Earnie Shavers' Power Quotes- An Explanation

how are we defining puncher? purely on power? or on ability to land the punch combined with the power it lands at?

 

First of all, Shavers did not fight all those men.
Second of all, there is no way to prove if Tyson's opponents had better chins or not.

 

both

 

hey buddy well we can go off video of how they took shots

 

i guess if we're solely looking at ability to LAND power punches, Tyson is way up there. might be GOAT.

 

I dont know if I argee on being the best but is up there

 

Have no problem with what he writes, but what I do have a problem with lack of accuracy and refusal to acknowledge that about what

Fair point. Unlike most here I do have the ability to see a situation from a different perspective, and point of view.
But because of that, it's easier for me to see a perspective that's shaded from a particular point of view.
Unlike most on this site I actually watch the fighters and not just the highlights, I've also been in the ring, and trained with some the best in my local area. What I've always been complimented on is my ability to see something from a different point of view, and humble enough to adapt it. For over 40yrs I've been that way.
But when I see someone who refuses to see a situation from a different perspective, and more importantly refuse to gain the knowledge and perhaps see a situation from that others perspective, yes I do have a problem with it.
Prime example is this subject.
Shavers power has been acknowledged by some of the best fighters in history. And quite a few very goods. No other fighter has as many universal testimonials of that raw punching power in history.
NotTyson, many fighters have said other hit harder, Holyfield said Old G.Foreman hit him harder than he did,,,,, and also the so called "Modern " super heavyweight L.Lewis.
J.Louis? J.Walcott said Marciano hit him harder.
Men who faced both Foreman and Shavers said Shavers hit harder with one shot.
I will take the statements from quite a few world class pro fighters including a couple ATG's over someone who refuses to acknowledge the fighters who were actually in that ring with that fighter or Shavers.
What I don't see with alot of the newcomers to the sport is the fact of speed, technique, timing, and just a pure God given ability to hit harder than other men can compensate for weight and height and athletic ability.
They base all of their opnions on size , weight and perceived strength.
They don't factor in what's most important to punching power or, boxing in general. That's technique training, and experience.
Shavers was one of those few fighters in history that seemed to have a God given gift of unnatural power from a man of his size.
To say one thinks a fighter like Ruddock or Wilder hit harder than Shavers when not as many fighters have said they hit hard or, as with Shavers universally as many say they hit harder than any fighter they've faced is in my opinion failing to acknowledge what has been universally said about Shavers.
Many more world classed fighters that faced Shavers said he was the hardest punchers they faced, than in other fighter in history of the world classed opponents they faced must be accounted for. It's only reasonable to go with the majority.
But you're right in your assessment in some of the posters on this and other sites have the right of their opinion and their point of view.
I will learn to acknowledge that point of view though I know how very flawed it is.

 

Same way you'd prove how well/poorly any other boxer fought, probably. Look at the records, eyeball the film, read the primary sources, and compare.

 

What you fail to comprehend although it has been explained to you many times is that everyone already said, or at least never argues with, so did not "leave out" that---> Tyson was better at angles, speed, & hitting "sensitive spots" aka accuracy.
Earnie was not a boxer type, he was a slugger.
Athough the distinction only you insist upon in comparing guys only against how hard hitting among their style is unnecessary-we can compare power across styles.
But everyone knows that Tyson was a superior fighter.

But you keep confusing skill & effectiveness with pure, raw power.
If Tyson hits you more often & in better spots in a short time AND also even in single shots faster than someone who hits even significantly harder-you are more likely to go down.
Has nothing to do with exactly how hard he hits.

Nobody ever debates me that Tyson himself would say others hit harder-including in all likelihood Ruddock, Williams & Bruno-just considering men he faced.
Also you can find for ANY fighter guys who took multiple flush shots & did not go down.
Ali had an incredible chin when they fought. He likely got some brain damage from fighting Shavers.

Tua was no great boxer or finisher, but that is even a bit more true of Shavers. At least Tua had participated in a couple of the record fights for HW punch volume ever before he became more of a head hunter.
You have recently been given a bunch of examples of guys who Tua faced, hit often or often enough, & did not even go down.
While others like the Klitchkos iced them.

