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

If you want a good idea of where the Heavyweight Blog Guy's context-light attempt at statistics goes, here's his take on Sonny Liston:

http://www.heavyweightblog.com/393/sonny-liston-the-eric-esch-of-the-1960ies

Short version: Liston is a cruiserweight who feasted on other cruisers and lightheavyweights, and was comparable to Butterbean. Yes, really. Also, Cleveland Williams was a "featherfist."

This is the same flavor of analysis that he's trying to do with Shavers.

As to Ali himself, Heavyweight Blog Guy opines:

"It would be completely and utterly clear for anybody, that Ali is merely a B level boxer, who has hardly ever beaten convincingly a top opponent and who has the greatest difficulties "against such tomato cans like Norton, Frazier or Spinks", whereas Foreman is clearly the top dog of the 1970s having beaten all bigger names."

Source: http://www.heavyweightblog.com/3837/muhammad-alis-rematches-are-the-reason-for-his-status

...So yeah.

 

AJ is better than 90% of super-heavies, the point is if a smaller heavyweight has a speed advantage and the savvy and experience that Usyk has, size will be less of a factor, Fury doesn`t hit as hard as AJ, Wilder has dreadful fundamentals, Usyk has already beaten Jotce in the amateurs and despite vastly improving is unlikely to stop Usyk in a pro fight, Usyk is now one of the best heavyweights inthe world, he proved that by beating one of the best heavyweights right now.

 

Rahman was a good 2 inches taller, so I doubt Shavers would be as big.

You probably misunderstood.

No, I'm saying they are comparable in their ability to win HW fights. But that doesn't mean they are the same in terms of metrics. Some are better at some metrics, some are better at others.
For example, Foreman most likely hit harder than Holmes, Holyfield, Bowe, yet I don't see him as skilled as them. I see all 3 as being more capable of winning a HW fight.
Ali did not hit as hard as Lewis or Foreman, yet he was way faster. etc.
When I say they are comparable, I mean the 70s and 80s guys are the closest to the 90s guys in terms of how good they were overall. But you can have someone in the 90s who hit the hardest, someone in the 80s who was the fastest, someone in the 70s who had the best chin etc.
Do you understand now what I mean ?!??
To make this even more simple, if we had a time machine and created a round robin tournament where all the ATG HWs would fight each other, I think the 90s guys have the best results overall. Then come the 80s and 70s guys. So that's why they are comparable. Cause the 70s and 80s guys will get some wins over the 90s guys, while say the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s guys etc won't really be able to do that.

What does it matter who those journeymen were ?! This shows that his KO percentage decreased as the opponents got bigger.
And you had journeymen of all sizes, not just at sub 200 lbs.

I never said it is.

Don't know an exact number, I'd have to check that out.

Of course it would count as a win against a 205-210 lbs, or whatever weight Ali was when he faced Liston.

I strongly disagree with this. Many of those "excuses" were not given by boxers, but rather they are our observations.

Yes and no. I already agreed Shavers lacked skills. I also agreed he was a big puncher, just not in the upper echelon of punchers as far as I'm concerned.

No, I don't mean that. If we use that as the criteria, then a puncher like Tyson cannot be beat, he is the most accurate big puncher I've ever seen.

This content is protected

I don't need to see them, all I care about is their weight. A top boxer doesn't automatically have a better chin than a lesser ranked boxer.

Yes and no. In your example, Norton and Young would have wins over Ali, but it was 70s Ali.
Bowe beat prime Holyfield, not 2000s Holyfield.
See the distinction ?!

 

No, it doesn't. Like I said, someone ranked top 10 in an era might be a weaker/poorer boxer overall than someone ranked 20-30 in another era.
For example, old timers, who I don't see capable of beating more modern counterparts. Or even the current HW era that you guys are criticizing. Some of the top tanked contenders seem poor even to me. Someone like Morrison (who was good, but not among the top dogs in the 90s) would demolish the old timers. And he'd probably also beat most the HW contenders nowadays, perhaps even Joshua and Wilder. Fury is the only one I don't think he beats.

I agree with all of these as being greater.

This I don't agree with, at least not with all of them. You could make a case for guys like Dempsey, Vitaly and Fury, perhaps even Patterson, but for none of the rest.

 

That is true. It is such a pity they never did, it would have settled all the debates as to who are the hardest punchers ever.

Well, it's just my assessment, it's not an exact science. Liston might as well just be 27% or 10 %.

IMO he did hit harder, but by how much is hard to say.

I agree.

I said the other way around

 

I'd forgotten Rahman was 6'2". Thought he was closer to 6'1", around Liston sized.

Anyway, the point I was making is that if we are judging fighters' sizes by their frames, Shavers isn't much different in size from modern heavies. Hence my statement that he could bulk up to modern HWT size, given similar training.

