Earnie Shavers – Power hitter or overrated featherfist?

WAS EARNIE SHAVERS REALLY a hard hitter? Or was he a featherfist?

This question seems ABSURD to boxing fans (and may even induce epileptic seizures in boxing nostalgists) because they grew up with the belief that ·Earnie Shavers ("The black destroyer") is the hardest hitting hitter of all time (or at least one of the hardest).

Earnie Shavers is considered THE power puncher. In discussions about KO performances of boxers Earnie Shavers is ALWAYS ranked at the top of near the top.

He has been called the "puncher of the century" and being "among the most destructive punchers of all time".

So it's time to take a closer look and separate facts from nostalgia.

 

 

Quotes about Earnie Shavers

The MAJOR SOURCE of Shavers' fame is the collection of legends…

  • "On a given night, Shavers can knockout any heavyweight or water buffalo" (JET Magazine, 1978)
  • "Earnie Shavers takes no prisoners" ("Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times", 1992)
  • (Fight vs ·Bernardo Mercado): "Legend has it that Shavers split his glove open from the force of a hard punch he landed on Colombian Bernardo Mercado"

…and quotes on Shavers' power by his opponents…

  • ·Tex Cobb: "Nobody hits like Shavers. If anybody hit harder than Shavers, I'd shoot him."
  • ·Larry Holmes: "Earnie hit me harder than any other fighter, including Mike Tyson. He hit me and I was face down on the canvas hearing saxophonist Jimmy Tillis."
  • ·Tex Cobb: "Earnie could punch you in the neck with his right hand and break your ankle."
  • ·Muhammad Ali: "Earnie hit me so hard, he shook my kinfolk back in Africa"
  • ·Ron Lyle: "Hey man, that's the hardest I've ever been hit in my life. And George Foreman could punch, but none of them could hit like Earnie Shavers did. When he hit you, the lights went out. I can laugh about it now, but at the time,it wasn't funny."
  • ·Ron Lyle: "Hardest he's ever been hit: Earnie Shavers. The ground came up and met me. That's all I remember."
  • ·James Tillis: "Shavers hit so hard he turned horse p*ss into gasoline! He hit me so hard he brought back tomorrow. When he hit me… I was seeing pink rats and cats and animals smoking cigarettes. I was in the land of make-believe."
  • ·James Tillis: "The baddest motherf*cker I fought was Earnie Shavers. That motherf*cker can make July into June and made me jump over the motherf*ckin' moon. That motherf*cker hit so hard, he'll bring back tomorow. He hit me so hard, I thought I was on the corner smoking cigarette and eating a spam sandwich. That's how hard that motherf*cker hit."

 

These are some of the most funny boxing quotes you will ever read, but fun and legends aside:

EVERYONE of these guys was NOT KO'ed by Shavers. They all won against Shavers.

Thus when they say "Earnie Shavers is the hardest heavyweight puncher ever" they praise their own wins since they survived "Shavers, the strongest puncher of all time".

Take for example Larry Holmes who claims (see quote above) that Shavers hit harder than Tyson. Yet Holmes survived only 3.5 rounds against Tyson (Larry's only KO'loss in his whole career) but 22.5 rounds against Shavers. It's this type of distorted assessment that feeds nostalgists to this very day.

The same applies to Ray Mercer who (when asked who hit him the hardest) claimed that ·Tommy Morrison was a harder hitter than Wladimir Klitschko. Well, Mercer won against Morrison (W TKO5) and got KO'ed against Klitschko (L TKO6). Claiming that Mercer hit him harder makes his win especially sweet, but not especially true.

Hence let's check some true stats of Shavers:

 

 

Earnie Shavers' record at a glance

Shavers and the Klitschkos don't have common opponents who could be asked for a comparison. Thus any claims like "Shavers is the hardest puncher I ever fought" excludes the Klitschkos from the comparison.

And actually I don't care too much about subjective opinions anyway. His record speaks a language clear enough:

Earnie Shavers has hardly wins against good opponents and he failed against what-we-would-consider modern heavyweights, i.e. 215+ lbs.

His best KOs are ·Ken Norton, ·Jimmy Ellis 199 lbs for which he could have been DQed (for holding Ellis' head with the left and then uppercutting) and ·Joe Bugner which ended on a cut.

Earnie Shavers was never a world champ himself, nor has he won against any world champ (except aforementioned Jimmy Ellis).

In other words: Once you ignore funny quotes and legends it turns out that Shavers was considered a dangerous KO'er based on KO'ing mainly cruisers and nobodies.

 

 

Earnie Shavers, the cherry-picker

Shavers had approx. 90 fights (that's a lot).

But when you check whether he is a genuine KO'er or a cherry-picker (like Sonny Liston by the way, whose KO'power is also grossly overrated by good-old-time fetishists) then the following turns out:

  • If you exclude all opponents who have been KO'ed before
  • and all opponents who had a loss within 1 year of their encounter with Shavers (a typical thing for cherry-pickers)

it turns out that Shavers

THAT's Shavers' KO record in a nutshell.

For a guy with 90+ wins this is disappointing.

 

 

Earnie Shavers, the heavyweight featherfist

Shavers KO'performance is mainly based on KO'ing cruisers (sub-200 opponents).

Once you check his performance against genuine[?] heavyweights  215+ lbs (= what-we-nowadays-consider-heavyweights) it turns out Shavers would merely be a featherfist by today's standards: 11 KOs in 23 fights.

Here are the real statistics of Shavers, not some nostalgic fantasies:

NameKO'ratio (sub-200 opponents)KO'ratio (200+ lbs opponents)KO'ratio (215+ lbs opponents)
·Wladimir Klitschko-87.5%87.5% (42of48)
·Lennox Lewis-75.6%75.0% (27of36)
·Muhammad Ali79.1%40.5%33.3% (5of15)
·Mike Tyson100.0%78.0%73.6% (28of38)
·Michael Moorer100.0%51.4%46.1% (12of26)
·Joe Frazier100.0%50.0%45.4% (5of11)
·Evander Holyfield77.7%40.0%34.4% (10of29)
·Larry Holmes50.0%58.2%45.9% (17of37)
·Tomasz Adamek63.8%62.5%40.0% (2of5)
·Earnie Shavers90.9%68.4%47.8% (11of23)

Fistic Statistic [#2318.1]

Since 215+ lbs is the de facto entry point for heavyweights nowadays (and we are generous here since the average opponent weight of Wladimir Klitschko is 233 lbs) this means that Earnie Shavers would be considered a featherfist nowadays.

In other words: Shavers would be a nobody when it comes to power. His power is dropping considerably the heavier the opponents get and already his 200+ KO'ratio (68%) is nothing special.

Yes, that's how much the division changed (= how much more powerful it got) compared to Ali's times.

Wladimir Klitschko has faced 20 opponents
with a better 215+ KO'ratio than Earnie Shavers.

As you can see from the table above other boxers have an even worse KO'performance than Shavers (e.g. Joe Frazier or Clay/Ali), but even Shavers' better KO'ratio would pose no threat nowadays (except for the usual "hitter's chance").

 

 

How Earnie Shavers KO'power suffered the heavier his opponents got

Here you have a slightly more detailed table how Shavers' KO'performance got worse the heavier the opponents got:

Weight of opponentRounds Shavers needed between KOs
< 200 lbs opponents3 rounds per KO
200-214 lbs opponents5 rounds per KO
214+ opponents11 rounds per KO

Fistic Statistic [#2318.2]

 

 

How many rounds did Earnie Shavers need per KO?

Let's compare the SPEED of the KO of Shavers and some other boxers who are considered to be hard hitters.

Again, I excluded cruisers and such and only compare the KO'performance against genuine heavyweight opposition 215+ lbs.

Please note that I also excluded all southpaws since some boxers like Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson specifically DUCKED southpaws due to the difficulty to KO them. The table below therefore excludes fights against southpaws, and only considers those boxers whose stance is known and is orthodox. Additionally the figures are fair[?] (= exclude NCs, WDQs and buttfights).

NameKO'speed against genuine heavyweight opponents 215+ lbs (includes KOs in round 13+)
·Vitali Klitschko4.8 (160.5 rounds for 33 KOs)
·Wladimir Klitschko4.3 (156.5 rounds for 36 KOs)
·Lennox Lewis7.9 (158 rounds for 20 KOs)
·Muhammad Ali23.5 (141 rounds for 6 KOs)
·Mike Tyson5.6 (146 rounds for 26 KOs)
·George Foreman9.1 (155 rounds for 17 KOs)
·Joe Frazier25.1 (75.5 rounds for 3 KOs)
·Evander Holyfield28.1 (253 rounds for 9 KOs)
·Larry Holmes25.5 (281.5 rounds for 11 KOs)
·Shannon Briggs5.3 (127.5 rounds for 24 KOs)
·Lamon Brewster7.5 (127.5 rounds for 17 KOs)
·Chris Byrd29.5 (236 rounds for 8 KOs)
·Earnie Shavers21.3 (64 rounds for 3 KOs)

Fistic Statistic [#2318.3]

Let me explain this to all good-old-time nostalgists in clear words:

The Klitschkos knock out genuine heavyweights (215+ lbs, orthodox stance)
faster than Mike Tyson
2x faster than George Foreman
4x to 5x faster than Earnie Shavers

Actually even Chris Byrd (who is universally considered a featherfist) doesn't look too bad compared to Shavers.

 

 

Earnie Shavers' hard hits were mainly dangerous in the first rounds

Additionally Shavers was not dangerous in later rounds (unlike the Klitschkos who are dangerous from the first minute to the last):

How many fights did Shavers have that went 7+ rounds? 17 (seventeen).

How many of these 17 fights did he manage to win by KO? 3 (three). That's really bad. It hints at stamina problems or accuracy problems.

 

 

Earnie Shavers' KO streaks (consecutive KOs)

Part of the Earnie Shavers Mythology is his streak: He KO'ed 28 opponents in a row.

Again, if you analyze these opponents they are all bums[?] (like Willie Johnson 19-30) or had been massively KO'ed before (like Bill Hardney 13 times) or had come off a loss (or had a loss within last months) (like Pat Duncan).

Once you analyze how many non-bums[?] he could KO in a row his figures shrink dramatically.

