Earnie Shavers' Power Quotes- An Explanation

to me that's implying your going off of quotes only cause that's what you said remember the quotes that was said but sense it's no quotes from legends for dave means he cant hit harder

 

but George punches was sloopy and not thrown good which is why he had to keep hitting a person reather then like ron or joe they punched better so they knew how to punch right

no the punches from young George was just him wasting alot of punches it is no vid like I said where he dropped a person like he did Moorer from a pinpoint shot

 

Thanks, but my post you used didn't say I only went by quotes.

In fact, it said just the opposite:

"you should take a combination of evidence. Quotes. Video. Records."

I even italicized "combination" right in the post you quoted. That's the exact opposite of saying you should only go by quotes.

 

Now you're talking about Foreman's skill at targeting and aiming, which also isn't the same as power.

 

My other post you used is very clear that I'm not using "only" quotes as my evidence.

In fact, what I typed seems very clear about saying the exact opposite:

"Quotes are one of the reasons I believe Shavers was an incredible puncher. They are not the only reason I believe this."

 

Just to make sure I understand your wider point:

Are you saying you believe it's literally impossible to use more than one type of evidence to prove anything?

So someone who looks at records is never, ever allowed to view film? Or somebody who views film is never, ever allowed to read quotes?

Otherwise I don't understand why you insist we can only use film. I also don't understand why you say that I "only" use quotes.

 

All very true.

Also, some guy’s don’t have the same neck strength/resilience as others. So a punch on one guy can clearly twist the head lending to actual short circuiting of the brain.

Another guy takes the very same punch, his head barely moves and he is literally not as effected by brain shake so the overall impression of the power of the punch (by way of apparent force impact and reaction) is somewhat diluted.

Taking Tyson for an example, given his huge neck and relatively immovable noggin even when hit with a good shot, to see his head twisted this way and that so clearly by Lewis’ punches was a pretty good measure of the immense power therein.

It’s funny, Ali play acted so often after a clearly good shot, his faking it out almost immediately told you that the punch actually rattled him but his fast recuperation couldn’t be under estimated.

Shavers did say though he wasn’t sure if Ali was really hurt or at least quickly recovered (I think Ali, though still hurt, had recovered somewhat but we’ll never know for sure) and was perhaps setting a trap. I would also say that Ali was lucky in so far as Earnie was clearly pacing himself to fight the full 15 rds and not gas out.

Shavers was far more measured in his output overall and he still actually caught Ali with some more significantly powerful shots before rd 2 was out and over the remainder of the fight.. For Earnie, I thought it was a great performance over the old school long haul of 15 rds but I also believe Ali still clearly won the fight.

 

@Cross T

Do you feel like you stepped into The Twilight Zone (albeit willingly, so your bad ) but now you find there is no way back out into the rational world? Even Mr Serling, in the smokey haze of his umpteenth cigarette, is shaking his head in pity.​

 

A very attainable challenge, probably.

 

So now 70's Foreman was "sloppy" and had poor punching technique.

He had a 90% KO ratio and stopped nearly every opponent within 4 rounds.

A boxer who lacks accuracy, punching technique, and is sloppy cannot have stats like those. People think because he looked crude that means he has poor form but the numbers and trail of unconscious bodies tell a different story. It doesn't matter how ugly the punches are if the opponents are rendered unconscious.

So lets just end this back and forth bickering over quotes. Mr. 3rd grade English insists they're irrelevant because 90's Foreman was so much better in punching technique. He was more Orthodox yes, but clearly did not have even half the aggression and explosiveness of his younger self and often fought at a pedestrian pace. If anything he had less power overall due to aging and loss of speed. This would of course indicate that if there is even slight truth to the claims of multiple sources that shavers hit harder even more staggering.

 

Maybe I'm not explaining this properly. I'll try once more, for the road.

The argument that Shavers hits harder than Tua has THREE steps. I will label them so people can follow along.

Step 1: Foreman hit harder than Tua

We prove this by film and by records. The best shots Foreman threw in the 70s were harder than the best shots Foreman threw in the 90s. So Foreman > Tua.

Step 2: Shavers hit harder than Foreman

We prove this by film, records, AND QUOTES, since both guys fought in the same era. So Shavers > Foreman.

Step 3: Therefore, Shavers hit harder than Tua, too

We prove this by simple logic.

* Shavers hit harder than Foreman.

* Foreman hit harder than Tua.

* Therefore, Shavers MUST HAVE also hit harder than Tua. Since Shavers hit harder than the guy who hit harder than Tua.

So Shavers > Foreman > Tua.

Further explanation:

It's the same idea as figuring out the basics of how much something costs. If a house costs more than a car, and a car costs more than a skateboard, the house must also cost more than the skateboard.

Same thing with Tua, Foreman, and Shavers. If Shavers hits harder that Foreman, and Foreman hits harder than Tua, then Shavers must hit harder than Tua.

 

The line of reasoning seems to be that the hardest puncher in history simply must be able to KO any opponent that they land the arbitrary number of at least 8 solid blows. This criteria was of course established based on the whim of a singular poster with an obvious agenda.

It only goes to show just how illogical people can get when it comes to Shavers. What is it about him that's so triggering/threatening? The bald head+moustache authoritarian look? The fact that he had such a staggering number of knockouts in spite of his lack of skill and finesse? The fact he failed to win a title in spite of all that power? That he was an old school boxer and not exactly super heavy sized? Who gives af?

 

I don’t know how many times Ali claimed he was hit so hard it shook his Kinfolk in Africa.

So perhaps there’s another way (aside from literally being hit by said punches yourself) to perceive/feel power remotely that we have yet to explore. I wince when I see some shots landed so that maybe part way there. ​