Earnie Shaver's V These recent heavyweight s ?

McCline was not weak punching.

 

Let's face it, one can't pick a clear winner here. I would take Earnie 6 out of 10 times. You can make a strong case for either.

 

He certainly was a well below average puncher despite his size, only semi-relevant knockout he managed to get was against Michael Grant and that fight was stopped primarily because Grant injured his ankle. Shavers hit a lot harder than him.

 

So did Wlad on paper, but he couldn't score a single knockdown on Peter. How do you explain that?

 

Wlad brutally KO'd Peter in their 2nd fight, so he was in fact able to put him down. I touched on their 1st fight in my earlier post but I'll add this, Wlad was in a very bad spot in his career, a loss to Peter quite possibly meant the end of his career as a top level fighter and so he fought to an extremely cautious gameplan. Never really threw more than one punch at a time nor go after Peter when he had him hurt. Had Wlad went after Peter like McCline did (and like Shavers would do too) he too would've bounced him off the canvas like a basketball.

 

No problem.

Yes. There are definite contrasts in styles to be considered here, but Shavers was a come-forward fighter in almost every fight he fought - and, apropos of the previous comments about his stamina (which was more to do with his abilities to pace himself), Shavers rarely looked to take a rest. Oppositely, there are times I've seen Peter virtually come to a stand still during rounds to take a breather; only able to launch his assaults in bursts. So, on that basis, I say Shavers' chances of overwhelming Peter are high.

If we're talking a prime Shavers' at his peak then I think he can go 12 with Peter, whose output is so limited, at the best of times, the fire from Peter would be sporadic.

Interesting that Toney stood off on Peter in both fights; in the main, countering Peter's assaults, which afforded Peter the breathers mentioned above - much like those you believe Holmes and Ali gave Shavers (not how I remember those bouts, by the way). Shavers would not stand off; rather he'd either be looking to land long rights or be in Peter's chest and outdoing him on the inside.

I think you overrate the Peter jab. For starters, I've never thought Peter was ever busy enough with the jab and, against Toney, in their second bout, by around the midway point, the 'thudding' became more of a pawing, flicking - or the jab was dispensed with altogether. It's not as big of an asset to Peter as you portray, in my opinion.

Suffices to say that I am not convinced that Peters' Jab is a game changer, at all, and it would not have presented the kind of problem for Shavers you believe it might.

Peter gave Wlad a good fight in their non-title bout eliminator in 2005. Nightmares? Not really since, despite the KDs, Wlad won comfortably on the cards. There are a number of reasons one could cite for Wlad having difficulties with Peter in their first encounter.

One could argue, for example, that Wlad was not technically finished at that point. He'd also recently suffered his third career stoppage defeat and the first Peter bout was a non-title fight eliminator, to put him back into contention for a world title. It was a big fight for both men but enough for Wlad to have become a tad tentative. I also think Wlad would always look troubled by fearless fighters, who came at him (e.g. Povetkin would subsequently force Wlad to foul his way to a dismal victory, by being on the attack from the outset). Until Wlad had mastered his holding, leaning, pulling down and general spoiling techniques, his composure had been ready to be evaporated by any offensive threat going.

So, I do not rate Wlad as highly as some - that's no secret - even though, I would not go as far as to say that he sucks. But, in any event and to my mind, having a couple of good rounds against Wlad is not a sign that Peter was a truly world class fighter. So, no, a rethink is not required here; especially, since Peter was not able to replicate anything near the same kind of challenge for Wlad in their subsequent meeting.

Therefore, I'm quite happy to stick with my view that Peter is not on the level of the guys I mentioned in my previous post.

We can't be sure that Peter would take Shavers' shots flush. We know that he could be knocked down and that he could be stopped. Peter was not invincible.

Yes - Shavers was stopped 6 times in 89 bouts; one of these being his very last bout, aged 40.
Peter, in less than half that many bouts, was stopped 4 times.

It's Heavyweight Boxing - Boxers get stopped - but a KO is not a given, just because a Boxer has been stopped before and, as I implied in my second response to you, a predicted Shavers' win is predicated on him not "running face first onto one of Peter's swings, in the first half of the bout".

And lesser men than Shavers have knocked Peter out. It's a roundabout argument but, as pointed out above, I've considered the possibility as early as my second response to you. The difference really lies in what I think would happen if the fight went into the latter stages and, given that we know Shavers, at his best, was able to sustain his attack over 15, I think he fares better than Peter, who by this point just doesn't have the output to deter Shavers.

 

I could see him taking out each in everyone of them. He would likely lose to a couple of them if he fought all 8 in his career.

 

Prime Peter had a serious chin and serious power. I'd favor Peter in that fight, his durability and stocky frame might be able to put Shavers on the back foot.

 

1-i dont see a big difference berween shavers knocking down and giving holmes hell and peter knocking down and giving wlad hell.

Both holmes and wlad were prime atgs with great jabs and held the belt longer than anyone except louis.

Also, it wasnt exactly difficult to drop wlad. He was down more than any other lineal champ except carnera and patterson.

