Did Shavers really hit harder than the likes of George Foreman?

As mentioned Ali and fought both Foreman and Shavers said Shavers hit harder.

 

Bob Foster had superior height and reach to Joe Frazier. Ali was only three and a half pounds lighter than Foreman in the RITJ. You want to tell me that either fighter wasn't the naturally smaller man?

Shavers at 210 was relatively smooth and fleshy. Tyson at 218 was still densely muscled and highly explosive. So, yeah, I'd say I'm perfectly justified in saying there was a clear difference in size operating there.

 

Lyle said that Shavers hit harder than Foreman.

That's good enough for me.

 

Nonsense.

Bob foster was a skinny lanky guy and started as a light heavy. Frazier was actually a huge stocky guy who weighed like 250 before he got into boxing and trained to go down in weight because he wanted to get in shape and lacked stamina and speed.

Shavers had the bigger dimensions in every category and they weighed the same give or take 1-3 lbs. There isnt anything else to talk about.

Having pretty shiny muscles isnt the best argument if we're arguing "size", which is about actual mass and volume.

Also, tyson and other guys in the 90's dabbled in weights and did more strength training/bulked up more than previous eras. Not to mention many used peds. Shavers would look the same or similar if he fought in that era.

 

Maybe, maybe not. One can only speculate.

Facts are Shavers fought all his biggest name opponents weighing around 210. Tyson beat all his best opponents weighing in around 215-220.

Ergo it's safe to assume that Tyson was the bigger man.

 

A 5 pound difference isnt even enough to separate some weight classes. Its very silly to make a big deal out of it, especially because shavers was taller, had longer arms, and didnt lift weights while tyson did.

 

They were all lying and all had an agenda against Foreman.

 

Excuse me, but I do believe it was your good self who chose to 'make a big deal out of it.'

Tyson fought at a higher average weight than Shavers. You can argue with me about what that means if you like, but frankly I don't consider it a statement that requires a whole lot of debate about.

 

Maybe? But really what difference does it make? I know people are wowed by power but power alone won’t accomplish what a fighter needs it to. So maybe shavers did hit harder (maybe not)...Foreman to me clearly had better timing and placement in executing a punch and setting it up...much more effective than mere power. Shavers has great power but lacked some intangibles in utilizing that to maximum capacity

 

Debating who punched harder than whom is one of the more pointless activities boxing fans indulge in. How can it even begin to be quantified? Fighters don't have energy bars that get depleted at different rates depending on how high a fighter's power rating is. If you can hit hard enough to knock fighters out then minute differences in power (assuming they even exist) become utterly meaningless.

 

No, i simply said i didnt think tyson was "bigger" than shavers, a statement you made. You defended your position because tysons average was a whopping 5 lbs higher. I said thats not a lot to go by if you want to argue which man is bigger and now apparently im "making a huge deal" when you chose to go back and forth with me on this for what, a month now?

Youre right, it isnt much of a debate because shavers is literally bigger than tyson in every category except their average weights, which is skewed by the fact tyson did strength training/weights/and did supplements. If you want to ignore all that and still call tyson the "larger" man between the two go right ahead.

 

Nah, that does not make sense.
Tell us what was the specific agenda all of them had against Foreman.
And the others like Norton who said Shavers hit the hardest?

All that is said about power in itself-especially when you surpass a certain very high level-meaning little compared to skill-is true.

But clearly what Shavers did as a fairly limited fighter, including in delivering/landing his blows, clearly speaks to what nearly everyone who fought him say about his power.
You ask folks like Young I'll bet he says the same thing.

Who is bigger between Shavers & Tyson? It depends what you are measuring.
Muscle & weight, basically due to greater weight training & legs, Tyson.
Length of bones/height, Shavers.

I would not call Shavers flabby in his prime-he just did not have low body fat, but was not at all overweight.
It is hard to believe that if he say had greater lower body bulk he could have hit even harder.

 

Thank you, I will.