder than Foreman, who was one of the three top dogs, and a true heavyweight under the Blog Guy's way of reckoning things. And Shavers stopped Norton.

He did all of this with a rudimentary skillset, weak chin, and dubious stamina.

Then I compliment Shavers on his skill at managing to get full leverage on his shots in a fight situation where ATGs like Liston and Foreman apparently failed.

They're both a little over 6 feet tall, and around 210, aren't they? Been a while since I checked the tale of the tape, but the only major difference I recall was Liston's Slenderman arms.

I have my doubts that the sampled population is large and uniform enough to be able to judge his power from journeyman stoppages of any size.

In that case, Holyfield choosing the wrong fight plan in fight 1, and being old in his second defeat, are also facts.

Since we are talking greatness, Holmes ranks higher than Holyfield. And Spinks beat him, twice.

You reply that Spinks's second victory was controversial. Well, that cuts both ways. If we're allowed to argue for controversial decisions being overturned, then Norton becomes world heavyweight champion (by beating Ali in the third fight). And now Shavers owns a stoppage over a "top dog" heavyweight champ. Two of them, actually, since Young arguably beat Ali as well.

As to Moorer, I give Bowe more credit for his fights against Holyfield than I give Moorer, but Moorer still beat him, and might have had a better career otherwise.

In that case, given your assessment of the 90s as the greatest decade ever, your rating Bowe in the top 20 is reasonable.

 

If I remember correctly, Larry was 35. Anyway, boxers peak at different ages. Also, nowadays nutrition and training allows for more longevity.

That doesn't mean Larry is better on every metric. As you know, styles make fights.

 

To avoid confusion, I'll admit that "every metric" was hyperbole on my part. Holyfield might have been stronger, and would likely be a much better Crossfitter than Holmes. Holyfield was clearly more popular with the ladies as well.

But in terms of greatness, and likely head to head, Holmes is the superior heavyweight, IMO.

 

I'm a big fan of Holmes, but a reasonable argument could be made for him not being the best heavyweight in the world, by the time Spinks eked out a decision against him in '85.

 

Who would you say was the best at that point, if you decided to make that argument?

 

That's a good question. I base the idea more on a belief that Holmes' best was between 1977 to 1982. He'd been slowing up since then and was 35 years old by the time he met Spinks.

At the same time, the Alphabet Soup of multiple title reigns was in full swing, with a clutch of titleholders who were, however briefly, seeking glory amongst themselves.

I suppose that, if I were going to make a case, it might begin with what a rematch between Holmes and Witherspoon might have looked like in '85.

Failing that, Thomas, Tubbs or maybe Coetzee or Dokes.

The point being that, by the turn of 1985, there were at least a few heavyweights around, who might have been able to nick a decision against that version of Holmes.

 

The convo was H2H -

WBomber - "Perhaps, but his career is still good enough for him to be in the top 20.
H2H, he's top 10 with ease for me, he even challenges for top 5."