I give a flying "F," Holmes versus Shavers in '79 kicked ass.

Ive always thought Shavers was way overrated. He had power but not much else. Holmes pretty much dominated him for most of both fights barring a shaky moment or two (outside of the legendary KD).

 

What were Shavers' big wins, besides Ellis?

I know he was a monster, and if you weren't on your game and in condition, you were losing, but what makes him so noteworthy? Is it his opponents he came up short against?

 

Holmes went into that 2nd fight as a pretty big favorite. the odds were much closer on their first fight & once people saw Larry jabbing and turning the guy all night, the rematch figured to be pretty much a wash,rinse,repeat type bout.

 

Norton too.

that being siad, I more or less agree witht hose who say he's overrated.

Quary, Lyle, Holems, a badly faded Ali- seems he usually lost to guys who refused to crumble.

 

I thought Shavers scored a second knockdown as well while being battered in the corner, when Holmes was clubbing him with both hands, but the referee ruled it a slip.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEaDtbGzMb4[/ame]

8:30

 

I may be the only one, but frankly I don't think Earnie Shavers was as crude or unskilled as many make him out to be. Against Holmes, he was clearly slipping the left jab, while coming back immediately with the over hand right, as though he was timing that sequence perfectly. He also used his jab to set up some of those punches... And going a combined 33 rounds with a peak Holmes says something about his stamina, despite the many criticisms that he's taken over the years for gassing early.. I think Shavers' main problems were that his chin was shaky and he was slow on his feet. Some of those earlier defeats to guys like Stander, Quarry, Stallings, etc might have had something to do with inexperience, complacency or ill preparation, but personally I don't thin that a 79' Shavers loses to some of those guys, despite being much older.

 

Shavers is pretty much rated where he belongs.
He was never considered invincible or anything, but was an extremely dangerous puncher, a well-conditioned contender who always came to fight. A serious fighter. That's the way he's seen.

The name recognition is deserved, because, 1. He hit like a mule kick and was a crowd-pleaser, and 2. He fought a couple of great durable champions and had them hurt.

 

definitely a knockdown

 

I agree.
I've never seen him as a crude unskilled banger either. He was about average for a heavyweight contender in the boxing technique department. His punch was way above average. His weaknesses were probably durability and fight strategy.

 

I think he is overrated also.