Here are the KO streaks[?] of Earnie Shavers and some other KO artists:

NameLongest Fair KO'win streak (within 12 rounds)Longest Fair KO'win streak 200×2 (within 12 rounds)Longest Fair KO'win streak non-bums (within 12 rounds)Longest Fair KO'win streak non-bums 200×2 (within 12 rounds)
·Vitali Klitschko
27
27
6
6
·Wladimir Klitschko
16
16
9
9
·Lennox Lewis
10
9
4
4
·Muhammad Ali
9
3
6
2
·Mike Tyson
19
15
4
4
·George Foreman
24
19
7
7
·Rocky Marciano
16
0
4
0
·Joe Louis
7
5
5
3
·Joe Frazier
11
3
4
2
·Tommy Morrison
11
8
3
3
·Larry Holmes
9
10
5
5
·Shannon Briggs
12
12
8
8
·Corrie Sanders
6
6
4
4
·Sonny Liston
11
11
5
3
·Sugar Ray Robinson
9
0
3
0
·Earnie Shavers
28
13
2
2

Fistic Statistic [#2318.4]

Since these are fair streaks I excluded WDQs, NCs and Buttfights.

You see clearly how GENUINE KO'ers like George Foreman, Shannon Briggs or the Klitschkos compare to cherry-pickers like Earnie Shavers, who regularly failed against better opposition.

 

 

Earnie Shavers vs Wladimir Klitschko

  • Considering Earnie Shavers 47% KO'ratio (compared to Klitschkos' 80%+ KO'ratio) they are at least 4 punching leagues above Shavers.
  • Additionally Earnie Shavers never won a world championship thus Klitschkos' KOs are far more worth.
  • Additionally Earnie Shavers' average KO'win is a median 200 lbs. Wladimir Klitschko's is 233 lbs.
  • Additionally Earnie Shavers had 56 real[?] heavyweight fights (= less than Wladimir Klitschko) of which 18(!) did not end as a KO'win (compared to Klitschko's 8).
  • Additionally Earnie Shavers fought dirty. Just watch the Shavers vs Joe Bugner fight: low blows, headbutts, head holding and then uppercutting. That would be far less possible nowadays, since heavies are taller and referees are fairer.
  • Additionally Earnie Shavers was KO'ed 7 times. In other words: A hard punch (from modern heavies) would throw him back and thus his own attack would be slowed down thus his KO'ratio in modern times would even be lower.
  • Additionally Earnie Shavers (average weight 208 lbs) would be the BOTTOM-2 lightest opponent Wladimir Klitschko has ever faced, thus Shavers would probably not box as a heavyweight anyway but as a cruiser.

In other words: The power/dangerousness of Earnie Shavers and of a Klitschko is not even close.

Earnie Shavers' power might have been good…
…for a cruiserweight

 

 

End words

Yes, Shavers was a "cruiser power puncher", but a "superheavyweight featherfist".

Yes, Shavers was dangerous for bums and sub-215 opponents mainly.

Yes, Shavers had good moments against non-bums where he managed to connect with a single hard hit hence their comments at the top of this page).

Thus I don't doubt that he actually could deliver single power punches. The bummier the opponent (and the lighter) the more dangerous these punches were of course.

But this a totally different power than the Klitschkos. Vitali is an accumulation puncher wearing his opponents down and Wladimir has extreme one-punch-KO-power against any kind of opponent throughout the whole fight.

Shavers' dangerousness (especially in today's superheavyweight division) is GROSSLY overrated by boxing fans.

 

The Klitschkos are approximately
10-20x more dangerous than Earnie Shavers
based on the SPEED, WEIGHT, AMOUNT, CONSTANCY (streaks) and QUALITY of KO wins.

Surviving Shavers and surviving the Klitschkos are worlds apart.

 

 

What else you should read…

I compiled even more KO statistics at Hardest hitters of boxing: KO stats of Tyson, Klitschko, Foreman, Shavers and other knockout artists

Read an interview with Earnie Shavers

WladimirKlitschko|-|87.5%|87.5%(42of48)
LennoxLewis|-|75.6%|75.0%(27of36)
DavidHaye|87.5%|90.0%|85.7%(6of7)
MuhammadAli|79.1%|40.5%|33.3%(5of15)
MikeTyson|100.0%|78.0%|73.6%(28of38)
MichaelMoorer|100.0%|51.4%|46.1%(12of26)
JoeFrazier|100.0%|50.0%|45.4%(5of11)
EvanderHolyfield|77.7%|40.0%|34.4%(10of29)
LarryHolmes|50.0%|58.2%|45.9%(17of37)
TomaszAdamek|63.8%|62.5%|40.0%(2of5)
EarnieShavers|90.9%|68.4%|47.8%(11of23)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 2.4/5 (50 votes cast)
Earnie Shavers - Power hitter or overrated featherfist?, 2.4 out of 5 based on 50 ratings
Did you find this information useful? Then please donate...

Comments (88)

  • Anonymous says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Teli Mura]
    #158 (2011-04-25th)

    8-O 8-O

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Tammy says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Muxa Tyto]
      #5497 Tammy (2013-01-30th)

      I have a question about Chart #4 from the top. What does 200X2 mean?

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      • Tommo says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
        #5639 Tommo (2013-03-25th)

        Both fighters in the match weight over 200lbs. (means it was a real heavyweight fight in the modern sense).

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Shimaun Thurman says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Kuwa Nyno]
    #204 Shimaun Thurman (2011-04-29th)

    Though, I believe you make some good points, you have heard it from the horses mouth. These opponents whom many faced each other claimed he's the hardest puncher ever! It doesn't matter if he lost to them because that's not what's in question. Earnie Shavers himself wasn't a large guy at 208lbs and approximately 6ft tall. Was his records padded with bums? Sure it was as was Mike Tyson's but would anyone doubt that he could punch, I doubt it.

    Shavers only lost against opponents that were significantly bigger than him in his prime and that was mostly due to poor stamina. Comparing him to Klitskho isn't really fair though he was knocked out by a opponent that was 20 lbs smaller than himself (Lamon Brewster) It was a different era and all the champions were tall and strong. (Norton, Ali, Foreman, Lyle, Holmes etc.)

    So before you count Earnie Shavers as a pillow-puncher, listen to his opponents because I'm sure they know best!

    Happy trails, Boxing Fan :lol:

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.7/5 (10 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #205 Admin (2011-04-29th)
      These opponents whom many faced each other claimed he's the hardest puncher ever!

      Maybe the hardest puncher THEY ever faced. Let's get real here. Earnie's opponents started to box in the 1950s (the median boxing date of his opponents is 1975). They were never exposed to anything like the modern ultraheavyweights.

      Shavers' median KOvictim is only 200 lbs.

      Was his records padded with bums? Sure it was as was Mike Tyson's but would anyone doubt that he could punch, I doubt it.

      The bums are not the problems. The lack of wins against good opponents is the problem. Shavers was never a world champ. Tyson's record is far better than Shavers'.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.3/5 (6 votes cast)
      • Tammy says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Muxa Tyto]
        #5498 Tammy (2013-01-30th)

        That doesn't prove lack of good punching power. That just proves that there are really tough bastards fighting. As far as Boxing goes, power is just a tool in the tool box. Skill trumps power and grat stamina trumps bad stamina.

        Not putting you down, I love your blog.
        Many good points here on the blog. Some stats off a little, but enough to still back your case of questioning Earnies power.
        Many things I didn't think of before are mentioned and I like this blog. It makes you take a look at the facts and stats instead of anecdotal testimony, rhetoric and histrionics. Much like the "no one can beat Sugar Ray Robinson, P4P best past, present and into infinity" mantra that i've heard all my boxing life. The mere mention that someone else could beat the SRR on a forum starts thread wars and any fact one might present to contest the SRR greatest is not even considered long enough to dismiss. Forget that SRR lost 19 times, that doesn't count in the SRR vs anybody discussion.
        Don't even get me started about Bruce (never had a verifiable fight in his life) Lee. you cannot even convince the Lee nutthuggers that it was not really Bruce Lee playing ping pong in the Nikoa commecial.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Mikey says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Leni Uva]
    #328 Mikey (2011-05-25th)

    A very good article. A bit unscientific in places (what constitutes a 'bum'?) But definitely food for thought for many, many old-time nostaligia fools. I would like to see comparisons with Joe Louis though..

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.8/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #331 Admin (2011-05-25th)
      A bit unscientific in places (what constitutes a 'bum'?)

      The term bum follows a strict definition. See [post=341]

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  • THE MASTER says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Nyvo Mebi]
    #339 THE MASTER (2011-05-29th)

    Ali and Holmes both won nearly all their fights so could have picked anyone as their hardest-punching opponent, neither of them needed to use Shavers in particular to "praise their own wins." Ali was sometimes complimentary about his opponents and other times less so, but generally, if you watch his post-match comments, he was honest about the merits of them. Ali took some huge punches in his later career and I see no reason to disbelieve him if he mentions Shavers as hitting him hard.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.9/5 (8 votes cast)
  • Zach says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Witu Ray]
    #445 Zach (2011-06-20th)

    Kiltshko has some delusional fans

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.7/5 (12 votes cast)
    • BT says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Dope Xiwu]
      #503 BT (2011-07-07th)

      No kidding …. the author has every right to an opinion, but still – come on.

      As much as I appreciate the tedious statistical arguments, the author is making the too-common mistake of over-complicating sports.

      You could argue that there have been better punchers, but there's little doubt that E.S. is one of the better ones in heavyweight history. That’s not to say guys like the Kiltshkos aren’t great punchers, and not saying that E.S. was a great all-around boxer.

      He fought 88 times, and knocked out 67 guys. Lots of those were within a round or two. That’s too many times to be written off as a fluke, or to weak-chinned opponents.

      A lot of the guys he flattened were guys who were tough to knock down, and almost impossible to knock out. That list would include Joe Bugner, Larry Holmes, Ron Lyle, and yes, Jimmy Ellis (who cares about weight – the guy only lost 12 times, and only a few times within the distance). Throw Ken Norton in that list too – yes, we all remember the big Foreman KO, but Ken was only stopped 4 times.

