George Foreman vs. Earnie Shavers.

All it would take would be one over hand right from Shavers on the wide open Foreman and you would be "houseless"

 

We will agree to disagree on this one.

I fully agree Norton was comfortably past peak when he fought Holmes but he was still a good fighter. You don't give a fighter of Holmes caliber that sort of fight unless you are still pretty good.

I think at an estimate that the Shavers fight was what finished him as good. The Holmes fight would not have overly helped but that big stoppage to Shavers would have taken something.

There is no guarantee Shavers would not have done similar to a peak Norton based on styles. It's certainly not a given he would but it's very definitely on the table as a possibility.

 

What a nonsense

 

It has more to do with stylistical advantage.

 

Norton had stylistical advantage over holmes

 

Yes but if a fighter is as shot as you seem to think no stylistic advantage is going to help him, particularly against a great fighter like Holmes.

 

You betting your house? Yes everyone knew it was nonsense the minute it was read.

Shavers knocking out Foreman is a real possibility. You have two hittable sluggers in a fight in which anything can happen. Shavers is the definition of one punch KO power.

 

Lmao at the norton who went 15 with holmes being a washed up shot fighter. I guess that means the foreman who beat a prime norton was a god then? I meam what are the implications if a completely shot old man norton can lose narrowly by 1 point to an ATG HOFamer in his prime?

Anyway, as for the thread, shavers had terrible luck in his career. Broke his hand against stander, was avoided by many of the big names for years and had a late start ad a fighter, got fooled by Ali and didnt go for the ko when he had the chance, glove exploded just when he was gonna finish off mercado, giving mercado time to recover, etc, etc.

The most relevamt tragedy is the lyle fight. He decked him just before the end of the round, who knows what would happen if it were even 30 seconds earlier? As others pointed out, shavers actually had a good chin, but poor stamina. He took a savage beating from lyle and wouldnt quit. He also slugged it out with the the huge 6'5 roy williams and pulled off a late round ko. Cobb had to beat him senseless and break his jaw to stop him.

Foreman would have to do the same. Unless he managed to blitz shavers early and land the perfect shot on the jaw at just the right time, hed be in for a war. And in a war id have to favor foreman, but u never know with two big sluggers who lack stamina.

The pre zaire foreman was absolutely fearless, a wrecking ball, and had bad intentions and was just a downright nasty individual. Worst matchup and foreman wins more often than not.

The gill clancey trained george was more cautious, used his jab more, would try to use parries and lateral movement, but this would actually give shavers more chances. He was a sucker for overhand rights--which is what lyle decked george with and shavers was a master of. Hard to predict, both men proved they could get off the floor to win or wound the opponent, but still id have to slightly favor foreman since he was not only bigget, but had a wider variety of punches and a better chin.

Old man foreman survives an early onslaught, wisely using his cross arm defense, ring generalship, and jab to rack up points and save energy. He would eventually break shavers down and stop him mid-late rounds.

 

Foreman was an all time great puncher and all time great fighter with granite chin,a hell of jab and a hammer blow,bigger,stronger and better than shavers and he proved it in the ring. On the other hand shavers was an average guy with cold and hot moments with a hard overight hand and a left hook,crappy chin and he lost against nobodies. And you are comparing both them like 2 guys at the same level. Don't be laughable