Earnie Shaver's V These recent heavyweight s ?

What is it with you guys and that word Hater ? It's like using the race card to make your point...shameful....
I agreed with you that the 70's are slightly overrated as an era but posited a reason why ( best fighters met at their peak)
Foreman is simply the poster boy for being overrated...very good fighter yes..but overrated yes...hate no..facts yes.
I could switch this round and say there are people on here that hate on anybody who's opinion they don't care for.
It's a strong word .

 

Were peters best wins and knockouts better than shavers, yes or no? Pick one.

 

If the thread is about fighter A and fighter B and you pop out of nowhere talking about how overrated fighter C when C had NOTHING to do with the thread that makes you a hater lol. Your post doesnt talk about shavers vs peter at all lol, you literally only wanted to talk about foreman.

 

You made the comment that the era was overrated, I subjugated,factated,corrugated ,objagated and correlated an example of why you were correct sir.

 

I wouldn't say Shavers blasts Peter out, in no time at all. That really is not likely.
But Peter would not before have fought an offensive force, at the pace Shavers would bring and, despite evidence of Shavers failing to marshal his energy at times, he was able to keep up the pressure over 15.
My guess is that, save Shavers running face first onto one of Peter's swings, in the first half of the bout, he could outwork him, with Peter possibly retiring, before close.

 

You sir are drunk. I never called the era overrated lol youre not even responding to the right person lol.

 

It is a garbage post inventing excuses for every single fight you are a trash poster

 

Shavers had a fabulous right hand, solid power in his left hand too. He lacked durability, as well as some boxing abilitys and could be better on foot.
To be honest, I see him losing more fights here than he would win. But he could flatten anyone on this list.

 

Against a prime ATG that he was able to knock down three times and have back-pedalling multiple times throughout the fight. One doesn't necessarily need to win a fight to put on an impressive performance.

I actually agree with this, in part. Shavers wasn't a bad boxer when he wasn't just gunning for the KO, but sooner or later something big is going to land from Peter, and I don't see Shavers weathering his shots at all well. Peter was also very active with his jab, doubling and tripling it in the second Toney fight to cause Toney a lot of problems, even knocking him down with one. He wasn't just some clueless caveman; he had a bit of craft to go along with his big power.

This is clear hyperbolising to make Shavers look better than he really was. And considering you've already dismissed Peter's performance against Wlad, I'm not sure what relevance Shavers's losing performances against Holmes and an ancient Ali do to bolster your case.

SuzieQ's already broken down why the other victories aren't particularly noteworthy, though I will say that I still consider Shavers's win over Norton an excellent scalp.

The second Toney win wasn't controversial or close in the slightest. And are you really trying to tell me that Shavers's performance against a walking corpse in Ali was on a higher level than Peter's performance against a prime Wlad? Good luck with that.

By two ATG's, and two giants while way past his prime. And all of those guys, barring Pulev -- who fought a completely shot and untrained version of Peter that essentially quit because he was tired -- needed rounds of pounding on him to eventually get the stoppage. His chin was rock solid, and Shavers would have to consistently land shots on it to do the same, while avoiding Peter's own.

The fight essentially comes down to two guys who can bang and are willing to come at you, but only one of them can take a decent shot. Any other factors are not really going to play a huge part in the outcome IMO.

 

Shavers wasn't exactly a cardio machine. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. In fact most of his losses were due to his gassing out after going for an early KO. The one time he was able to go fifteen while consistently throwing hard shots was in the Ali fight, where he fought much of the fight shelled up taking a breather, while Ali shoeshined on his guard for the delight of the audience.

Against Holmes he hardly landed anything of consequence saving that big right hand and a couple of follow up shots, and fought an extremely cagey fight both times before that. It was in many respects similar to the Ali fight, save that Shavers had far less success actually landing his shots.

