How good was earnie shavers?

I really don't think people should judge Shavers based on his performance against Quarry.

He was surely exposed in that fight but he came back better for it in my opinion. Shavers had fought for maybe 3 or 4 years at that point and hadn't exactly been in there against great opposition aside from Ellis whom he blew out in one round (after being hurt).

Against Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Ron Lyle, Roy Williams, Howard Smith and Henry Clark he displayed a solid chin in my opinion although he never truly improved on his stamina problems except maybe in the Ali fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOHXHyEH5vw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW0SA5tZb5Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs9Nb0pzIpU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyKEX21Qxg8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyhrcD0DPXc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM6qQ50SpPw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr-w536NuMw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VsAhEugnsc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvLrgKjgryg

 

Shavers was a good fighter who blew hot and cold, depending on how he showed up and how he matched up with the stylistic traits of his opposition. The Jerry Quarry fight was a rare instance in which he just got caught in a flurry early on, and wasn't let off the hook. I don't know how the hell he lost to Bob Stallings, but I guess **** happens. At his best, he was a reasonably good contender from about 1975-1979.

To answer the question of the thread, I don't see very many eras where he would have been champ, but I can see him catching an unsuspecting titlist on the wrong night and finishing him. Had Floyd Patterson been in there on the night that Earnie nearly dethroned a peak Holmes, I think it would have been over with.

 

Like I said.
Just watch Quarry/Shavers.
Quarry took him apart in One --- so easy.

 

He never beat any world class opposition and won... Except the time that he did.

50 plus fights in 5 years.

Beat Ken Norton and Jimmy Ellis in a combined 2 rounds. Beat Mercado and Sims. Beat Jimmy Young dropping him in both their fights, stopping him in their first. Shaver's is one of the only men among a myriad of bangers to ever stop Young. Cooney couldn't even get Young off his feet despite Young being fat and having his ****ing brains beaten in.

Chased a Foreman fight for decades and was shot down every time.

Came within a pubic hair of beating Ron Lyle, Ali, and Holmes, some of the best the 70's had to offer.

Roy Williams and Sims were much avoided 70's fighters and he beat them both.

Fought in four separate decades until he was 50 years old.

A b-level fighter no doubt but to act as if his record is made of fluff is no more legitimate then bitching about Chavez's early career, who also went on to fight world class opposition.

Also one of the most dangerous b-level fighters ever. Just feel he deserves a bit more respect then he gets, as if he didn't fit into the talent packed 70's.

 

In the right era and against the right champ/titleholder, sure. As several have said though, it's highly doubtful he could have reigned for long, (maybe one or two successful defenses) before inconsistency or someone with better fundamentals would have come along and beat him.

That sort of power, regardless of anything else, is always a danger at any time. Ask Larry Holmes. If Holmes were any less great or had even the slightest less heart/recovery powers, Shavers would have taken his title.

 

Shavers had an excellent punch but along with that had shakey stamina and was not a top quality fighter...I rate him with the many dangerous punchers like Bob Satterfeild but not sure Earnie had the skill level of Bob....he had a punchers chance to bne champ but in a real competitive era would he make it to the # 1 contender

 

So what? Shavers just as easily picked apart Norton and Ellis in one each - and they were good enough to be champs.

 

Good point there.

If he hadn't been matched with Holmes in an eliminator, or if he somehow managed to beat Holmes, then he would've fought Norton for the title - and we saw what that result would've been.

 

I think this is absolutely correct. Was Shavers an all-time great? Certainly not. But he's a lot better than some seem to think. His power alone - which as others have said, was no joke - would make him a threat against anybody in the early going.

 

NO!!!!!!!!!!:nono

 

no.. it's as simple as that. nothing wrong with earnie shavers, but the only outstanding thing was his power. all the rest (defense, boxing technique, speed, stamina and so on) are all average to good. and to be a champ you have to be great with at least somethings

 

No.

Tyson and Frazier could out-work you over 12 rounds as well as KO you. To go forward against a taller fighter and throw punches without getting hit requires an unbelievable amount of skill.

Liston had an ATG jab; combination punching in his prime; and was not easy to hit cleanly. Liston could outbox opponents as well as knock them out.

Foreman was a crude slugger and accordingly had a short reign. Look at any division and look for a long-reigning dominant champion with Shavers' style: you will not find one. The closest example would be Julian Jackson, though he only looked crude next to very good boxers.

People who think Shavers could have been a dominant champion and ruled the division in heavyweight history are just taking their appreciation of the 1960s and 1970s- the greatest era of heavyweight boxing- too far.