      And yeah – all those big names have been in the ring with all the other big guys. And some of them aren’t overly diplomatic. So why would almost all of them speak extravagantly about Earnie’s power?

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.4/5 (5 votes cast)
      • Tammy says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Muxa Tyto]
        #5499 Tammy (2013-01-30th)

        Rate shavers power vs Shannon Briggs power. Briggs may have the mnost 1st round Ko's than any boxer of any weight in history.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #504 Admin (2011-07-08th)
      You could argue that there have been better punchers, but there's little doubt that E.S. is one of the better ones in heavyweight history. That's not to say guys like the Kiltshkos aren't great punchers, and not saying that E.S. was a great all-around boxer.

      Exactly what I am saying: As a cruiserweight (formerly called heavyweight) he was a heavy puncher.

      As a modern heavyweight (215+) not.

      Just take for example David Haye. David Haye's cruiser fights would ALL be considered heavyweight in Ali's times. Before he moved to heavyweight he had a KOratio of 95% with "3 rounds per KO".

      But 200+ is a different animal: Suddenly Haye (including the Wlad fight) needs 13 rounds per KO).

      THAT's what this article is about.

      You CAN NOT take his punch performance at lower weight and simply extrapolate it to a higher weight.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.9/5 (7 votes cast)
  • Aswin says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Jany Wove]
    #677 Aswin (2011-08-08th)

    Common buddy, extrapolating weight to justify your conclusion can perhaps give you an advantage, but never hides the truth.

    So, you want to say that the more heavier a boxer gets, the better he punches????
    Let me take some examples from the modern era. Nikolei Valuev, the 7 foot 2 Russian Boxer, has an 88 inch reach and weighs atleast 50 pounds heavier than Wladmir, but we all know his punches are weak. He couldn't KO even Haye.

    Let's take another example of a modern heavyweight who punched harder despite being lighter, David Tua. Remember him. He punched better than any heavyweight weighing over 240 pounds. His 19 second knockout of John Ruiz and 30 second knockout of Michael Moorer have still ranked as shock defeats. He knocked out many other heavyweights, who outweighed him by atleast 10-15 pounds. Hell, Wladmir and Vitali are yet to knockout somebody like Ruiz at 1st or second round, so you cannot refute my statement saying Ruiz and Moorer were bums. If so, they should have been knocked out by lesser boxers in other fights, but instead only David Tua hammered them. Why? Because Tua was an explosive puncher like Shavers.

    Boxing always teaches you the truth, "Some fighters are born with KO power, some simply can't punch". You don;t need to be a 230+ pound guy to get good knockout ratios, you just need to learn how to punch properly(Move your torso to gather extra power onto your punch). The best example being Marciano and Frazier. When they punch, they shivelled their bodies towards the direction of the punch gathering extra leverage. With Shavers, he was simply a born puncher with extra power. So, don;t call him a feather-fisted lightweight. It's quite unfortunate that the power of Shavers and Foreman's punches were never measured. Had they measured their punches, you would not have even written this biased-article.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #680 Admin (2011-08-08th)
      Let me take some examples from the modern era. Nikolei Valuev, the 7 foot 2 Russian Boxer, has an 88 inch reach and weighs atleast 50 pounds heavier than Wladmir, but we all know his punches are weak. He couldn't KO even Haye.

      It's always funny when people complain that "height and weight are not everything" and then mention Valuev.

      Valuev has ONE OF THE BEST heavyweight records of all time.

      I know he SEEMS to be slow. I know he SEEMS to be limited, yet exactly his lack of speed and limitedness is a PROOF how weight and height compensate for quality.

      Let's take another example of a modern heavyweight who punched harder despite being lighter, David Tua. Remember him. He punched better than any heavyweight weighing over 240 pounds. His 19 second knockout of John Ruiz and 30 second knockout of Michael Moorer have still ranked as shock defeats.

      And yet Tua never won a world championship wheras Valuev won several times.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 2.6/5 (5 votes cast)
  • Aswin says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Piku Nany]
    #701 Aswin (2011-08-10th)

    "Valuev has ONE OF THE BEST heavyweight records of all time."

    Very funny buddy. But did Valuev face the best boxers of his Era??? What was his quality of his opposition??
    1) Valuev ducked Wladmir and Vitali in every way – So much for a giant with fisted power
    2) He clearly lost the match against a washed-up Holyfield. Look at the match and you will see how the judges clearly scored in favor of Valuev when Holyfield landed more punches.
    3) His only loss came against a 6 foot 1 Chagaev and his second loss came against a 6 foot 1 (Not 6 foot 3) David Haye, who lost pathetically to Wladmir.

    So I have clearly proved that weight is not equal to power. David Tua at 215-220 pounds was a powerful puncher than a 340 pound Valuev.

    And as we all know, John Ruiz and Moorer were World Heavyweight champions, so you cannot question the calibre of David Tua's opponents.

    Let's face it buddy, Punching power is a gift, either a boxer has it or he doesn't. You cannot simply conclude that Earnie Shavers was a featherfirst because he weighed only 210-215 pounds. On the contrary, Shavers was able to gain leverage from his body movements and focus his complete energy on his punches. In other words, he simply put his weight behind his punches completely.

    You said: "And yet Tua never won a world championship wheras Valuev won several times.
    "

    Yet another wrong statement. Valuev only won the title two times. First time he lost it to Chagaev and then regained it back. David Tua had to compete with the caliber of boxers like
    John Ruiz, Michael Moorer, Hashim Rahman, Chris Byrd, Lennox Lewis, Oleg Maskaev and others.

    All of Tua's opponents were WBA, WBC, IBO, or IBF champions atleast once. How many of Valuev's opponents were of this caliber????

    When you compare a boxer's record with another, please make note of their level of competition.

    And I stay with my point, in Boxing, Punching power is not always equivalent to a boxer's weight. The best examples are Louis, Marciano, Frazier, Shavers, Tyson, and Tua. And just in case, Louis punches put a 6 foot 6, 260 pound Max Baer to sleep. A 6 foot 1 inch, Sonny Liston hit a young 6 foot 5 Chuck Wepner so hard that around 70 stitches were required to repair his face. And Sonny liston weighed only 210 pounds compared to Chuck Wepners 230+

    In boxing, you need a combination of heart, talent, stamina and punching power to survive. If size and power were the main factors to decide boxing championships then Jack Dempsey would have never been champion coz he was facing a 6 foot 7 Jess Williard.

    Final Conclusion: Shavers was indeed a very hard puncher. The bombs he landed on Ali, Holmes, and Lyle were the proof of it. These three boxers survived to tell the story because they had great chins. Ali had faced the power of Foreman, but still rated Shavers higher. Mind you, ALi never appreciates his opponents. Lyle is the only boxer to knock down Foreman twice. FYI, Foreman was rarely knocked down even in the later part of his career. So, Lyle must have been a power puncher to do that. Holmes, as we all know, had a good chin. So, let's not say Shavers was a feather fist, shall we!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 4.5/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #705 Admin (2011-08-10th)
      Very funny buddy. But did Valuev face the best boxers of his Era??? What was his quality of his opposition??

      That's completely irrelevant for your issue. My point was that you CANNOT mention how "size/weight doesn't matter" and then bring up Valuev as an example although he has not even ONE CLEAR LOSS on his record.

      So I have clearly proved that weight is not equal to power. David Tua at 215-220 pounds was a powerful puncher than a 340 pound Valuev.

      Pure speculation.

      Yet another wrong statement. Valuev only won the title two times. First time he lost it to Chagaev and then regained it back. David Tua had to compete with the caliber of boxers like John Ruiz, Michael Moorer, Hashim Rahman, Chris Byrd, Lennox Lewis, Oleg Maskaev and others.

      Tua LOST to Byrd.
      Tua LOST to Lennox.

      It's so stupid to bring up losses as some kind of proof, but I mention this behavior of AliFants at [post=280] —> "Typical behavior (of Ali fans) (10)"

      Read that whole article, because you follow the typical "argument cascade" of AliFants.

      All of Tua's opponents were WBA, WBC, IBO, or IBF champions atleast once. How many of Valuev's opponents were of this caliber????

      I never claimed Valuev fought better opponents, because that was not the issue. The issue was that YOU brought up Valuev as a proof of a bad/worse performance, yet Valuev has not a single UD/KO loss on his record.

      When you compare a boxer's record with another, please make note of their level of competition.

      Depends on what you are comparing.

      And I stay with my point, in Boxing, Punching power is not always equivalent to a boxer's weight. The best examples are Louis, Marciano, Frazier, Shavers, Tyson, and Tua. And just in case, Louis punches put a 6 foot 6, 260 pound Max Baer to sleep.

      Max Baer was 210 lbs.

      You probably mean Buddy Baer (250). A contested KO, already back in those days. But I give you that.
      Louis – Not a heavyweight. OUTWEIGHING his opponents most of the time.
      Marciano – Not a heavyweight. Inconlusive era after during war times.
      Frazier – heavyweght featherfist (200×2 KOratio worse than Chris Byrd)
      Shavers – Superheavyweight featherfist
      Tyson – was outweighing his opponents very often.
      Tua – A guy who weighs 230-240 on average hardly qualifies as an example of a light fighter.

      A 6 foot 1 inch, Sonny Liston hit a young 6 foot 5 Chuck Wepner so hard that around 70 stitches were required to repair his face. And Sonny liston weighed only 210 pounds compared to Chuck Wepners 230+

      Are you telling me that ANYTHING can happen at heavyweight? Are you telling me that a lighter boxer can win against a heavier boxer?
      Is that something you think I don't know?

      In boxing, you need a combination of heart, talent, stamina and punching power to survive.

      This is not true. This applies to lower weight classes but not to heavyweight. I mentioned this at [post=126] —> "The heavyweight division is not a cruiser division for taller boys"

      Final Conclusion: Shavers was indeed a very hard puncher.

      Nothing you wrote leads to that conclusion. I prefer analyzing FACTS (= the record of Shavers) instead of THEORIES.

      So, let's not say Shavers was a feather fist, shall we!

      I never claimed Shavers was a featherfist.

