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

Williams was 212 1/2 pounds and 6'2. Shavers stopped multiple people bigger than Williams. Study up.

You read it right here folks. Liston has 30-40% more power than Earnie Shavers.

 

It doesn't matter what rated contenders a guy beat when rating him on an ATG achievement list?

Guys that could reasonably be rated ahead of Bowe by an individual -

The below guys on a resume basis in no real order below are solids for mine -

Ali
Louis
Lewis
Holmes
Foreman
Marciano
Holyfield
Liston
Frazier
Tyson
Johnson
Wlad

Guys you could reasonably have ahead -

Dempsey
Jeffries
Langford
Walcott
Patterson
Corbett
Charles
Wills
Sullivan
Vitali
Norton
Fury

There's not much in things once you get to a certain point. There's more than a dozen or more that have him covered and then the finer points begin. You could reasonably argue him down to 15 or so but you can reasonably argue him down to 21 as well.

 

This raises an interesting point. Almost none of these guys have had actual numerical tests done on their punching power.

Marciano did, supposedly, at 925 foot-pounds. And Ring Magazine said that Spinks did 750 PSI (different units, note, and undoubtedly on a different machine) according to a source Janitor found once upon a time. But we don't really have much.

Which brings up the obvious question: On what basis can we say that Liston hit 40% harder than Shavers? What units are you using? How could you even tell?

To illustrate some of the problems here, imagine that we are asking a slightly easier question: Did Liston hit 40% harder than Marciano? Well, lucky us. We actually have Marciano's punching power in foot-pounds from a PR Army test in the 50s. Adding 40% gives you 1295 foot pounds. Did Liston hit that hard?

Well, Liston never hit a machine to find out, so we have to guesstimate based on what we see in the ring.

So...What exactly does a man hitting with 1295 foot pounds look like in the ring?

We. Don't. Know.

We have no freaking idea what 1295 foot pounds looks like in the ring, because we don't measure any of this stuff. We don't have anybody trained to guesstimate that kind of stuff with any accuracy, either, and we have one -- maybe two! -- data points on different machines, decades apart.

Simply put, if somebody can accurately pinpoint Shavers as hitting 30-40% harder than Liston just by watching old crummy film with poor sound quality, then Shavers's opponents' testimony should be treated like readings from a precision instrument.

 

Great post hahaha.

Punches and their effect on an opponent can never be measured to a great degree, surely. Various components at play.

I suspect if anyone was hitting 30-40% harder than Shavers they would be breaking bones on a consistent basis. Image Shavers punches times a third more. The entire statement kills any semblance of credibility an individual could ever hope to have, lets be serious.

We know Ali said Shavers hit him the hardest and i have read it claimed that Clark, their only other common opponent from memory also called Shavers the harder hitter. So there's that LOL

 

OUCH!!! Man, that was stone cold

 

It simply had to be said

 

evander holyfield hit one of those punchball machines you see in funfairs and that, on SoccerAm and was followed by, i think danny dyer (im not 100% it was him), who got a higher score than Holy. Ergo, by the rules of the internet and all things deemed as proof by some maniacs, the 11st soaking wet cockney hardman Dyer must be a bigger hitter than the 4 times heavyweight champion

 

From my perspective, Ali was able to observe both Shavers and Liston throwing punches at him in high-definition color, in surround sound, and at extremely close proximity. Ali also had ample opportunity gauge the effects of their punches on himself. I don't see why this would be *less* precise than watching on film and gauging their power that way.

(Unless you assume lies / exaggeration, I suppose.)

 

You forgot about Schmeling - shame on you!

I wouldn't put Corbett that high, but I'd have Fitzsimmons in "arguable" tier.

 

I did forget Max. He'd be somewhere around Bowe for quite a few i reckon.

Bowe's ATG resume rating depends on how high you want to rank going 2-1 over Holyfield. Obviously that alone is eye opening but his amount of wins over genuine top 10 heavyweights excepting that (and Golota!) is incredibly bare. Much more bare than most would even realize. I'd actually forgotten how bad it really was TBH. It really is a resume killer.

