In Defense of Earnie Shavers

Oh wow, a whole two "relevent" fighters in nearly 100 fights?? One guy who was 33, an ex middleweight, had been vulnerable at HW even in his prime, and who hadnt fought a "relevent" fight since losing 2 years earlier? The other guy 36, chinny, and basically coming off a loss. LOL. Well lets get out our Canastota ballots right now.

Yeah Earnie "Mr. hardest puncher of all time" Shavers hasnt received massive hype. :-(

 

It's easy to construct a strawman, pretend everyone is calling Shavers an elite HOFer or an ATG heavyweight, so you can avoid giving him props and instead talk him down.

He was a legit contender.

His enduring reputation as one of the hardest hitters is based on statements by numerous fighters who were hit by him. That's the opposite of hype. When a dozen fighters say he hit like a mule kick, I think we can say he probably earned the reputation.

Of course, calling anyone "THE hardest hitter of all-time" is hyperbole, but how often was that said in the 1970s ?
After-dinner appearances in retirement don't really count as being a hype-job fighter.

 

Throwing my two cents into the above argument. I agree that ****ey was more hyped than Shavers and that Earnie probably beat some "marginally" better opposition. But you also have to factor into the equation that ****ey never lost to lesser men or journeyman the way that Earnie did. Of course he fought far fewer bouts but I still can't see him bested by Stander, Stallings, and perhaps not even a prime Ron Lyle.

 

Shavers was a legitimate contender.

Somebody has to be the hardest puncher ever.

I do not know if that man ever fought Professionally or at all, but Shavers is as good a candidate as anyone. Likely better.
He just was not bear the top at landing cleanly, endurance, & chin. For a top HW.