A hard call tbh. Shavers best victories are over Young, Ellis and Norton. Peters are over Toney, McCline and Maskaev. Shavers has the better resume by far but also has more losses than Peter. I don't think this is won on paper. I think it comes down to who can take the others punches. I see Peter outlasting the acorn here.
I purposely posted this thread because I knew it would be a toss-up. I'm an Earnie fan, and I like to think that he was a level above Peter. IMO he beat Ali. He came within a hair of beating Holmes and Lyle, too. But if Peter came out and clocked him hard in the first round, could Earnie take that? I kind of doubt it. So, it's a matter of who gets there first. I think Earnie was quicker and so he might be the one. But I can't argue this too vigorously, 'cause Peter has the power to take Earnie out as well.
Peter couldn't take out 154 pound journey man Gilbert Martinez with one punch. He ain't taking out Shaver with one.
That's really about all there is to it.. People act like his win over Ken Norton and knockdown of Larry Holmes were the only two performances he ever had.. Well here's a News Flash... He had 75 other fights and lost about 14 of them while facing about 50 tomato cans. And some of the men who beat him were widely viewed as cans themselves, but for whatever reason this goes completely ignored..While its true that Sam " The Nigerian Nightmare " Peter wasn't exactly the poster boy for ATG, we have to acknowledge that he was never beaten by a bum and gave some of his conquerors a pretty hard time.. he also has proven power, durability, stamina and a noticeable size advantage over Shavers. What the hell is wrong with acknowledging these things, especially when they appear as clear as day before our very eyes? Is it sacrilege to favor one man over another despite being born in a later year? Did the planet somehow transform from the environment of Krypton to earth somewhere between 1965-1982?
Why would people acknowledge a lie? Peter had woeful stamina and average durability . Its almost as if you have never watched the guy box.
Is it a lie that Shavers gassed in six rounds against Ron Lyle? Is it a lie that he was hammered to submission in one round against Jerry Quarry.. How about being out boxed by Bob Stallings to a decision? Gassing out and being stopped against Tex Cobb and Bernardo Mercado? Or being gifted a draw against a 17-4 Jimmy Young? What about 50 of his opponents being tomato cans, many of which with losing records? All this but yet somehow Sam Peter has no chance in your eyes.. Have YOU ever taken the time to watch any boxing yourself?
BS.. Let's not make Snipes out to look like Willie Pep. He set up the right hand knockdown with a jab and dropped Holmes. There was no real speed or technical genius involved. Wouldn't matter against Shavers who would have been there to be hit and likely couldn't take it once he did. This new Ideology that Earnie Shavers was some sort of fast-skilled Joe Louis type fighter is quite the sensation.. Maybe in 40 years Nikolay Valuev will be compared to Sugar Ray Leonard.
Getting battered to a stoppage loss isn't gassing out. For a so called weak chinner , he stood up to helacious shots before exiting. One of those shots was enough to floor Foreman. I see what you're doing. Taking the worst versions of Shavers and ignoring him at his best. Thats not how these things work. You put front the best versions of each guy. Shavers at his best gave Ali absolute hell and was unstoppable for 15 rounds. He ran Holmes all around the ring and one small lapse in concentration saw Larry flat on his back . Shavers stamina , work rate , pressure was a million times better than Peters. Peter had shocking stamina and moved molasses like. Explain exactly to me how Peter has the advantage in stamina :huh
Peter wasn't actually that crude. Same as Mayorga, his ability to interweave some actual boxing with his slugging gets underrated. I mean, he got a gift the first time but he then managed to legitimately outpoint James Toney in their rematch. (just as Mayorga did Forrest in their rematch) He wasn't like a heavyweight version of Maussa or anything. In fact, I'd say Peter and Cris Arreola were comparable in their "pure" boxing skill, with the former's underrated and the latter's overrated. (Arreola was in truth never a whole lot more than a slugger himself, despite many fans' insistence that a slimmer and focused version of him could be some kind of 5-tool prospect. Rubbish. He just wasn't that good. Solid chin and clubbing power, that's all he ever had going for him at the elite or near-elite level - much like Peter) That said, he was much cruder than Shavers, especially defensively...and slower, and never took a shot from anybody in that stratosphere (Wlad might be close, but punch for punch I don't think he was in Shavers' league, no)
He gassed. watch the fight.. And those Helacious shots you speak of came from a man who NEVER stopped a ranked opponent.... Except Shavers who might not even have been ranked. No.. I'm establishing a trend by looking at him at all stages of his career.. As a green prospect he was beaten by Ron Stander and some other nobody.. In his prime he was beaten easily by Quarry.. Gassed against Lyle, outboxed by Stallings and gifted against a still green Jimmy Young. When slightly passed his best he was beaten by Mercado and Cobb. Earnie showed Vulnerabilities at all stage of his career. And per your question, Sam Peter saw the final bell of a 12 round fight on four occasions, winning 3 of them and losing the other in a competitive battle with an ATG... Shaver only went past 10 on three occasions and lost all three.
Okay.. This is a fair and well balanced argument that I can accept in favor of Shavers.. I don't agree with every point in it, but it's better than some of the nonsense that's been thus far thrown around.
A believer in the myth of "Arreola the dormant Ali", who could have been the real deal if he took the game seriously.