While i don't agree with Bowe being top 5 H2H he IMO is obviously a lot better H2H than resume based. At his best he could fight even if he didn't overly prove it against a multitude of contenders. I'd have no problem at all with someone claiming him to be top 10 H2H. His lack of quality wins opens up plenty of questioning tho and if someone hammered away at that point they'd sure have some leeway to cast doubt.

 

His height doesn't change if he bulks up. So he'll probably loose mobility and speed, thus he might loose the snap in his punches, ultimately decreasing power.

Don't remember exactly, but I don't think so.

I never said Shavers should have KOd all 3 guys. My point was that once Shavers fought bigger men on average, his KO ratio dropped.

Tyson did not face Bowe, and he failed to land big on the other 2 since he was past his best when he fought them.
Wilder only faced Fury, and he has limited skills.
Liston could not land big on Ali.
Of course they are not gonna KO men they never faced.
I repeat, the issue I have with Shavers is that he did not retain his power when he fought bigger men, while Tyson, Liston, Wilder etc usually proved themselves against big men.

I doubt Foreman or Frazier were afraid of Shavers. It just wasn't a big money making fight.
And Shavers hurt Ali a lot worse cause he landed his best punches on him, Foreman did not, just body shots.

I do too, but to be fair, Ali was older back then.

Liston was 1 inch taller, and a bit heavier.

It's not quite the same. You can use this excuse for everyone that ever lost a fight.
I'm talking about valid excuses, that are reasonable and make sense, i.e. being older, not being prepared properly etc.

I rank Holmes higher too, but that doesn't mean he's better than Holyfield in every metric.
And I repeat, Holmes was at the back end of his prime when Spinks beat him, while Holyfield was in his absolute prime when Bowe beat him. All credit to Spinks, but it's not quite the same.

I second you on Ali vs Norton and Young, but Ali was the cash cow, thus they gave him the nod.

Good then.

 

By that reasoning, since most modern heavyweights *are* bulked up, we would expect them to lose snap and power just like Shavers. If you are right, it would imply that Rahman, Peter, etc. are weaker punchers than they would have been at 210 pounds or so, and that Shavers's smaller mass is actually an advantage for his punching power.

I thought you were talking about his performances against the "top dogs" to show lack of power?

Shavers knocked down, knocked out, or hurt most of the contenders he faced. And the 70s contenders were all within a 195 to 220 pound weight range, so there isn't a huge difference we're talking here. (And you've stated that the 70s heavies are comparable to 90s ones, so they're not the sorts of fighters to get mowed down by inferior power.) The guy who seemed least fazed by his punches was little Jerry Quarry.

These excuses work for Shavers as well. He didn't land on everybody, had limited skills, fought past his prime, and didn't face everyone.

Like Wilder, though, he demonstrated that he could hurt people even in fights he didn't win. Wilder knocked Fury down; Shavers KD'd Lyle and others.

Which bigger men did he fight that he showed less power against than smaller men?

Who are the little guys he was blitzing, and who are the large guys he couldn't hurt?

Foreman said he ducked Shavers in a tweet, for what it's worth.

I raised the issue to basically point out that you can't criticize Shavers for failing to KO guys he never fought.

Skill at landing shots is part of being a puncher. That said, both guys landed hard body shots.

Yes, Ali was way past his best against Shavers, I agree.

I think they were the same weight at 210. Liston was an inch taller, and had longer arms. (Shavers's were still long at 79" though.) Shavers looked to be more barrel shaped in the torso. They're the same size from my perspective. One a little stockier, one a little taller.

As excuses go, "I chose to brawl against a bigger man who was a better infighter and hit a lot harder than I do" isn't really that much better or worse than "I didn't retract my jab safely" or "I didn't train as much as I should have" or "I stopped being as consistent with my head movement" or "I just stopped paying attention to the other dude's right hand."