2-i agree peter has a better chance of weathering the storm against shavers than vice versa. The problem is the clash of styles. Again, if peter used his size to his advantage and was an athletic 240+ pound athlete that would be a different story. When youre that big and fat, slow, and predictable with mediocre defense u become a delicious wide open target for a big puncher.

3-theres nothing hyperbole about what i wrote.

Shavers was 3-3 against former belt holders. Peter lost every time he stepped up except against wlad (a great effort but ultimately he lost) and toney (a fat middleweight). These are facts. They arent on the same level performace and skill wise.

 

I think people would be surprised at how many of these Shavers would lose. The guy was very limited. He could punch but he had a glass jaw, bad stamina, had average speed of both hand and foot and was pretty one dimensional. Both Dean Chance and later Don King moved him very carefully for a reason. He has very few wins over quality contenders. Yes there are some names on his resume like Bugner, Norton, and Young but you have to look at when he actually fought those guys not just the name. Very very limited. My guess is a fair amount of these guys listed as prospective mythical matchups beat him.

 

Ernie probably gets 5Shannon Briggs could land first, Haye would run , he'd torch the rest

 

Well when you look at Shavers critically, he never did too well against Hitters. After Lyle, it was a long time before he fought a puncher again. Who was it---Mercado or Simms?

To think he does well against the hitters is wishful thinking. He did not do well when he fought them and was almost always fighting boxer types and not the hitters. Earnie just won't hold up long when he's the guy getting hit by hard shots.

 

Both fighters were burst fighters, in my opinion. Shavers has the better workrate, and the better delivery, but it wasn't a huge gulf in either category to be honest. Shavers, for example, regularly took rests where he'd just plod round after his opponent bobbing his head and taking shots on his forearms; he did it in both Holmes fights and he did it versus Ali. He was pressing forward all the time, but he wasn't throwing punches in those stretches, and he didn't have to worry about too much coming back both times.

Against come forward fighters he was always forced to expend a lot more energy, which tended to result in him either bombing the guy out, or gassing or getting hurt with something and getting stopped. Peter has the resilience and punching power to make that latter scenario a strong possibility, which is why I don't rate Shavers's chances too highly here.

Peter could be quite active when he wanted. He wouldn't have have downed Toney or Wlad three times if he wasn't pressing for the knockout. His main problems as I see them were that he was often sloppy with his delivery and timing, which allowed fighters to read his shots coming from a mile away. Other times, though, he'd mix it up a bit and catch you with a short chopping shot that could really do some damage. He kept his power late in a fight too. He was still peppering Toney with hard jabs and bombing him with right hands in the eleventh and twelfth. Even had time for a bit of Ali shuffling at the tail end of the fight.

Of course, he was slow as a slug, most times, so Shavers could still conceivably outbox him if he chose to fight that way. But when did Shavers ever look to outpoint a guy bigger and tougher than him?

I think it would definitely be a problem in the early rounds, which is where this fight is won or lost for both men, IMO. If Shavers is troubled be it then his ability to do damage rapidly diminishes, while Peter's rapidly increases.

Toney was still a very live opponent in that second fight, and his defence was completely disrupted by it. And if Peter is able to land the same type of shots to Shavers that he was to Toney his mid-rounds fade wouldn't even come into the equation.

I think you're rating Peter way too harshly here, especially since you're including a very green Young and a past prime Bugner to pull an equivalent trick against a youthful and dangerous Wlad. A highly seasoned Chris Byrd wasn't able to win a round off Wlad less than a year later, and was brutally destroyed for his troubles. Byrd is clearly a level above those guys, at that stage in their careers.

True, you can never predict what'll happen in the HW division, but I think the probability of Peter hurting Shavers is far higher than the reverse happening, based simply on the fact that he could take a much better shot. Since both fighters will be looking to come at each other that leaves Shavers with quite a narrow window of opportunity in which to hurt and finish Peter early. Maybe he can do it, but I doubt it.

The only lesser man to KO Peter was Robert Helenius, who, for all his faults, was a monstrous hitter who fought Peter at the right time. Both Klitschkos had to throw the kitchen sink at him to get the stoppage. (I don't really count the Pulev farce for obvious reasons.)

You make a lot of good points, but a large part of your argument rests on Shavers lasting into the later rounds, and with the way he fought, coupled with the opponent he'd be fighting, I don't see that as a particularly strong possibility. And if by some miracle it does, I see both fighters dog tired and winging crazy arm punches at each other, which again does not favour Shavers overmuch, considering both fighters will be landing heavy leather on each other.

Yes Peter was very hittable, which allowed fighters to accumulate damage on him, but they tended to be taller, quicker fighters who were able to keep him at bay, not short, come forward sluggers. I just can't see Shavers landing enough to stop Peter before getting caught, and once he's hurt I don't see him recovering.

