I have no idea why you think we're all just blindly accepting shavers is one of the hardest hitters and not using our eyes. His punches certainly do pass the eye test. When he lands flush, most opponents fall like they've been shot and go down immediately. Nobody just walked through shavers shots and shrugged them off. Even when he doesn't land with his full strength people become wary of him. We're saying it may apply to past and future eras because very few boxers have that kind of reputation within their own era. Only guys like Wilder seem to have everyone within their time line having similar levels of awe and respect amongst common opponents. shavers is a safe bet for top 3-5 hardest hitter based on how much sheer force he can deliver. Has nothing to do with us ascribing "godly" status to him. Somebody is the hardest hitter and we're simply speculating who that could be.
What's wrong with words? You're using words right now. I don't think we are "brainwashed." We just happen to disagree with you about Shavers. Of course Shavers wasn't a god. Nobody claimed he was. We just think he was a really hard puncher. You don't need to be a god to be a hard puncher. (You yourself think Tua is a really hard puncher. That doesn't mean you think Tua is a god.)
I agree that fighters' statements shouldn't *replace* video evidence. We should use statements, vids, and records all together to come up with answers. I also agree that it's always possible for another man to come along who's a better puncher than Shavers. I think everybody here agrees with you that it's possible. That isn't the question, though. The question is whether a man better than Shavers has come along *yet.*
you cant disagree with vid evidence of mutiple people hitting harder and way harder like dave did it is no footage of earn causing fear from his main strongest punch like dave did no it is making earn a god is that not a God way using this quote boxers said this oh ali said that oh larry said that sense they said it means nobody can go over that video evidence goes over all those words I am using words but I use my own words not another man's words like a person who is brainwashed into saying quotes i dont use quotes except my own my main thing is why people keep holding earn to this high god like power if we are holding his power to a god like well we should hold ali as having the best defense and mover still sense he was the best ever at both well in his 60s form compared to his era and all era's before so if ali is not still the best at both well drop the god thing on earnie power
I don't understand why you think fighters' testimony is worthless, though. Watching a video of Shavers doesn't allow you to feel the actual impact of Shavers's punches. Why is looking at a video of Shavers hitting Young a better piece of evidence than Jimmy Young actually telling you how it felt?
not worthless outdated I said this mutiple times today we can go off evidence of how boxers reacted didnt earn have to take mutiple shots to have stoppages and drops over others
Love this. And my point exactly. No world class heavyweight has as many testimonials about their Raw power than Earnie Shavers across any era. Some fighters said other fighters they faced hit harder than Joe Louis in that era. Some have said they faced opposition that hit harder than Tyson, or Lewis, or Kleichkos. But no one who ever faced Shavers in the ring have said someone else hit harder. That had to account for something. Especially when one considers the number of world class opponents he faced. If one wants to make light of what the fighters themselves have said. Well, that's their choice and their opinion ( or refusal to except what actual opponents have said) But as for me. I believe what Shavers opponents have said about his raw power . And his opponents have said it more than any fighter in any era that faced any opponent with that type of raw power. He also faced two ATG's that felt his power and can compare it to fighters such as Foreman, Lyle,Liston, Tyson, Frazier, Cooney, Mercer, Moorer, Cooper , Bowe and Lewis ( Holyfield fought Foreman, Bowe, Cooper, Tyson , and Lewis, Holyfield said Old Foreman hit harder than the other 4, think about that, Foreman almost 15yrs past prime hit harder than Tyson , Lewis, Bowe and Cooper according to a man actually in the ring with all of them) But opponents that faced both Foreman and Shavers said Shavers actually hit harder. That's my point. Fighters that have actually been in the ring with Shavers . Opponents have said other fighters thev'e faced hit harder than another noted puncher they've faced. No opponent win or loose have said anyone they've faced hit harder than Earnie Shavers. So one can choose to believe the modern fighters hit harder because they are heavier, bigger , or taller, but boxing is and always have been especially in the heavyweight division who has the better skills , techniques , and God given ability. For whatever reason, Shavers, have much more testimonials from world class opponents, and opponents that may not have faced him, but faced someone he may have fought than any heavyweight in history. That has to account for something if one doesn't have on blinders as many fans of so called modern boxing do. Techniques, timing, skill, repetition, and simple God given ability can compensate for weight, size, height, and so called modern supplements (Steroids or other muscle enhancements) . modernist seem to think bigger is better. Or modern is better. But is it? Boxing unlike most sports have weight limits, and unlike most sports, the more one does it, the better one gets. So if a fighter is fighting more, sparring more, he more than likely will be alot better in the ring than someone fighting less, and hard sparring less but taking Steroids or other enhancements. Boxing isn't Greco-Roman wrestling, or Offensive or Defensive tackles anchoring offensive or defensive lines as in football. Where pure power can overwhelm technique. Boxing is very different from other sports in that aspect. Most so called " modernist " refuse to see that fact regardless of the many, many examples placed in front of them.