Every fighter will have excuses, or things they could have done differently.

As I mentioned above, "every metric" was rhetorical. My point is that Holmes was a significantly better fighter head to head, AND a greater fighter.

Holmes wasn't at his best anymore, but a clean 2-0 with an older Holmes is still a better record than going 2-1 with a Holyfield who ages a bit more each fight.

Ok, so if we are retroactively giving Spinks a 1-1 record vs Holmes, and giving Young/Norton credit for their own close fights, then Shavers owns two KOs over lineal heavyweight champions. That's the equivalent of Tyson flattening Bowe and Holyfield both. Shavers is undoubtedly an ATG puncher now.

Additionally, Young's fight with Norton should have been a victory for him, arguably, so Young also holds two wins over lineal heavyweight champs (Ali and Norton). Norton also holds two -- possibly three -- wins over Ali. Thus, if we start rewriting records, Jimmy Young and Ken Norton can both be rated comfortably above Bowe in the greatness department.

 

I don't know what to say about that. Most modern HWs are bulked up from the get go, thus they are used to the extra mass.

I wasn't, why do you keep repeating this stuff ?!?

Yes, the 70s guys were comparable to the 90s guys, but I was talking about how good they were overall, as boxers. I wasn't talking about a specific criteria, such as power, chin, speed etc.
There is no compulsory correlation between how good a boxer is and how good his chin is, or how hard he punches.

I don't remember the exact names, but he has:
- a 90.9 % KO ratio against opponents that weighed under 200 lbs;
- a 68.5 % KO ratio against opponents that weighed more than 200 lbs;
- a 47.8 % KO ratio against opponents that weighed more than 215 lbs.
While these stats don't tell the whole story, they still paint a pretty clear picture.

Foreman said many silly things.

Again, I never did. I criticized him for having a poor KO ratio against + 215 lbs HWs.

Yes, but some excuses are actually valid and/or facts

Greater, yes. Significantly better head to head, I don't know, it's hard to say. Though I don't have a problem giving Holmes the edge.

It doesn't work that way. You vastly overrate someone's ranking in relation to punching power. It's ****ing IRRELEVANT.
As I've said, if someone is an ATG boxer overall, it does not mean he is ATG in every metric of the sport: chin, punching power, speed etc. The main reason someone is an ATG is his skill level. Prime versions of Tyson and Ali were not great cause the had the best chin, or the most power, they were great due to the overall package they had.
You might have someone ranked 200th in the world, who has the best chin or the most punching power, yet they are not that good overall. Excelling in just one department only gets you so far.

 

So let's look at Earnie against ranked contenders. The Ring rankings are imprecise and apparently retrospective (not month to month), but here goes:

1973: Earnie stops Jimmy Young. Jimmy is still early in the journeyman phase of his career, but two years later he would be ranked very high. He would go on to fight well enough that he might have deserved the nod against Ali and Norton, and actually beat Foreman. Young would go on to absorb punches from Foreman, and be stopped on his feet (from cuts!) while ancient against a prime Cooney. Young is 199, Shavers 209.

1973: Shavers stops Ellis. Ellis is rated in the top 10, and weighs 200. Shavers is 206.

1973: Quarry stops Shavers. Quarry appears to be the only guy who didn't think much of Shavers's power...but also didn't remember getting hit, which he actually was. Quarry is 202 to Shavers's 210.

1974: Jimmy Young, presumably better equipped with his negative survival style than last time, ekes out a draw. Shavers is 210; Young 200. Young is not ranked this year, IIRC, but will be soon. [EDIT: In another thread, it was pointed out to me that Shavers scored a KD in this fight.]

1975: Earnie (206) faces Ron Lyle (216), who is rated in the top 10. Shavers bounces Lyle off the canvas, but Lyle is saved by the bell. Shavers eventually gasses and gets KOd himself. Lyle faced Foreman and Cooney. He reported that Shavers hit harder than anybody he'd encountered.