It is not "fact" who hits harder when we look at video, far from it.
This is literally a matter of context, interpretation, triangulating calculation across eras-opinion.

But when not only most folks here believe Shavers hit harder than others who are considered...
But 11 Professional boxers who had very good-incredible chins & ALL say Shavers hit the hardest-whether they won or lost, were KOed or KOed Earnie, & they fought absolute Monsters in terms of power, size, & "modern" aspects....


Yeah then Shavers is more than likely to have hit harder than others who are proposed as top dogs in Raw Power.

 

Tyson has said as much. He's basically said yeah I had good power, but speed and accuracy made it look better than it was.

Given some of his late career knockouts where he had no speed or accuracy left, I think he may be being a bit humble there, but that's what he said.

 

The 70's for some odd reason had some very durable contenders and champs for the most part. Shavers did alright for himself considering his limited skills and gas tank relying on sheer power.

I'll give Tyson Holmes even though he was inactive and past his prime. Tyson clinically dismantled him like nobody else. The Thomas and Bebrick demolitions are impressive too.

But some other opponents were kinda iffy. No need to really elaborate on guys like Marvis, Bruno, Seldon, Biggs, Ribalta or Ruddock who looked quite vulnerable and shakey in other fights.

And while Tyson was definitely a much better finisher with better execution than Shavers, his style did not mesh well with some styles and failed to produce KOs in those matchups. For instance, the very negative ugly spoiling tactics of Green, Smith, Tucker, etc. His lack of inside skills and ability to operate in a clinch were big gaps in his game plan. It makes me wonder if the pendulum swinging highly aggressive peak a boo tactics would work on someone such as Jack Johnson or Wladmir who were masters in ugly spoiling tactics.

Other fighters such as Hoylfield or Williams discovered you could outbully Tyson by refusing to step back, using rough house tactics, and smothering his looping shots. It stands out because usually the slugger enjoys such a crude pace. You didn't see guys like Rocky or Frazier shying away from those situations.

 

Made a thread about it a month ago. Tyson himself said others guys definitely hit harder but he made up for it with his speed, timing, and accuracy. Definitely a top 10 hitter but even in his own era you had guys that had more raw one punch behind their shots.

You can't call a guy like Biggs biased because he gave Tyson his props in other categories in the best I faced interview and they definitely didn't like each other. He mentioned Jeff Simms who had such staggering raw power he broke Biggs collarbone with one punch.

Or you can look at Lennox who beat both Shannon and Tyson so likely no bias there either. He said Shannon had more sheer power but Shannon obviously didn't have 50% of Tyson's skill or timing or speed. Watching the fights, Shannon did in fact hurt Lennox badly catching him a good shot that would have been a knockdown if not for the ropes, Lennox's feet left the ground and he stumbled back several feet.

According to Shavers he did a lot of farm work and factory work and that built up the stocky muscles and wiry strength. Throwing bales of hay and other repetitive motions are great for athletes. Plus he had a strong, solid lower torso and rear which can help deliver devastating power if you know how to transfer weight into your shots, and Shavers definitely did. Really intuitively knew how to transfer energy into hellacious blows. On top of that, he could sometimes have excellent accuracy when he was patient such as the Holmes fight where he landed square and the jaw and poor Holmes fell like he got shot.

 

Did you really mean Carl "The Truth" Williams? He was quickly terminated by Tyson.

 

Hell no, Danny Williams. He used a lot of bullying and imposed his size on Tyson, although he was far past his peak.

 

being brainwashed is not a good way to be why do you people keep saying how cause some people that said he was the hardest means it goes over future it doesn't I keep keep saying that its vid proof of mutiple people hitting harder and way harder then him

he was the hardest hitter for his time and compared to before his time why do you keep holding that man to a high level

I said to cross ali was known to have the best defense back then and movement we have seen people have better defense then ali and move better

earn wasnt a man who was a god he was man you keep forgetting that it seems like the rest which means a man can always have another come in the sport that will have other attributes better it happens with every sport

so no just cause people said words dont mean those words can replace vid evidence your acting crazy by thinking words can they mean nothing never have stop being brainwashed

use your own vision stop thinking you have to be the same as others