      My exact statement is: Shavers was a superheavyweight featherfist but a cruiserweight power puncher.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 2.3/5 (8 votes cast)
  • Aswin says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Jany Wove]
    #711 Aswin (2011-08-11th)

    "The heavyweight division is not a cruiser division for taller boys"
    Aha – THen why the hell is that Wladmir fought a former-cruiserweight David Haye and Vitali is fighting another former cruiserweight Adamek (Only 6 fights at Heavyweight)????

    Clearly because of a lack of worthy heavyweight opponents!!!! Period.

    You contradict your own opinions. You say Ali and Louis were cruiserweights, but ignore that Ali and Louis both weight over 210 pounds, well above cruiserweight limit.

    Then you appreciate Vitali and Wladmir for being ultraheavyweights considering the fact that none of their opponents
    1) Exceeded 260 pounds
    2) Had a reach in excess of 80 inches (Barring Lewis and Rahman)
    3) Were taller than 6 "5"
    4) Had clearly defeated their fellow heavyweights
    5) Had an average height of 6 foot 1.5 inches
    6) Weighed around 225-240 pounds, hardly 10-15 pounds than previous eras.

    Let's face it Ross Purity, Chagaev, Rahman, Chambers, Peter, and Haye were never ultraheavyweight contenders, hell they were just 10 pounds above the 220 pound limit. Plus Sam peter was a fat slob.

    If you want the heights and records of Wladmir's opponents, please let me know, I will post it to you along with their Win//LOSS and KO,

    Till date, both Klitschkos have fought hardly 2 opponents weighing more than 240 pounds. So there are no ultraheavyweights around to fight, so no need for a ultraheavyweight decision.

    "I never claimed Valuev fought better opponents, because that was not the issue. The issue was that YOU brought up Valuev as a proof of a bad/worse performance, yet Valuev has not a single UD/KO loss on his record. " :lol:

    So how did he lose to Chagaev and Haye, wasn't that an UD?????
    Considering that Valuev lost to two opponents, who were clearly a foot less taller and 60-70 pounds lighter justifies my claim that Weight—>Punching power or greatness!!!

    Wladmir lost to Corrie Sanders, Puritty and Brewster, all these people were lighter and shorter than Wladmir.

    Tyson – was outweighing his opponents very often. – Really, please prove the facts. Tyson belongs to the Modern era of heavyweights, so your claim cannot be more contradictory. Tyson weighed mostly around 218-220 pounds and maximum at 235. He hardly outweighed his opponents. Perhaps you are referring to Michael Spinks and Berbick, Spinks was a light heavyweight, who just came up to heavyweight (A talented lightheavyweight in that) and Berbick weighed in at 218 pounds, but his natural weight was around 240 (Never mind. ) I am not sure Tysons other opponents like Johan Botha, Lewis, Holyfield, Douglas or others were lighter than him.

    Plus CHRIS BYRD had a KO percentage of 45-50%. He never knocked out people in the first and second rounds like Shavers did. Plus, Chris Byrd was never a scary puncher like Shavers, perhaps a slightly heavy puncher at best. Corrie Sanders was a much better puncher than Byrd. You provided the wrong example.

    I have to compliment you on the hardwork of facts you put. I really do. But I do not appreciate you degrading olden heavyweights, just because they happened to be in an era where the heavyweight limit was set to 200+

    The weight of boxers vary depending on nutrition and hygiene. PErhaps the olden boxers had less quality of food or nourishment. Perhaps they sacrificed 10 pounds of weight to achieve the speed and stamina to fight 15 rounds. Why exactly, we never know.

    Foreman at his peak was at 220-225 pounds. But an older and perhaps a fitter foreman (With less fat) weighed clearly around 240-260 pounds. As Foreman himself claimed, he was a natural 275 LB guy, and reduced weight only because his strenous Training regime (Cutting down wood, Pulling a Jeep up a hill etc) took a toll on his weight, increased his stamina, but made him look much leaner.

    As for your argument that Wladmir is superior to 70s heavyweights just because he is taller and heavier doesn;t make sense. For that, you need to invent a time machine and take Wladmir to the olden era and fight Muhammed Ali or Frazier or Foreman. This is practically impossible.

    Stop comparing fighters of previous eras. Wladmir may or may not be a better fighter, but that doesn't mean you force us to agree he is the greatest.

    What if the next generation of Boxers like Tyson Fury dominate boxing better than Wladmir with lesser quality of opponents. Will you diss off Wladmir then???

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.8/5 (5 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #718 Admin (2011-08-13th)
      Aha – THen why the hell is that Wladmir fought a former-cruiserweight David Haye and Vitali is fighting another former cruiserweight Adamek (Only 6 fights at Heavyweight)????

      I am talking about cruiserweights = time of the fight, not FORMER cruiserweights.

      If you exclude FORMER cruiserweights (= those who boxed at 199 or below at some point in their career) Ali's record is 11-1, Klitschko's is 36-3.

      And I wrote about this at [post=1609] so I don't understand why you ask all the time questions which I answered already MONTHS ago.

      Especially read [post=396] —> "A closer analysis of boxing ATGs" to see the stats for yourself.

      If you want the heights and records of Wladmir's opponents, please let me know, I will post it to you along with their Win//LOSS and KO

      Take a look at [post=2] and tell me whether you offer any statistics that I don't have.

      Till date, both Klitschkos have fought hardly 2 opponents weighing more than 240 pounds. So there are no ultraheavyweights around to fight, so no need for an ultraheavyweight decision.

      Ultraheavyweight starts at 215 in my book. I use it interchangeably with superheayweight sometimes, since these terms are not really defined.

      So how did he lose to Chagaev and Haye, wasn't that an UD?????

      No it wasn't.

      Considering that Valuev lost to two opponents, who were clearly a foot less taller and 60-70 pounds lighter justifies my claim that Weight—>Punching power or greatness!!!

      At heavyweight anyone can lose against anyone, but the TRENDS and CHANCES speak a clear language.

      Wladmir lost to Corrie Sanders, Puritty and Brewster, all these people were lighter and shorter than Wladmir.

      Again wrong.

      Tyson – was outweighing his opponents very often. – Really, please prove the facts.

      I did already. But you raise questions that I answered by TABLES MONTHS AGO.

      As for your argument that Wladmir is superior to 70s heavyweights just because he is taller and heavier doesn;t make sense.

      Except that boxing is divided into weight divisions (and hence indirectly into height divisions) for a reason. But again, this, too, I answered already in an article.

      For that, you need to invent a time machine and take Wladmir to the olden era and fight Muhammed Ali or Frazier or Foreman. This is practically impossible.

      This, too, I answered already.

      You see, ALL of your rebuttals are KNOWN to me. I argue with boxing fans SINCE YEARS. This is why I started this blog: To spare me work. To not answer them again and again. Thus read it.

      Your arguments are NOT STUPID. Your arguments MAKE SENSE and they SEEM VALID.

      Read ALL articles on my website. I have started my website for exactly such bright boxing fans like you (I mean it!)

      Go to the sitemap and read all of them:
      [post=520]

      What if the next generation of Boxers like Tyson Fury dominate boxing better than Wladmir with lesser quality of opponents. Will you diss off Wladmir then???

      So far Wladimir (and Lennox Lewis) have the best real heavyweigyht records of all time. Fury may be up there in a decade, but so far that's hard to imagine. Wladimir's first fights were more impressive than Fury's first fights.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.0/5 (7 votes cast)
  • Anonymous says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Ledi Rula]
    #722 (2011-08-14th)

    Klitchsko cock in your mouth much? Statistics are not a quality measuring stick for boxing. KO ratios mean little when piled up on garbage men and cab drivers. The weight of the fighter isn't truly all that important if they are great(think Holfield in the 90's, arguably the strongest HW era ever).Consider the quality of opposition a little. The Klitschko's are fighting C class fighters, overweight and out of shape bums, and blown up cruisers….none of which would even be contenders in the previous era. Shavers fought All Time greats and Hall of Famers, who mutually agree on his power. The Klitschko brothers only claims to fame are dominating a division full of weak fighters (not their fault), making excuses after losses (i was drugged!), Vitali losing to an old out of shape Lewis (the only great fighter he faced, while in his prime even), and Wladdy getting starched by a golfer and some nobodies. Put deer in the headlights when pressured Wlad, and robotic Vitali in the 90's and they would maybe win a strap, but then again, maybe only be a contender, like Shavers. They are not impressive in the historical sense. The end.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 2.8/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Tommo says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
      #5714 Tommo (2013-03-27th)

      Haha "garbage men and cab drivers", "deer in the headlights when pressured Wlad"… Your f*ckin hilarious mate!! =P Cant say I agree with you on too much of that but I like your style lol

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Aswin says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Vixu Dawy]
    #760 Aswin (2011-08-19th)

    "So far Wladimir (and Lennox Lewis) have the best real heavyweigyht records of all time. Fury may be up there in a decade, but so far that's hard to imagine. Wladimir's first fights were more impressive than Fury's first fights."

    Wrong, only Vitali and Lennox Lewis have the best records among heavyweights. Vitali has never been knocked down in his whole career and has never been behind on points, that itself makes him much better than Wladmir, who has been knocked down and out by average to better contenders.

    If pushed further, I would place Vitali in my all-time list considering that he has always been a warrior and crowd pleasing-puncher, but never Wladmir. Atleast Vitali participated in a slugfest against Lewis, what did Wladmir do apart from jabbing around?

    What is the use of being 6 foot 6 tall, weigh around 240 pounds, possessing the power to knockout people with one punch, if you are afraid to use it.

    Lewis had a mediocre chin like Wladmir, but that didn;t stop him from knocking out dangerous fighters like Razor Ruddock (Who gave Tyson two tough fights), Golota (Who out-boxed the 260 pound dangerous Riddick Bowe in 2 fights), Tommy Morrison (Known for a sharp and mighty left hook), and Hashim Rahman (Granted that he knocked out Lewis, but was knocked out himself in 4 rounds, a Win is a Win). Compare it to Wladmir, the only dangerous fighters he fought were 1) Corrie Sanders 2) Ross Puritty 3) Sam Peter and 4) Chris Byrd. Hell, he couldn't even knockout David Haye, a blown up cruiserweight, who did nothing but stand around and fool for 12 rounds.