I don't dispute that he had a better workrate than Peter, but if he wanted to actually outwork Peter he'd need to keep him at bay, or expose himself to danger. He didn't have the length, skills, style or mental inclination to fight such a fight, and would likely come at Peter with step in jabs, overhand rights, looping hooks and thudding body shots to the right side of Peter's ribcage, the way he fought most of his shorter opponents. Against a walking tank like Peter I don't see that ending too well for him.

 

What part of "despite evidence of Shavers failing to marshal his energy at times" did you fail to read or understand?
I never said or even implied that Shavers was a "cardio machine". However, he went 10 rounds plenty and did 11 and 12 against Holmes, as well going the Championship distance of 15 against Ali, during which he applied pressure throughout - despite being outmaneuvered and outsmarted, overall.

So, your point about Shavers' mental inclination is somewhat of a moot point. As for your opinions on his size, skills and style - well - Sam Peter isn't Ali or Holmes, is he? Far, far from it, I'd say.

Neither is he Jimmy Young, Lyle, Ellis, Bugner or even Tillis. So, how skilled would Shavers need to be to repeatedly hurt and wear down Peter?

And, Peter isn't exactly 'High Tower', himself. Shavers wouldn't have had trouble either finding or reaching Peter, of that I feel certain. Especially since, Peter wasn't a defensive master and was easier to hit than most.

I can acknowledge that Shavers was weak defensively but, as I've alluded to on another thread, lesser men than Shavers went the distance with Peter. If they could then it's not implausible to think that Shavers could have and, at the workrate Shavers would bring, it's quite likely he'd have either worn Peter down or outpointed him.

 

Peter vs Shavers would look like Peter vs McCline except Peter gets stopped shortly after he's knocked down. Had McCline been in shape he would've knocked Peter out, and Big Time wasn't known for being a puncher. Peter's chin was just slightly above average, not iron by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah he lasted the distance vs Wlad the 1st time but that had more to do with Peter fighting very dirty and Wlad being very cautious and not throwing combinations. Peter was wobbled several times with single shots in that fight, 1st or 2nd round he was staggered by a 2 inch hook that had almost nothing on it. Had Wlad let his hands go a little bit he would've gotten Peter out of there.

 

If weak punching McCline can do this to Peter, imagine what a Shavers right hand would do.

This content is protected

 

I can see rhe 1977 -1979 version of him winning half of these.

I ran into him in Niles Ohio this morning at a breakfast restaraunt. He walked past me and I thought to myself " Damn that guy looks like Ernie Shavers! " A minute later he sat across from me and I saw a hat he was wearing that had his name on it. We talked a bit and he posed for a pic with me, then gave me a business card he autographed. After breakfast he stopped by my table and we talked a bit more about Ali and Holmes. Very classy guy.

 

Apologies. I overlooked that part of your post.

However, the overall thrust of your argument (that part which I quoted at least) seems to imply that Shavers's output would be too much for Peter to handle, and I can't agree with that. Shavers's ability to keep the pressure on Ali and Holmes rested very much on the fact that he was fighting primarily backfoot fighters with average power who'd give him multiple chances to rest.

Against Peter he'd either have to become the boxer himself, or engage with Peter in a firefight that would force him to expend energy at a much greater rate. The chances of him going twelve diminish quite rapidly.

Quite skilled, I'd say, given that he'd need to repeatedly hit Peter flush while avoiding every thudding jab, chopping right hand, hook and bodyshot that came his way. Even Toney wasn't able to do that, and a faded Toney is still a hell of a lot slipperier than Shavers ever was.

Peter was also able to give a prime Wlad nightmares. Either Wlad sucks balls, or you might want to rethink your statement about Peter not being on the level of some of those mentioned above.

The same is true in reverse. And while Peter could take Shavers's power flush, at least to the level we saw him take punches in the Wlad fight, the same can't be said for Shavers, who was hurt and knocked down and out numerous times in his career, including against fighters nowhere near Peter in punching strength.

And lesser men than Peter knocked Shavers out. Therefore it's not implausible to consider the possibility that Peter would achieve a stoppage as well.