James Shuler Discussion

Not sure what to make of him. He was too inactive going into the Kinchen fight, making that a closer ordeal than it should have been, and he was too cautious in that bout, which was one of the worst I can remember seeing on NBC Sportsworld. What a snoozefest. I also thought he was a bit chinny when he got rocked late against Kinchen. Seales was also pretty far gone when they fought, hardly able to see, and Shuler was forced to go the full 12 with him.

Seemed like a nice young man, but not terribly impressed with what I saw.

 

He was solid

The division wasn't that deep when he ascended to #1.

Seales was blind when they fought, and still lasted the distance.

Kinchen hurt Shuler, but was outhustled. He showed that Shuler's chin was not impenetrable.

This proved to be the case when Hearns demolished him with one shot.

Plenty of guys lasted the distance with Hearns at 160, so really Shuler's less than stellar chin was fully exposed.

 

The middleweight division was VERY deep when Shuler became the top contender.

Marvin Hagler was the middleweight champion. Contenders included Thomas Hearns, Frank Tate, Herol Graham, Sumbu Kalambay, Iran Barkley, John Mugabi, James Kinchen, Michael Olajide, Juan Roldan, Michael Nunn was starting to make waves, Robbie Sims had beaten Duran, Lindell Holmes was aching for a big fight ... and Sugar Ray Leonard was planning a comeback.

Hell, Golovkin would have difficulty climbing that ladder.

But James Shuler was right there.

When Shuler won the Olympic Trials, he was being touted as the "NEXT" Sugar Ray Robinson. Experts at the time were EXTREMELY high on him. Getting hurt in a fight by James Kinchen before beating him was not something to be ashamed of. Hearns BARELY SURVIVED against Kinchen in their fight. Hearns was rocked to the core, and he's an all-timer.

I've always considered Hearns' first round knockout win over Shuler as one of HEARNS' BEST PERFORMANCES.

It would've been like if Hearns had wasted a young Frank Tate or Michael Nunn in one round.

Shuler was an excellent fighter. It was a brilliant performance by Hearns - like his wins over Cuevas and Duran. Shuler just never lived long enough, so Hearn's win is kind of forgotten now.

 

When Shuler ascended to #1 at the beginning of '85, most of the guys you listed weren't even contenders at 160 lbs yet or temporarily inactive/out of the picture like Duran and Roldan.

As far as top 10 competition, Shuler only fought Kinchen, who he outhustled in a close fight and Hearns, who demosished him.

He was good, but not really well proven. Then, he died. It would have been interesting to see if he could compete with the division's elite after the Hearns demolition.

To be honest, he was already showing signs of slippage agaisnt Jerry Holly in summer '85 on ESPN.

I watched that fight and Shuler took dozens of punches from the trial horse and won something like 7-3 or 6-4 in rounds.

Other than the very top guys like Hagler and Hearns, the division was much deeper in '86-'89 than it was in '84-'85.

It would have been interesting to see how Shuler would have done because he would have had to fight other good fighters in cross-roads fights to re-establish himself.

Basically his career went like this - built up a good record against trial horses and one former contender who as at the end of the road (Seales). Fights Kinchen for the #1 ranking. Wins close fight. Protects # 1 ranking while waiting for a big fight and wins close decison over trial horse Jerry Holley - in a fight he was expected to roll over Holley. Then, he's demolished by Hearns.

 

Shuler was the top-rated middleweight in 1986. All those guys I mentioned were rated then, except for Leonard. Sugar Ray Seales, Clint Jackson and James Kinchen were all good wins, too. You badmouthed Seales like he was a blind corpse. But Seales was still beating guys like Sammy Nesmith and John Locicero at the time Shuler beat him. The only guys Seales lost to in the previous years had been to Dwight Davidson (then the #1 contender) and Hagler. Seales wasn't a bum. And Shuler and Kinchen were rated #1 vs #2 by both the WBC and WBA when they fought. Then Shuler fought Hearns in what amounted to a WBC eliminator when he could've just sat around.

I don't see any reason to badmouth the guy. He fought his way into contention - against Seales, Jackson, top-rated Kinchen and then top-rated Hearns ... to try to get to the champ Hagler. He wasn't being maneuvered into some fringe WBO vacant belt situation like guys are now. He was earning it.

The Hearns fight wasn't any more representative of Shuler's abilities than Duran's fight with Hearns was representative of Duran's. Hearns could do that on certain nights.

I didn't expect what happened to happen that night. Had Hagler fought Hearns that evening and Shuler had faced Mugabi, I'd have taken Shuler over Mugabi. I seem to recall many were picking Shuler to beat Hearns, too. Shuler was on the way up. Nobody was saying he hadn't lived up to his potential or anything. His future appeared to be ahead of him.

It was a great performance by Hearns. That's all. He was the Hitman that night. He was on.

Sucks that Shuler died in a freak accident and he never fought again. You watch him in the amateurs and pros, though, and he was a top guy. Hearns deserves all the credit for that win. Because Shuler was quality.

 

Clint Jackson was done.

The war against Fletcher and the early ko loss to Drayton had reduced him to trial horse status by the time he fought Shuler.

Seales was legally blind and still lasted the full 12 rounds. He was not a contender, at that point in time.

Shuler was talented and good. The Kinchen win was a legitimate win over a fellow contender. But, the fact remains James Shuler had one win over a top 10 guy and was slowing down, based on the struggle to beat Holley and the total destruction at the Hands of Thomas Hearns, the same Thomas Hearns who had to go the distance to beat DeWitt, Singletary and Sutherland at 160 lbs.

 

Seales had been blind for years. Only two people ever stopped him - Hagler and Minter in 70 fights.

And in the last issue of RING I have in 1982 before their fight (October 1982), Seales is rated #7 by RING magazine - behind Sibson (1), Fletcher (2), Hamsho (3), Davison (4), Obel (5), and Hearns (6).

So YES, Seales WAS still a contender. He was a top 10 contender. The #7 contender. Kinchen was the #1 contender when they fought. Hearns was one of the best in the world when they fought.

And Shuler wasn't "slowing down." He lost one fight as a pro to a Hall of Famer and then he died in a crash.

Slowing down?

 

That right hand that hearns Landed was one of the best shots he ever uncorked.Shuler was unlucky to to be in with Tommy that night.who knows on another night he might have been the one to win by KO?.RIP.

 

Talented, but somewhat unproven fighter. If he had lived possibly could have been a force for 2, 3 years. They should have matched up Shuler with other young lions like Ramos, Czyz, and even Goodwin. Curtis Parker and Frank Fletcher also.

 

Shuler was definitely considered still on the rise. I agree with Saad in retrospect, but at the time prospects were expected to have some rough or flat spots along the way and Holley was considered a rejuvenated journeyman with enough on the ball to extend anyone and give them a tough fight.
What I remember the most about Shuler was that Hearns attended the funeral and put the NABF belt in his casket out of respect. My respect for Hearns went up bigtime after that.

 

Hearns was his friend from the amateurs, so they had a connection.

 

Rated by whom? The various governing bodies who collectively would have had about 35 different names listed?

A set of ratings that actually mattered had this top 10 in March 86 -

Marvin Hagler, Champion

1. John Mugabi
2. James Shuler
3. James Kinchen
4. Don Lee
5. Herol Graham
6. Robbie Sims
7. Doug DeWitt
8. Wilfred Benitez
9. Tony Sibson
10. Chong-Pal Park