    Bottomline: Only Vitali can claim the right to being an ATG, not Wladmir. A boxer who never participated in atleast 2-3 memorable fights and got knocked down by average boxers can never be a great, let alone ATG. Don't believe me, ask Francois Botha, the boxer who got beat by Wladmir.
    He said that Wladmir never hit him as hard as Lewis and that Lewis was more dangerous and difficult to face.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 2.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Tommo says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
      #5662 Tommo (2013-03-25th)

      Aswin sometimes you have some alright counters it should be said. But other times you are completely off base with your reasons why Wlad is bad, this era sucks and why older eras/fighters were better. Why argue with common sense, there are plenty of debate worthy issues in boxing but Shavers punching power as it would be considered today, clearly isn't one of them. Just LOOK at him! If you were Tyson or Wlad, Vitali or Lennox would YOU be worried he was gonna KO you? Of course not!

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • NameUnspoken says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Gibu Zaxy]
    #927 NameUnspoken (2011-09-12th)

    Thing is that despite the stats and KO ratios it´s mostly speculation. If you look at Shavers and Marcianos most famous single punches, which in Marcianos case was the braindamage of a wrighthand he landet on Walcott, and for Shavers it was the knockdown on Holmes. We all agree that both punches looked more devastating than the wrighthand Tyson landet on Holmes. But what both these cases share is the fact that both Walcott and Holmes was about to throw a wrighthand themself, Holmes probably a wright uppercut, and Walcott prolly a hook. So that created extra impact. I don´t know how much, but to some extent it prolly contributed atleast a little. If you look at Ali he was extremely good at neutralising power by backwards movement, and he mostly throwed straight punches so that never really happened to him + he had a very good chin, Shavers knocked him all over the ring, and he was wobbled for real only once which tells you that Shavers punched hard, but it allso tells you that many of the most devastating KO´s is a collision of the chin and the punch. When Tyson knocked down Holmes for the first time it was a quick one two combo that caught a stillstanding Holmes, Shavers never did that so you can´t say that Shavers was able to knock down Holmes with only help from himself, Tyson did. Both was powerfull that´s what we know, both hit hard in different ways, but we don´t know who really punched the hardest.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 2.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  • wesleymclintock says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Loje Tibu]
    #3440 wesleymclintock (2011-12-20th)

    Nice website, have been looking for something like this for ages.
    A couple of things, firstly it is rather interesting when looking at the amount of weights and callibre of fighters that shavers didnt manage to knock out.

    However as many have pointed out,you cant just chuck out the opinions of the greats, they have no reason to lie, plus even by your controvertial assumptions on who makes the grade or not, foreman is a knockout puncher, and they all say he didnt punch as hard as shavers..although like you say shavers never actually knocked them out!?.
    = i say ill give the pros the benefit of the doubt on that, although i see your points entirely.

    second, as time has moved on diets and training regimes have improved and for the most part the heavy weights are certainly bigger now…however you must take into consideration that a fighters ability to survice an onslaught is not just limited to his weight (although is a major factor as seen in weight divisions) but a combination of factors like chin, fitness, defense, movement away from punch, and mental will power and toughness (heart).

    It is a common arguement against the klitchkos that there opponents, whilst weighing a higher average that opponents of years gone by are also poorley trained, over weight, unmotivated and put simply..crap…so yes they are heavier, but by heavier i mean unskilled,unmotivated fat slobs.

    Also, if what you are saying that all fighters were around now, so they would struggle against the heavier opponents, then i would counter with this…the legends of years gone by would also have access to the new diets and training regimes that would surely improve there physical characterists/ punching power/fitness/further right??

    Also another thing that gets missed, it is possible, and i mean it is definate, that fighters before the 80's had a very tough life in every aspect to todays fighters, and to make it or be somebody you had to have a special will and fight about you, read fraziers story.
    With hardship and adversity come heart and character as these guys had to fight to make ends meat, this will power and character was reflected in the fights themselfs i believe and contributed to them being not only tough SOB'S but all time greats.

    Alot of this is subjective of course, but alot of this article is also, stats can be very misleading as they do not take into context and consideration the points above, which would definatly have affected any out come.

    What i will say is although i consider the klitchkos opposition to be terible, no signiture fights or anything, i will say based on there size experience and athetism they would be a match for any heavyweight in history, in a straight fight.

    Greatness though is defines not by stats, but by quality of opposition, setting new ground and how and WHO you DOMINATED of your era, thats where the klitchkos fall down.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #3461 Admin (2011-12-25th)
      However as many have pointed out,you cant just chuck out the opinions of the greats, they have no reason to lie, plus even by your controvertial assumptions on who makes the grade or not, foreman is a knockout puncher, and they all say he didnt punch as hard as shavers..

      I don't doubt that Shavers could deliver single hard punches.
      Actually his superb KO performance against C-level oppposition hints at a good power.

      But the better your opposition the less it is enough to deliver single blows. You have to be strong and accurate for the entire fight.

      It is a common arguement against the klitchkos that there opponents, whilst weighing a higher average that opponents of years gone by are also poorley trained, over weight, unmotivated and put simply..crap…so yes they are heavier, but by heavier i mean unskilled,unmotivated fat slobs.

      Please read:
      [post=126]

      the legends of years gone by would also have access to the new diets and training regimes that would surely improve there physical characterists/ punching power/fitness/further right?

      I pre-answered this already at
      [post=488]
      —> "Lorentz contraction"

      Also another thing that gets missed, it is possible, and i mean it is definate, that fighters before the 80's had a very tough life in every aspect to todays fighters, and to make it or be somebody you had to have a special will and fight about you, read fraziers story.
      With hardship and adversity come heart and character as these guys had to fight to make ends meat, this will power and character was reflected in the fights themselfs i believe and contributed to them being not only tough SOB'S but all time greats.

      I don't doubt Frazier's heart. But he was annihilated by Foreman, the only comparable fighter to modern heavyweights.

      Greatness though is defines not by stats, but by quality of opposition, setting new ground and how and WHO you DOMINATED of your era, thats where the klitchkos fall down.

      I pre-answered this already at
      [post=932]

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 2.3/5 (3 votes cast)
  • wesleymclintock says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Loje Tibu]
    #3441 wesleymclintock (2011-12-20th)

    Another thing that outlines my point. stats are certainly interesting, and can help form an objective opinion and better understanding of something as long as they are used in the right way and with the supporting evidence and put into the right context.

    For instance, if stats were so acurate about predicting something or giving the right picture then surely the betting favourite (which as you will know is comprised mainly about current form and stats) would always win, this is not true all the time and is often wrong, but it is a good guide to an outcome.
    That is what i take from this website and your conclusions, an interesting insight and another take…not certain fact.
    Keep it up though! :mrgreen:

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.5/5 (2 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #3462 Admin (2011-12-25th)
      For instance, if stats were so acurate about predicting something or giving the right picture then surely the betting favourite (which as you will know is comprised mainly about current form and stats) would always win

      No, the betting favorite (just as the current boxing rankings) are based on RECENT fights and, more importantly, recent PERFORMANCES.

      My stats are whole-career-stats and disregard performances ("Wow! Did you see how fast that was?") and only consider cold facts like KO, win/loss/draw etc…

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  • James says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Bone Divu]
    #3460 James (2011-12-24th)

    Great article, these Earnie fanboys are really dillusional. You're completely right in that every guy who says Earnie can hit hard are guys that BEAT Earnie, so by saying that Earnie hit really hard, they make THEMSELVES look better!!!!! A classic example is Larry Holmes. Larry got his ASS knocked flat out by Tyson in 3 or 4 rounds, but he still says that Earnie hit harder. Why? Because he wants people to believe that he was washed-up when he fought Tyson, when in reality he was not.
    Again, great article, I really wish you would post more articles like this. We need guys like you to talk about boxing, not some dillusional Earnie/Foreman fanboys and Klitschko/Tyson haters.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  • Mutt says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Mowe Kinu]
    #3716 Mutt (2012-01-24th)

    So your creative manipulation of statistics means more than the opinions of the men who actually faced him? Ridiculous.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 1.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  • Admin says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
    #3717 Admin (2012-01-24th)

    Well, FACTS mean more than OPINIONS. Especially since

    1) their opinions collide with facts (e.g. Larry Holmes' opinion)
    2) these men didn't fight against modern ultraheavyweights most of the time
    3) Shavers had enough fights 215+ to make a conclusive assessment

    Additionally I don't manipulate statistics. I pre-answered this already at [post=932] –> "Everybody can lie with stats"

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  • Eric says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Buva Xyko]
    #3748 Eric (2012-02-08th)

    The Klitscho brothers are indeed extremely underrated, and their great size along with their great athletic ability despite their size is rare even in today's society. There have always been gigantic heavyweights like Jess Willard, Primo Carnera, Buddy Baer, Abe Simon, Gerry Cooney etc. The aforementioned giants and others all failed and ko'ed when matched against more talented smaller heavyweights. Even with heavyweight fighters continually getting bigger each generation I still believe the best heavyweights will always never be exceptionally big men but only big enough. Of course the Klitscho brothers are an exception to the rule just as smallish men like Marciano or Frazier were exceptions to the rule. Generally the supersized heavyweights will lack the coordination, speed, and more often than not even power of smaller more normal sized heavyweights. Could a quality hard hitting 205-210lb heavyweight of the 70's destroy the 240-250lb giants of today, the answer is YES without a doubt. Despite your criticisms of Liston and Shavers I would assure you no heavyweight of today can punch as hard despite their size advantage. No one ever said Earnie was a great fighter, hell he even lost to clubfighter Ron Stander and was ko'ed in 1 by Jerry Quarry but his knockouts and punching power are brutal. Even the prime "Big" George Foreman who weighed about 220lbs in the 70's would be small by today's standards but do you honestly think there is anyone including the Klitschos out there who has the power of a prime George Foreman?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.3/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #3752 Admin (2012-02-09th)
      Even the prime "Big" George Foreman who weighed about 220lbs in the 70's would be small by today's standards but do you honestly think there is anyone including the Klitschos out there who has the power of a prime George Foreman?