Ok.

Ok, good. That's what I originally thought you meant a few pages ago.

In that case, I stick by my original statement. "Comparable" may not mean physically identical in every way, but if Earnie Shavers was merely a decent puncher who could spark out 70s heavies because they were too small (despite Earnie's lack of skill), then I don't see how the 70s could be comparable or competitive against the 90s in a round robin.

The 90s had loads of punchers with better skills than Shavers. 90s punchers also would *not* be classed as "featherfists" by the weird standards of Heavyweight Blog Guy. In contrast to Shavers.

So I'm struggling to see how the 70s would be competitive or comparable AT ALL with the 90s heavies (or 2000-2021 heavies) in round robin competition. If even "featherfisted" Earnie Shavers can become a feared puncher in the 70s, the 90s heavies are going to brutalize the 70s heavies.

Now, you might respond that Earnie wasn't as effective against 70s heavyweights who weighed more than 215 pounds. (Including -- I suppose -- heavyweights who got that weight by getting fat and old, like Ali.) But this just makes the 70s punchers look like they suck even more by comparison, since they often lost to cruiserweights who couldn't stand up to "featherfist" Shavers.

Okay, so that seems bizarre as a way of assessing power, then.

If Liston stopped 10 prime, peak condition Muhammad Alis in a row, Liston's incredible performance would mean almost nothing by Heavyweight Blog Guy's standards. Since Blog Guy's rating system classes that version of Ali as a bitty little cruiserweight.

But if Liston stops 10 fat, old, 1977 vintage Muhammad Alis, Liston's suddenly a huge puncher.

That's why context means vastly more than raw stats.

Doesn't matter who is giving the excuses. I was replying to the excuses themselves. They all seem equally valid -- or invalid.

But you also believe that his power was only so-so when he hit 215+ pound men with it, yes?

I don't think we'd have any way to know who'd win that competition. I guess maybe if you dig up some old newsreels of fighters hitting heavy bags of known weight, you might make an OK guess. A boxing nobody like Paul Anderson would probably win that competition.

What I care more about is who lands hardest in an actual boxing match against good opponents.

Tyson landed more frequently because of his skill, but Shavers still landed frequently enough that we can compare his power to Tyson against moving targets.

A top boxer usually DOES have a better chin (and defense, and everything else) than a lesser ranked boxer, at least if you're comparing contenders to journeymen. That's how the highly ranked boxer got his ranking.

If you literally only care about weight, and don't even need to see the video, the record, or anything else, then you really ought to just accept Heavyweight Blog Guy's judgments wholesale. Liston is like Eric Esch, Ali was a B level fighter, etc.

Yes, but I don't think it's an important distinction. Norton was prime. He got there by beating Ali thrice by our revised calculations. Fought a close bout with Holmes as well. Lost an ultra close fight with Jimmy Young (who also beat Ali).

Who did Evander beat to get his fearsome reputation, compared to our adjusted version of Norton's career? He went 1-2 with Bowe, 1-1 with Moorer, lost to Lennox 0-2 (twice, since we are recalcing controversial fights), and beat a version of Tyson who was more washed up than 70s Ali.

Revisionist Norton is simply better than Bowe. Perhaps Holyfield too, since 3x old Ali trumps 2x old Tyson and obese Buster Douglas. Young, meanwhile, beat Revisionist Norton...and Ali...and Foreman (who was prime and better than Holyfield.) Revisionist Young is arguably better than Revisionist Holyfield, and is also better than Bowe.

 

And that isn't even beginning to get into the other guys who might rank above Bowe if we start reappraising fights. Walcott going 1-1 with Louis might put him over Bowe, for example. Or how about the way Dempsey beat Tunney by knockout (long count) to become the first two time heavyweight champion. And the list goes on.

EDIT: Oh, and Riddick Bowe also gets DQ'd against Coetzer for low blows, so he's not even undefeated if we're revising match results. Losing to Coetzer puts him well out of the top 20. Assuming Holyfield never gets DQ'd for headbutts, most or all of his career (including both Tyson matches) is ruled No Contest for steroid use. So Holyfield has no career to speak of after the adjustment stops. Which means Bowe has no wins against him, and it wouldn't matter even if he did, since Holy's record basically stops with Qawi.

 

Good catch on the typo, thanks.

I guess my bottom line is this: Whether it's 40%, or 30%, or 10%, you feel fairly confident that you can tell from film that Liston hits harder than Shavers. You do that by observing the effects of Liston's and Shavers's punches on their opponents.

So why can't Ron Lyle observe the effects of Shavers's punches on himself and determine how hard Shavers hits?

 

As it stands Usyk is now as old as Larry was losing to Spinks. Usyk is a lifetime boxer. The human body is a human body.

Not every metric. I am guessing Evander might be a better singer. I saw Larry sing once.