 

Ali and Holmes were both so much better than Peter, in every way and in ways that cannot be measured, that I find it somewhat astonishing you would use Shavers' handling of these bouts, as a benchmark for the way he'd have operated in a contest with Peter. Much of Shavers reduction in output was not for the want of trying. It was because he was being evaded and well-measured by two of the most skilled out-boxers to ever fight in the division. There's no way Peter consistently delivers a jab and moves like either Ali or Homes could do with ease. Your analysis of Shavers' performances here is a misinterpretation of those fights, in my opinion.

I have watched Peter more or less grind to a halt with lethargy. Mouth wide open; any pop he ever had in his punches, dissipated. See the Toney rematch. There's no comparison.

I don't think it tended to be that way, at all, for Shavers. As previously pointed out…

Shavers was stopped 6 times from 89 bouts.
Peter was stopped 4 times in 42 bouts.

If anything, the 'tendency' that these figures show is the opposite to what you are trying to argue.

A jab that caught Toney off-balance is indicative of Peter pressing for the knockout? If you say so. I disagree.

Wlad fell over three times and Peter couldn't put him away. Any other Heavyweight, who had had Wlad in that type of trouble, closed the show a winner.

His "chopping" shots to the back of his opponent's head seemed the most effective in delivering damage.

Kept his power late? For the Love of God!!!!

You have to be trolling now.

I'm on the verge of giving up here

That right he clipped Toney with, off the break, had little impact.

Who said he'd go into the bout looking to outpoint Peter? I suggested he'd end up outpointing Peter over the course; a stoppage of Peter being possible.

Shavers was able to get by the Ali and Holmes jabs, at times. I think he might have some success against Peter's jab, somehow.

Shavers' ability to do damage in the early rounds is not as important as the damage he would be able to deliver, later on.

Toney was done.

Not really. the key differences being that Shavers didn't get beaten by Young or Bugner - and, Bugner was 4-5 years younger than Shavers.

I think Byrd's TKO loss to Wlad, in their second bout, says a lot more about where Byrd was in his career than it does about Wlad, at that time. Following this bout, Byrd would only fight 4 more times over the ensuing 3 years, going 2-2-0, before retiring.

We'll never know. Peter's vaunted power is not as evident as Shavers' is.

I don’t think Shavers needs to finish Peter early. (see below - and in just about any of my posts in this discussion, for the theme of my speculation, throughout)

Is this the same “monstrous hitter”, with whom Derek Chisora and Michael Sprott were able to go the distance with? And, I’m not quite sure what you mean by him having “fought Peter at the right time.” If Peter were as good as people make out then Peter should have been walking out that ring a winner; not getting KO’d.

My entire argument rests on Shavers making it to the second half of the bout and this is not an unlikely scenario. To suggest this is less likely - to the extent of being 'miraculous' - than him being blown out within the first 6 rounds, doesn't make sense to me. Again, Peter KO'd only one, barely world class opponent in his whole career. I think the confidence people have in Peter's power isn’t really corroborated by his results.

A 5'10" Toney landed on Peter plenty and didn't have to move to much to do so. Peter had little if anything on the inside, which could well be the range where a lot of the action could take place, given the styles. Shavers wasn't great on the inside either, to be honest, but had a wicked uppercut, which carried sharp power over a short distance. I have no doubt Peter would eat a fair few of these and would suffer for doing so.

I've maintained from the outset that Shavers could win on points by outworking Peter, if he can weather Peter's early potential. I've never considered an early finish to be the likely result, unless Shavers walks into one of Peter's clubs. However, a late stoppage for Shavers, due to a retirement on Peter's part, could happen. And, Peter's KO ratio plummets in bouts going beyond 6 rounds.

 

I'm not suggesting he's going to approach the fight the same way he approached Holmes and Ali. Quite the opposite in fact. Those fights were brought up to argue that Shavers lasted the distance against top level fighters when they weren't the ones pressing the action. I could bring up Young or even Henry Clark if you want fighters of a lower calibre.

My point stands: when fighters pressed forward on Shavers they either got knocked out early or forced into a stoppage. Alternately, if they were able to take his shots without hurting him Shavers rapidly lost his steam. See Cobb and Williams for example. Neither guy was hard to hit, but Shavers had a lot of trouble hurting them.

Shavers fought a lot of junk so his KO to loss ratio obviously reflects that. Against fighters considered world level (which, whatever you think of him, Peter was) Shavers had a lot less success.

Yes, it was. Peter obviously wasn't expecting a KD with the jab, but he wouldn't have got it if he wasn't coming forward on Toney as much as he did.

Any other heavyweight? I hope you're not including Shavers in that crowd, because he was the poster boy for not finishing downed fighters.

He knocked down Wlad hard in the tenth. That's not keeping his power late?

Possible. He'd need to avoid Peter more than Peter needed to avoid him though. The first Clark fight might be a reasonable template for how the fight might go down, though Clark obviously didn't possess anywhere near the same punching power as Peter.

Not necessarily. They were different kinds of jab, employed for different purposes, Ali's and Holmes' for keeping an opponent at a distance, Peter's for busting through an opponent's guard and driving them back to the ropes. Shavers getting past Peter's jab wouldn't necessarily be in his best interests, since he'd be putting himself right in the danger zone.