      Yes, Wladimir Klitschko is several punch classes above Foreman. See: [post=2490]

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Bitu Kaly]
    #3837 Honza (2012-03-28th)

    Yes, Wladimir Klitschko is several punch classes above Foreman.
    That means Wlad is probably better puncher but not necessary harder puncher. But I have to admit that Wlad hits very hard not like Vitalij. :wink:

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 2.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  • Johnsob says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Woe Bitu]
    #3868 Johnsob (2012-04-14th)

    Y u love Kiltschko so much and hate all the old heavyweights so much? U must have been brainwashed like crazy… Obviously u don't know a sh*t abt boxing

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • Honza says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
      #3873 Honza (2012-04-16th)

      Exactly my point buddy. Just say something positive about Ali or Frazier and author will attacks you right after that. He hates them as much as I hate Klitschkos. But I at least can admit that.I still respect skills of robot brothers:-).

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  • Ed says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Nuga Lyjo]
    #3874 Ed (2012-04-17th)

    Man, you are crazy!! Ernie Shavers hit very hard. So he lost to some of the fighters who made those quotes–which proves boxing is not just about raw power. Your assessment about Holmes vs. Shavers and Holmes vs. Tyson is idiocy. Larry Holmes would have stopped Tyson in his prime. That was Holmes first fight back after retiring–and it was a mistake that Holmes himself knew going into that fight. The only reason he fought Tyson was because Don King put down 3 million dollars down in hard cash on Larry's table at home. King visited Holmes one night and laid down $2M down on the table and Holmes declined and told King you know Don I am not ready to fight Tyson in my first fight back-I would need a few fights first. King promptly dropped another million down and Holmes said OK. Mike Tyson wouldn't even be ranked in the top ten in the 1970's. Think of the Holmes-Mercer fight–that Holmes would have neaten Tyson. Mercer took better shots than Tyson did. When Tyson got hit he didn't want to fight and lost all heart (see Douglas, Holyfield twice, Lewis and those bums that KO'd him at the end). But for you to say Shavers would be a feather-fisted in today's game is pure rubbish.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #3875 Admin (2012-04-17th)

      Please stop to repeat the claim that Holmes was retired. He made a 1+ year break and after that break he fought 24 MORE FIGHTS.

      The reason why he made that break was because of the 2 consecutive losses to Michael Spinks, who by the way was ALSO KOed by Mike Tyson.
      Additionally Larry Holmes lost to Brian Nielsen

      So on one side you have Mike Tyson, who KOed Larry Holmes AND KOed Larry's 2 conquerors (Michael Spinks, Brian Nielsen).
      And on the other side you have Earnie Shavers, who got KOed by Holmes and who FAILED against modern type heavies (215+ lbs) and who hasn't even won a world title.

      And YET Holmes claims that Tyson hits weaker than Shavers.

      It's ridiculous. It's false. And it's sums up everything that is wrong with fans of the 1960s/1970s boxing era: These fans consider OPINION a bigger proof than the real-world-record.

      You see, I, too, do believe personal accounts BUT ONLY if they match the objective record. If opinions and objective records clash then I believe the objective records.

      And the record of Shavers speaks a clear language:
      Shavers was a big hitter against cruiserweight'ish opponents. Against modern-type heavyweight opponents (215+) he FAILED.
      Shavers was nothing special against these type of opponents back then, therefore he would be EVEN LESS successful nowadays.

      Therefore Larry Holmes' comparison of Tyson and Shavers is as stupid as Ali's statement that Shavers hits harder than Foreman.

      I personally believe that the main reason for the mis-assessment of Shavers' power lies in Shavers' limitedness. He would fight like a B-level fighter round after round and then SUDDENLY manage to hit you with a bomb. This fighting style would then fool opponents into thinking that Shavers "hits harder than anyone else".

      However record-wise spoken, Shavers would be an ultraheavyweight featherfist.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
      • Honza says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
        #3878 Honza (2012-04-18th)

        Tyson had beaten both Spinks and Nielsen so that means he was able to beat Larry too. This logic does not work all the time. Here are examples: George had beaten Joe and Ken within two rounds but failed to stop Muhammad who had a big problems with both (with George also). Evander Holyfield had beaten George and was unable to win over Moorer in the first fight. George koed Moorer. Lennox Lewis had problems to win over Mercer and yet was able to beat Holyfield who was better against Mercer. You once said that Wlad competed better than Lewis against three oponents (Rahman, Mercer,???) but you only count the first Lewis fight in case of Rahman. That means Robert Hellenius was better than Wlad against two oponents – Peter and Brewster (if we count only first Wlad fights with both). I hope you see my point.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 2.0/5 (1 vote cast)
        • Admin says:
          flag
          [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
          #3880 Admin (2012-04-18th)
          Tyson had beaten both Spinks and Nielsen so that means he was able to beat Larry too. This logic does not work all the time.

          Even worse. This logic basically never works and you hardly ever can conclude who beats whom.

          Therefore I don't use this logic except for comparing punching power.

          Here are examples: George had beaten Joe and Ken within two rounds but failed to stop Muhammad who had a big problems with both (with George also).

          Good example.

          However you _CAN_ conclude some things:

          Foreman's punching power > Ali's
          Ali's defence/chin > Joe's
          Ali's defence/chin > Ken's

          You see, Ken, Joe, George and Clay are the top tier boxers of their time thus you can not conclude who would win against whom. Every fight could go either way.

          However you can make deductions as to power/defence.

          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
    #3885 Honza (2012-04-21st)

    :wink: I have two questions for you. First: You like Wlad more than Vitali right? Second: Who you think would win if David Haye vs. Vitali Klitschko could hapenned? Sorry for my english.
    If you ask me: I like Wlad more because he is better boxer and has better discipline. I also think that Haye would be able to beat Vitali. He is very fast and can be very agressive (just like in his fight with Wlad).

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  • Mike Felber says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Pinu Lady]
    #4004 Mike Felber (2012-06-14th)

    There are many flaws in the reasoning on this site. 1st, the conflation of skills with punching power. Even something like "…record-wise spoken, Shavers would be a ultraheavyweight (sic) featherfist" is a massive confusion of terms. "Featherfist" implies light punching. To use the SUCCESS of a boxer to approximate power is pure folly for many reasons.

    1) Quality of opposition. The best prospects went into boxing far more often in the '60's/'70's than near today, where other sports claimed them/there was more opportunity.

    2) Endurance, skill, chin & heart are SOME of the major factors that determine who win. Somebody could just be less able to land clean & effective blows but hit harder.

    3)It has been correctly pointed out that the greats who said Ernie hit the hardest-check his wikipedia page-could have said that about anyone, no reason to credit it to Shavers. That Shavers was not so great a fighter-during the best boxing era-& they often beat him, especially when he ran out of steam, says NOTHING about how hard he could hit.

    4) Holmes fought until he was 135, so what? All reports including his own show he was not at his peak, afe & training wise, even when he fought Tyson. And he was intimidated then.

    5) Size is ONE way to pack power. That Shavers did worse against heavier guys does NOT show that bigger guys were better. It mainly reflects who was available.

    6) "Cherry picked" is a biased term here, since used inaccurately. It suggests that Shavers ducked fights. Wrong. Saying he did not do as well against bigger guys is NOT what cherry picking means. Also, you must see WHEN someone fought bigger guys. When past your prime you will do worse against the same quality of opponents.

    7) There seems to be a big Russian fighter favoritism here. Sure, some hate on the Klitchkos, Tyson-or Shavers, Ali, Frazier. But it is simply untrue that bigger = better. In the lower weights it matters greatly: forget about the tiny guys, you would not often see a 140 lb. guy beat a 160 lb. guy, all other things being =. There is a point of diminishing returns.

    So amongst HWs, it is possible that a guy ~ 200 lbs. could be amongst the best or the best ever-as could a 250 or 260 lb. fighter.

    But the overriding points here are that QUALITY of competition must be considered. Also the PEAK of each boxer: losing a lot when you fight a ton or after your peak does not say how good you were at your peak.

    But maybe most of all: size & overall SKILL, even IF against the same level of competition (& Shavers faced great competition at his peak) say NOTHINg about pure punching power.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  • JoeBugner says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Mone Rivu]
    #4013 JoeBugner (2012-06-27th)

    Hey just a heads up, they are talking about you on this website called sherdog. Here's the link, some of the arguments against your point are pretty weak, I don't have an account but it would be cool to see you shut it down since the argument of the last guy for example is a pathetic attempt to try and make himself seem intellectual. Here's the link.

    http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f53/controversial-fact-based-power-analysis-2127223/index2.html

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #4014 Admin (2012-06-27th)

      Cool. Thank you very much!

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  • Jethro Tull says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Gyto Texi]
    #4015 Jethro Tull (2012-06-27th)

    " Think of the Holmes-Mercer fight–that Holmes would have neaten Tyson. Mercer took better shots than Tyson did." says the poster above.

    "Shortly after having won the most satisfying victory of his career by decisioning Ray Mercer, Holmes said there was one man he would not fight, Mike Tyson., "

    Given that a 42 year old Holmes didn't want to face Mike Tyson, we can assume that Larry Holmes would have lost.

    "Mike Tyson wouldn't even be ranked in the top ten in the 1970's."

    The 1970's? This was a decade where such luminaries as Terry Daniels, Ron Stander, Jose Roman, Chuck Wepner, Joe Bugner, Jean-Pierre Coopman, Richard Dunn, Alfredo Evangelista (Twice) and Lorenzo Zanon all got title shots. To say that Tyson would not have been in the top 10 when most of these men were in the top 10 is just daft.

    Back to the title of this article – it should read Earnie Shavers 'huge puncher and rubbish finisher with a dodgy chin and ropey stamina'.

    I can believe that a single shot from Earnie Shavers was harder than one from Mike Tyson and possibly even George Foreman but Big George and Iron Mike were very good finishers and almost never let their man off the hook. The men this article quotes were not vulnerable to one-punch knockouts so Shavers couldn't knock them out.

    Shavers had huge one-punch power and that's it. He was by no stretch of the imagination a great fighter and that is why so many men climbed off the canvas to beat him and that's not counting his first round gubbing against Jerry Quarry.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #4016 Admin (2012-06-28th)

      Very well said!

