And bigger. Shavers by K.O in the first, though Satterfueld catching him and putting him out is not entirely out of the question, it seemed stamina was Shavers biggest issue when getting stopped IMO. And Satterfield wouldn't get that far.
Satterfield in his own day did very well against the over 200 lbers, so I don't know if Shavers size would be that big of an advantage. Satterfield seems to have done best when he was quicker than his opponent and so could get to him first. A toss-up, but I will vote Satterfield. And out-boxing Harold Johnson shows Satterfield had superior skills.
Satterfield was quicker and had the better skills to go along with a decent punch, so him taking the fight is not out of the question... On the flipside however, if Earnie lands one of his sunday shots early, and it turns out to be the kind of shot that nearly KO"d Holmes, then I think its all over.
Satterfield was faster and threw better combinations than Shavers and had better stamina but Shavers could also flatten you with one punch..both men could get hurt here and this could go either way and if they fought 10 times they could split but i do not see any of them going the distance
Bob taking this fight is not out of the question, I agree wit that.... But Satterfield was too small and he doens´t look too skilled in my view: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKUlBPErrn0[/ame] He was a bit crude... Of course Shavers wasn´t skilled as well, but they are equal in that aspect IMO....Satterfield had better stamina, I agree with this.....would be a good advantage... Is not a consensus that Shavers hit harder ??
The Layne fight shows a major weakness of Satterfield--one which made him an always exciting fighter--his tendency to throw caution to the wind, and any sort of defense also. No doubt this could be fatal against Shavers, as it was against Layne. However, the film of the Harold Johnson fight reveals that Satterfield did have skills when he was disciplined enough to use them.
"Is not a consensus that Shavers hit harder?" Shavers has the much more impressive statistical record with 69 ko's in 90 fights, to Satterfield's 35 ko's in 79 fights, but a closer look raises a few questions. Shavers fought 33 opponents with losing records. Satterfield only 3. Satterfield fought in an era when a top fighter was matched tough. Shavers is more in the modern era in which a fighter's record is padded with quite a few gimmes. Shavers certainly showed great power against top opposition, flooring Holmes, hurting Ali, and ko'ing Norton, Ellis, Young, Smith, Clark, etc. But Satterfield has an imposing list also--Baker, Williams, Oma, Holman, Andrews, Billy Smith, etc. And Satterfield scored the more impressive decision wins--Johnson and Valdes. And Satterfield actually did better against bigger men. He was 6-1 with 5 ko's against over 200 lb opponents, ko'ing Bob Baker, Cleveland Williams, John Holman (2), and badly outpointing Nino Valdes, all top rated fighters at one time or another. The same arguments about size and power used for Shavers could also have been used for Valdes and Williams. On balance, I see this as a toss-up. Both men have the power to stretch the other with one punch.