Let me explain what I mean by presenting you an argument. I don't necessarily believe this argument, but I think it's still a pretty good one. It goes like this: "Foreman is a harder hitter than anyone in the 90s. On film, Foreman throws a lot of slow, lazy punches without much body weight behind them. Even these lazy punches knock people out. When Old Man Foreman came back in the 90s, scary young punchers like Morrison and Briggs literally ran away from him. That's how hard Foreman hit. So Foreman is a harder puncher than any modern heavyweight. We know this from film. The only remaining question is whether anybody hit harder than Foreman. And somebody *did* hit harder than Foreman! Earnie Shavers hit harder than Foreman. We know this because Shavers also looks scary on film, but ALSO because everybody from the 70s-80s said Shavers hit the hardest. Including common opponents who fought Foreman and Shavers. Shavers was the best puncher of the 70s. The 70s contained Foreman. Foreman hit harder than anybody modern. Therefore, Shavers also hit harder than anybody modern. Thus, the Shavers power quotes are relevant. And Shavers is the hardest hitter of all time." -- That's an argument. I think it's an OK argument. What's wrong with it?
Hey! What've you got against the Shaverites? I'll have you know that Shaverism is a perfectly respectable cult -- er -- school of thought.
Ah yes, the cult of shaverism. Buncha damn hard headed thugs going around shaving people bald with their signature razor blade weapons.
But you didn't fight Shavers. If we want to know what it's like to be hit by Shavers, wouldn't it be better to get quotes from people Shavers actually hit? Quoting somebody else's opinion or experience doesn't make you brainwashed. It just means that you're using their opinion as evidence in your own argument. I use a computer every day. If the computer breaks, I'll look at a repair manual (full of words) written by somebody else. That doesn't make me brainwashed. The computer repair manual isn't brainwashing me. It's giving me valuable information about something. I don't have to invent my own computer or write my own manual.
Lies! Slander! I'll let your attack on my co-religionists slide for now, but if you start calling us "Acorns," I'mma report you for hate speech.
So in your opinion, I should listen to you, only a poster on a boxing web site which most knowledgeable posters seem to disagree with all the time , than a fighter that has been in the ring with old George Foreman, who Evander Holyfield said hit him harder than any opponent he faced, which includes noted punchers like Dokes, Mercer,Tyson , Cooper, and so called "Modern super heavyweights like Bowe and Lewis. Than prime young George Foreman whom opponents that faced him and Shavers, said Shavers actually hit harder? I think I'll go with what the fighters that actually have been their and done that, and my own experience of having been around some of the best trainers in my local area, and best gyms, and have been in a boxing ring and fought , and over 40 yrs of actual watching the fighters, ( Not just highlights on YouTube, which can make Chris Byrd look like a devastating puncher with the right editing) But actual watching literally thousands of hours and thousands of different fighters fight. Thank you, but I will take the statements of many pro world class fighters that have actually faced Shavers, and the connections of those fighters to the so called" Modern " super heavyweights and my over 40yrs of being in,and studying, (Not just "watching") the sport than anything you may write based on what limited knowledge you have. But thank you just the same.
Meldrick, Khan and Hector had some of the fastest hands I've ever seen. But what about it? One trait can be as close to the limit of human potential as you get and it doesn't make you a great fighter. Shavers' power does not need to be explained away as true or false anymore than Chuvalo's or McCall's chin. It's just a thing, mang. They had a standout, it's fun to think about, just like Emanuel Steward talking about how Peter might be a harder puncher than Wladimir. But what about it? It doesn't mean he was great at using it.
That's a very bold statement considering Wladmir is often on top 10 hardest hitters lists. Not to mention Peter's KO% is comparable to Ali's and he has FAR worse opposition (outside the K brothers). If it's even remotely true, then Peter must be one of the crappiest, sloppiest boxer of all time to not make such devastating power work for him! Size certainly wasn't holding him back, and he fought in a fairly weak era.