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.0/5 (1 vote cast)
      • Bruce Crichton says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Zusa Tyvo]
        #4036 Bruce Crichton (2012-07-10th)

        Thanks very much

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • hernanday says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Tove Niku]
    #4621 hernanday (2012-09-20th)

    Vlad Klitschko never fought another top heavyweight, not one, he is the top bum fighter and worse yet occasionally these bums knock him out like puritty or Brewster or Sanders

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #4656 Admin (2012-09-20th)

      You're just another hater from America.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Tommo says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Xydo Kedi]
      #7641 Tommo (2014-10-26th)

      Yes admin,

      Not to mention factually completely wrong.

      By the time Wladimir was an established fighter, he fought nothing but past, current, future champs and/or top contenders and/or unbeaten or nearly unbeaten prospects.

      Previous champs could fight bum after bum and it was fine because the media was not up their ass, they did everything to promote them.

      Today the media scrutinises everything a top boxer does. Walcott lost a tonne of fights, Marciano never fought a proper decent HW, yet these guys are lauded. Today if a top boxer loses even a single fight they are apparently "exposed" or "bummified". It's ridiculous.

      The plain truth is, is that Wladimir IS NOT EVEN "ALLOWED" to face bums!

      Were Wladimir to face the same trash guys like Ali did, he would be publicallyh ridiculed. That's a fact. I believe admin you have already written an article about that subject though! ;)

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Vuga Jygo]
    #4968 Honza (2012-09-25th)

    You're just another hater from America.

    Who is hater from america? Guy who wrote comment above you is from Canada.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #4984 Admin (2012-09-25th)

      America is a continent, not a country.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
    #4988 Honza (2012-09-29th)

    We have Nord America and South America. So people from both continents are haters right? That only show how dumb you can be sometimes. You called canadian guy another american hater when there are plenty guys from canada that share same opinions with you.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Tommo says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
      #5715 Tommo (2013-03-27th)

      Could almost be viewed as slightly racist even ;) lol

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • morris says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Jaky Bove]
    #4990 morris (2012-09-29th)

    Earnie shavers was once asked in an interview about why he never faced foreman or frazier,shavers, responded saying'foreman and crazier wouldn't come near me,you can ask them the same thing today and they'd say the same thing. ' all those statistics u came up with are useless,and untrue

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #4991 Admin (2012-09-29th)

      So facts are untrue, but some excuse of Shavers why he never won the world title or became the mandatory is true?

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Tommo says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Xydo Kedi]
      #7642 Tommo (2014-10-26th)

      Shaver might score a knockout against the chinny useless Frazier. Hell Frazier used to get spanked in sparring with Norton whom Shaver wasted!

      But Foreman would have knocked the (also) chinny and weak Shaver into next week in a round or 2. No doubt.

      Shaver was a total bum. There can be no doubt about it!

      The only reason he played any relevance whatsoever is because it was an exceptionally bummy era the 70's! Fact!

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Tany Xone]
    #5279 Honza (2012-11-12th)

    EVERYONE of these guys was NOT KO'ed by Shavers. They all won against Shavers.

    Same goes for Vitali Klitschko and Hasim Rahman. Both theese guys had beaten Corrie Sanders and than said that he was hardest hitter they ever faced. They both get beaten by Lennox Lewis whow was indeed hardest hitter they ever faced.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #5280 Admin (2012-11-12th)

      If someone claims A > B and this is not supported by the record then I don't believe him.
      If someone claims A > B and this _is_ supported by the record then I _do_ believe his judgement.

      A nice example is Holmes vs Tyson, it was Holmes only KO loss in his career. And yet, directly after the fight he claims "others hit MUCH HARDER than Tyson".

      Hence I don't believe Holmes.

      On the other hand when Chris Byrd claims "Wlad hits harder than Vitali" then there is hardly any doubt that this is true, since Byrd was visibly Wlad's victim, just as Holmes was Tyson's. Actually the way how Tyson slaughtered both Holmes AND Michael Spinks shows you how featherfisted the previous eras were. But that's another story.

      It's not that I base any stats on such judgements, it's just that in the first case I do not believe it (and hence I take everything else from that person's mouth with a grain of salt).

      For example, Emanuel Steward makes judgements that correspond and are supported by the stats that I feature. Hence I am much more willing to listen to what Emanuel Stewards has to say than to what other trainers have to say.

      This doesn't influence any stats, but may influence the boxing quotes that I feature on my site in the Quotes Box. I filter out most of the quotes that collide with stats.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
      • Honza says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Zura Pyso]
        #5281 Honza (2012-11-12th)

        So I hope you agree with me that Vitali and Rahman are not saying the true because Lennox Lewis was in every way harder puncher than Corrie Sanders.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
        • Honza says:
          flag
          [ip2username: Zura Pyso]
          #5282 Honza (2012-11-12th)

          And one more thing to say. larry than survived match with Mercer and Mccall. Those two were consider as punchers. so please do not underrate boxers from 60s and 70s. I am now pointing on your: Actually the way how Tyson slaughtered both Holmes AND Michael Spinks shows you how featherfisted the previous eras were.
          Yes you based whole eras on two matches. But than in another article you for example defending Wlads ko loses because he lost only 3 times out of 60+ matches. I really do not like hwo you constantly pointing on Larrys loss to Mike. Larry had so many matches in his career and yet was stopped only once (other losses were on decision). And Let me show you some punchers he faced and beaten: Ken Norton, Gerry Cooney, Ray Mercer, Earnie Shavers even Butterbean could be consider a puncher. BOTTOM LINE: You can not condemned Larry(or his era) because one of his losses was TKO.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • Tommo says:
          flag
          [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
          #5716 Tommo (2013-03-27th)

          Well he seems to be silent about that, don't think he likes a taste of his own medicine. You and admin are both right. Vitali and Rahman pumped up Sanders, Ali and Holmes did so for Shavers. :)

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Jylo Geli]
    #5284 Honza (2012-11-13th)

    I like your quote: Dereck Chisora: Number 8 is my lucky number. Vitali is going down in the 8th round.

    Vitali Klitschko: You land on the floor in round number 6. So that's why your lucky number doesn't matter.

    They both failed to their predictions. assh*les. :)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Nady Sore]
    #5305 Honza (2012-11-19th)

    Actually the way how Tyson slaughtered both Holmes AND Michael Spinks shows you how featherfisted the previous eras were. But that's another story.

    No that is only your stupid opinion based on nothing but two matches. Larry had 75 matches and lost only once via Ko. That is what I call impressive chin. Same goes for Muhammad (one ko in 61 fights) and George (one ko in 81 fights). Wlad and Vitali have also good chins.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Tommo says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
      #5717 Tommo (2013-03-27th)

      Despite the fact Honza they did have lighter opposition, and particularly with George and Ali, extremely weak opposition, those statistics aren't that bad for the best boxers of their generations, despite that, they are still impressive records and shouldn't be overlooked. Holmes come out of retirement to fight Tyson in not the best form of his career and still made it to round 5. Not sure if he could have beaten Tyson but I feel prime Larry Holmes vs the version of Mike he fought, would have been a very competitive fight, one in which i'm confident Larry would have survived and ended his career never being KO'd. And Admin should NOT bring up Michael Spinks getting KO'd by Mike as proof of a featherfisted era, because Spinks was massively out gunned by Tyson, he was a skinny cruiser and was certain death, total mismatch!

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  • Tommo says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
    #5590 Tommo (2013-03-23rd)

    Yeah yeah Wlad can bash a tomato can like Shavers fine. His power was obviously overrated even in his era. Foreman would have battered him in 2 just like his other victims. So far though you have only written articles comparing Klitschko to fighters he could obviously defeat. Let's do some more articles matching him up to modern heavies like Tyson. I'd like you to do an in depth analysis of Wladimir vs Lewis. Whether Wlad would be in favour or not the competition would be so close that you will not be able to rely on simple exposure of older fighters obvious flaws/restrictions. Even the nostalgic ppl on this site who really believe these golden age fighters stand a chance would still be curious as to how you'd write such an article.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Tommo says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
      #5637 Tommo (2013-03-24th)

      And since we're talking about the power of Shavers here, let's be honest. George Foreman, David Tua, Mike Tyson, Tommy Morrison, Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, both Klitschko's, Lamon Brewster, Hasim Rahman and Nicolay Valuev and practically all of the modern power punchers who weren't champs all must have hit harder than Shavers. Look at them punch on video, they KO real heavyweights, Shavers didn't. Shavers doesn't even look as powerful.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  • John James says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Wady Vole]
    #6252 John James (2013-06-08th)

    LOL @ this entire article !

    LOL @ all the time and effort put forth to prove that Ernie Shavers is a pillow fist….and yet such poor logic and thinking were used in arriving to this conclusion not to mention such a poor understanding of the very basics of boxing make this whole heap of sh*t hilarious.

    So Shavers is proven as a featherweight because he failed to KO Larry Holmes but Tyson KO'd him easily.

    Wow. Really ? Is this really the basis for your conclusions ? Do you actually claim to understand boxing ? Really ?

    Did you ever think it was possible that Shavers was born with more raw KO power than Tyson or Foreman…but that he just might not be as talented a boxer ?

    Maybe Tyson was just a wee bit better at setting up the punches, blending defense, and landing accurately ???

    Did you ever think that maybe it was completely possible that Shavers was lacking in terms of pure boxing talent, ability to move and evade, had poor stamina, and a poor chin for a HW….and yet still possess the most one punch clean KO power ?

    the question is not who is the best boxer…Ali is a legend, but not for his one shot KO power. He didn't possess it…but he could beat bigger punchers….Well, Ernie was the biggest puncher. If you lined up him, Foreman, and Tyson and let them all take a free shot on your arm or face….Shavers would hit you the hardest. However he wasn' :lol: t the best boxer, lacked defense, stamina, and couldn't take a punch like Ali.

    Nobody ever said Shavers was the best boxer or the best at setting up and landing a clean KO punch….KO rates aren't just about raw power, but having the ability to box into that position and land clean and accurately while not getting beaten in the process.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 2.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  • John James says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Wady Vole]
    #6253 John James (2013-06-08th)

    lol

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Tommo says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Loze Xivu]
    #6399 Tommo (2013-07-29th)

    John James who the hell did Shavers ever knock out with one of these devastating punches to prove he was anywhere near as hard a puncher as Tyson, Foreman, Klitschkos, Lewis or even a more mundane figure like Tommy Morrison?