This content is protected

Larry was still the man to beat. Even Then, the supposed rivals to Holmes supremacy were not knocking out David Bey level challengers or stopping Bonecrusher Smith. Just a bunch of guys who outpointed one another and could not win more than one fight at championship level. Witherspoon wound up losing to Smith who Larry beat inside the distance. Many other such examples. Larry was the one with the clean sheet. With hindsight Spinks win over Larry looks better and better.

 

You know, reviewing that list of Shavers's opponents again, it strikes me that he was just terrible at delivering power against contenders, flat-out. Since the contenders were often bigger than 215 in that era, Shavers's alleged weakness against big heavies might just be a statistical artifact of his inability to stop contenders, full stop, of any weight.

He got to Young when Young was green. Quarry blasted Shavers out. Holmes was under 215 for their fights, and wasn't even dropped the first time. Ellis got KO'd, but if we are going by Bomber's standards, that was on a foul.

So Shavers is no better against the little guys than the big ones. Arguably, he was worse. At least he usually dropped or stopped the guys north of 215. He didn't even get a KD against Quarry.

So if you have a rising contender who needs a puncher on his resume, give him to Shavers and hire a strict ref. Odds are that Shavers won't have the skill to finish him after landing his single monster punch per night.

Huge power, but the guy only landed once in a very great while. He very well might be a journeyman who lucked out in winning the power lottery.

 

I did not assert that Holmes was not the "man to beat". You referred to Spinks as having beaten the best Heavyweight in the world. A case could be argued that, by the time Spinks faced him, Holmes was not the best heavyweight in the world and little to nothing in your post above refutes this possibility.

"David Bey level challengers"? Yeah, Bey might have caught Page on an off-night and got the nod, which many saw going the other way, but this wasn't indicative of a guy, who was a level above the other Heavyweights mentioned. Witherspoon had already beaten Page and so would Tubbs, soon after.

After his beating from Holmes, Bey was stopped in his very next fight by Berbick, in much the same fashion. In fact, after his loss to Holmes, Bey went 4-10-1 for the remainder of his career. Sorry, but Bey was on a lower tier.

I notice you do not mention Holmes' next fight, after Bey, against Carl Williams, who was a gnat's kneecap away from taking Holmes' title. A couple of fights later, Weaver finished Williams off inside two rounds. It was clear Holmes had really slipped and he had hinted as much himself. Indeed, the Bey match was supposed to be his last fight.

Where Witherspoon ended up is neither here nor there, as regards the point being made. He had already run Holmes close, in '83. Seven fights later, he'd only lost to Thomas by Decision and in '85 had beaten Smith easily in an NABF title defense.

Prior to the Holmes/Spinks fight, Witherspoon was rated Number 2 by The Ring and was the IBF's Number-1 contender. A rematch wouldn't have been a bad idea, but Holmes wasn't facing top-rated Heavyweights by then. Thomas was ring-rated Number-1; Tubbs was at Number-3; Page at Number-4 and Coetzee at Number-5. Holmes didn't face any of them.

 

That was actually cool chok cheers for that! Maybe not the most talented but jeez did Holmes enjoy getting his jive on or what?!?!?!?!?!?! Great seeing that side of him. How good is it seeing a guy that fought so long (way too long risk wise) with no ill effects or monetary difficulties. It's obvious he's got a great life going on too.

 

Ok so just to seal your deal you are saying the likes of Sulliavan, Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Charles and Marciano cannot be ranked above Bowe on a resume based ATG list because you personally deem them and their peers lesser fighters than Liston forward. You also believe Morrison would smash the lot of them.

I believe i have that 100% correct yes?

Basically these guys could amass for example a 55-0 record and beat 15 top 10 contenders in that lot and still be ranked below Bowe resume wise. Correct?

TBC

So you've totally agreed with 12 and basically accepted 4 more already. We've already got Bowe down to 17 even given your extreme bias toward achievement based results of pre-Liston era heavyweights.

To re-iterate i think an ATG resume based list with Bowe outside the top 20 is hardly outrageous.

I

 

In that case, it would just be a head to head list by another name.

Unfortunately for Bowe, he never looked invincible. Golota thrashed him twice before voluntarily letting Bowe win. Coetzer landed at will on Bowe, but had no power to hurt him (and even so, Bowe needed to do his best Golota impression to win.) Bowe was 2-1 with an older-every-time Holyfield, who chose to brawl, and whom Moorer also managed to beat.

It's not impossible that reasonable people could rate other 90s heavies above Bowe, if they were feeling a bit perverse. Not to mention guys like Vitali. And Douglas definitely has a case to rank over Big Daddy as well.

 

He's an interesting study isn't he. I think his 3 high level performances against Holyfield pout him over Douglas H2H. I wouldn't die on that hill tho.