1977: Earnie KO's Howard Smith, who was rated in the top 10 the year before. Smith was 6'3" and I'm pretty sure over 200 pounds.

1977: Earnie loses to Ali. Earnie is 211, Ali 225. Ali by this point has faced an encyclopedic collection of punchers from Foreman to Liston to Mac Foster. He is hurt. I think he said that Earnie hit him the hardest, but then, Ali said a lot of things.

1978: Shavers loses to Holmes. Both men 210.

1979: Shavers at 210 KOs Norton at 225. Norton also faced Cooney and Foreman. He reported that Shavers was the hardest hitter he ever fought.

1979: Shavers loses to Holmes. Shavers is 210, Holmes 211. Shavers knocks Holmes down, but loses. Holmes reports that Shavers hit harder than anybody he'd ever ever faced. Holmes also faced Tyson (on your list) and Cooney. Among others.

1980: Shavers at 212 loses to Bernardo Mercado at 217. Mercado is ranked. Shavers knocks him down.

1980: Shavers loses to Tex Cobb. 232 Cobb vs 208 Shavers. Cobb is considered one of those guys like Chuvalo who is almost impossible to hurt. He says Earnie hit him harder than anybody else.

1982: Shavers loses to Tillis, who was ranked the year before. Tillis would go on to fight Tyson (in your top punchers list.) Tillis reported that Shavers hit the hardest. 217 vs 209. Tillis was knocked down.

---------------------------

As far as guys who were not ranked close to when Shavers got them, Bugner apparently rated him as the hardest puncher as well. Bugner was knocked down in round one and stopped on cuts a round later.

--------------------------

So I'm not seeing a pattern here of a guy whose power takes out cruiserweights but doesn't damage 215 pound heavies.

Rather, this looks a lot more like what others on this thread -- and elsewhere -- have described. Earnie looks like a guy with a lot of power who just sucked at finishing people off. He hurt, knocked down, or knocked out basically everybody except Cobb (bigger than Earnie) and Quarry (smaller than Earnie, though not by much). Most of the rated guys Shavers hit reported that he was a harder puncher than any of his contemporaries or near term successors. Most of the guys who ranked Shavers, he knocked down.

 

I don't see this as a meaningful or relevant distinction. Shavers would be the same size as Rahman if he lifted like Rahman did.

Because in the context of our argument, you brought up the top dogs comment specifically to counter my talking about Shavers's power. I don't think it was unreasonable to assume that you intended it to be relevant to that issue.

But if you think ranking isn't relevant, that's fine. Maybe I misunderstood.

Ok. Wait. So to be clear, you're not saying they're comparable in their *ability to win heavyweight fights*. Just that they're similarly skilled?

In the same way that someone might say Monzon was comparable in skill to Joe Louis?

I'm not really moved by stoppage percentages like this. Most of the journeymen he faced aren't on film. We have no idea who these guys were, or the circumstances of the fights. It's also a small sample.

That's true, but the fact remains that Foreman didn't fight him. And that isn't Shavers's fault.

See above.

And how many good 215+ heavyweights did Liston KO?

Come to think of it, if Liston had knocked prime Ali out, would Ali count as a 210 pound heavyweight? Or a 215+ pound heavy like his overweight older self weighed against Shavers?

All of the excuses I listed are at the same level of validity and factuality. "Honey, I forgot to duck" is not a new sentiment in boxing.

Ok.

And yet you continually resist the idea that Shavers was a monstrous puncher who lacked skills.

Ranking is NOT irrelevant to punching power, if you mean the ability to actually land knockout shots against a skilled, moving target. We are not talking about the world bag punching championships.

Most of the guys Shavers faced, you haven't even seen on film. If you aren't paying attention to ranking and record, then you don't have much to go on at all.

The other point was that if you start rearranging victories, Riddick Bowe slips down the rankings against Norton and Young.