    NOBODY! Only decent opponent that got KO'd by Shavers was Ken Norton. A chandelier on legs. Holmes and Ali got up off the floor to beat Shavers. Holmes who later got proper KO'd by Tyson.

    He looks uncoordinated and he only weighs a soft 190lbs. The modern punchers weigh 215-245 and punch with excellent technique. In purely raw punch power terms, Shavers could not punch through the surface tension of water compared to these guys!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Honza says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Dawy Koge]
      #6520 Honza (2013-09-27th)

      Only decent opponent that got KO'd by Shavers was Ken Norton. A chandelier on legs.
      Carl Carl. I think Kens chin was not that bad but he fought foolishly against Shavers (same against Cooney… he looked like he forgot all his boxing skills and just try to ko them early).
      In purely raw punch power terms, Shavers could not punch through the surface tension of water compared to these guys! I think there is no real evidence of who hits harder but I think Earnie was strong puncher but bad boxer.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • flag
    [ip2username: Gode Bitu]
    #6537 neoimperialist (2013-10-24th)

    ….My comment is, people can provide many sort of their own perspective. But you can only analyse things of this nature if you are yourself a professional heavyweight division boxer. If not, the analysis that your gave is merely a nuisance or a senseless chat…just your perception…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • roy says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Nagy Tose]
    #7088 roy (2014-04-05th)

    Earnie Shavers split his glove open from the force of a hard punch he landed on Colombian Bernardo Mercado :-D (Check it http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:44643 )

    Earnie shavers=Featherfist 8-O

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Jethro Tull says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Juga Sybo]
    #7482 Jethro Tull (2014-08-03rd)

    Shavers is at it again in the myth-making. In this month's Boxing Monthly magazine, he reckons that he'd have beaten Mike Tyson and that Lennox Lewis would have been creamed in the 70s.

    The evidence indicates that Tyson would massacre him in the first round and that Tyson would have to be extremely washed up before Shavers would have a hope in hell.

    One-punch power is not the key to beating Mike Tyson who could always take a punch while Shavers never could.

    Lewis would have done very well in the 70s and only a young George Foreman would have a hope in hell against him.

    Shavers also thinks that he'd have beaten George Foreman. Big George would beat him in the first round as well.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Tommo says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Vilu Zaky]
      #7492 Tommo (2014-08-28th)

      Even back THEN he was sh*t LOL.

      Forget those guys, I reckon guys like Arreola or Grant would have pulverised him.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Lamont Wilson says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Mymo Vemi]
    #7609 Lamont Wilson (2014-10-18th)

    This guy is hilarious. Clearly he is some Klitschko nutt hugger trying to build up the fighter he beats off too.

    Wlad couldn't even hurt never mind knock out David Haye a blown up cruiserweight. Numerous fighters came in weighing over 215 vs Wlad but then you realize they started off a light heavyweight or cruiser weight.

    Look at how many washed up fighters Wlad has fought in his career. A washed up Hasim Rahman, Axel Schulz, Ray Mercer ect ect ect.

    Look at all of the bums Wlad fights. Ray Austin, Ross Purity who knocked him out, Jameel McCline, Sam Pater, Phil Jackson and you can go on and on and on. In fact even guys like Corrie Sanders weren't anything special. Corrie was knocked out in a few rounds by Tony Tubbs for crying out loud.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Tommo says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Xydo Kedi]
      #7671 Tommo (2014-11-03rd)

      David Haye is possibly the fastest, one of the most agile and possesses some of the greatest reflexes of any HW boxer of all time. He also backs up these qualities with a cracker punch.

      Of all the former CW's that have ever stepped up to HW, only 2 are very special.

      Evander Holyfield and David Haye.

      Haye carried his power. Evander carried his chin. Most carry neither to HW.

      The problem is not being a former CW when WK fought them. The only sub natura HW opponents WK fights are the ones who were extremely good sub 200 in the first place. When past champs fought, they fought ACTUAL CW's and sub cruisers.

      Wladimir Klitschko fought among the best resumes of opposition of any real HW boxer of all time.

      The only 3 that rival are Lennox Lewis, Vitali Klitschko and Evander Holyfied. But Evander LOST to a lot of his HW opponents.

      Other champs fought lesser opposition.

      And guys like Muhammad and Louis fought garbage men by comparison.

      Facts!

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Rajarshi Mitra says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Pone Kiu]
    #7673 Rajarshi Mitra (2014-11-03rd)

    Well, the so called 'SUPER HEAVYWEIGHTS' of this era would still be in the heavyweight division of that era. But still we don't see too much so called 'SUPER HEAVYWEIGHT' domination in the golden era except for George Foreman mainly. There had been guys like Ron Lyle or Cleveland Williams but non dominant than their so call 'FEATHERWEIGHT' counterparts.

    So it is better to assume that the heavyweight division was far more competitive than today. Seriously Mr. Author name any 5 super heavyweight of this era and see how many people have heard of them(boxing fans I'm talking about) and I would say that Ali could have KO ed Wladimir Klitschko. Rocky Marciano would send him to hospital. And if he would have fought your 'FEATHERWEIGHTS' like Joe Frazier he would know he didn't have a big enough trouble in his career.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Tommo says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Bole Ligu]
      #7710 Tommo (2014-11-26th)

      George Foreman 220lbs, 6'3" tall, LESS than the AVERAGE HW today, now 227lbs and 15bs less than the 235+lb AVERAGE of WK's opponents! Lyle was even further challenged. Cleveland Willams was the same height but nothing but a string bean! These are not superheavyweights at all!

      Nothing like a modern Super existed then at all! Only since the 1990's have we had boxers that could be graced with that label.

      Any boxer like George etc even approaching that size could BARELY EVEN BOX!

      Kubrat Pulev
      Alexandr Povetkin
      Samuel Peter
      Deontay Wilder
      Anthony Joshua

      there's a quick 5 who every boxing fan knows about now (unless your living in a nursing home and don't have a boxing scene account!)

      Muhammad Ali never scored a KO against any decent opponent besides Foreman who didn't even learn how to box until he was 40, which was nothing more than a gas.

      Rocky Marciano never even fought a proper HW who wasn't an absolute bum!

      If any of Wladimir's top 10 OPPONENTS lined up Muhammad Ali, Rocky MArciano, Joe Louis, JAck Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Sonny Liston, every champ in between and all of their oppoennts, guess what..

      They would knock every sigle one of them straight out!

      Everybody knows it!

      Yesterdays champions… Would be todays tomato cans.

      Todays bums, would be yesterdays champions.

      How f*cking STUPID to assume otherwise!

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      • Honza says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Nasy Voke]
        #7778 Honza (2014-12-29th)

        Yeah Larry Holmes was such a tomato can when he had beaten Mercer right? And George was such a tomato can when he had beaten Moorer.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • Tommo says:
          flag
          [ip2username: Newi Luba]
          #7786 Tommo (2015-01-02nd)

          I made no mention of Holmes or Foreman. I purposely omitted them.

          It's obvious that when Foreman and Holmes took it to the 90's boxers they were much heavier than their younger days (Larry Holmes 235lbs, Geroge Foreman 260lbs)

          And they were the most experienced HW's in boxing at that time also.

          Weight+Expereince compensated much for their failing Speed+Athleticism.

          Fact!

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
          • Honza says:
            flag
            [ip2username: Lymo Teji]
            #7814 Honza (2015-02-06th)

            But those two guys were at at their prime when they fought in late 70s. Larry maybe in early 80s. So they were bigger but also slower and in case of Larry probably with weaker punch in 90s. So you can say anything you want but those two were good and never were anywhere close to be labelled as bums (in any era they fought).
            Also worth to mention that you once claimed that Arreola (your favorite) would ko Deontay (my favorite). There is that possibility always. But I think he could not. He was badly beaten by Stiverne who was lucky to survive whole match with Deontay.
            That Fact!! is getting annoying Carl. :)

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
            • Tommo says:
              flag
              [ip2username: Lapy Vose]
              #7848 Tommo (2015-03-08th)

              Arreola, Wilder and Stiverne picks are simple opinions, these are all comparable boxers..

              Facts here are..

              – Arreola was pasting Stiverne 2ce in both fights until he got tagged by that counter-right hand, problem being he is not defensive enough to avoid it on the attack.

              – Stiverne was diagnosed with a severe medical condition in the Wilder fight.

              – I don't know if a healthy Stiverne would have beat Wilder, if Arreola could avoid the counter right and beat Stiverne in another fight or Arreola could in fact beat Wilder.

              – There is only one thing I can say for certain.. Arreola would perform much better against Wilder than the version of Stiverne that showed up.

              NOW onto the Holmes/Foreman business.

              – I never once claimed Foreman or Holmes were bummy at all.

              – You call 70's Foreman and early 80's Holmes "prime". I think it is there "athletic prime" but I feel their overall primes were possibly in the 90's! That's when they fought and beat their best opponents, that was when they were not only strongest but also their most experienced.

              Again.. Holmes and Foreman were 2 of the physically largest (Foreman possibly THE strongest) and by far the 2 most experienced boxers in the whole era of the 90's.

              – YOUR prime versions of these guys lost to featherfists and bums like Ali and Young, cruisers like Spinks and struggled badly with boxers like Witherspoon, Norton and Lyle. And no young Holmes was not a strong puncher, he was only powerful really against smaller or bummy opponents.

              VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
              Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Dan says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Bewi Xuza]
    #7862 Dan (2015-05-20th)

    The problem with this analysis is simply that knockouts are dependent on the ability to dominate an opponent and “finish” him. The majority of KOs are not one punch explosions. Shavers was a limited boxer without the footwork to allow him to cut off the ring against taller, larger opponents (Tyson, for example, was masterful at his best at timing and cutting off the ring so that opponents couldn’t escape when hurt; he also was very fast with both hands, which Shavers was not). He had many one-punch knockdowns, but most opponents were able to box their way to safety due to Shavers’ limited “finishing” ability. Another anecdote to add to the legend of Shaver’s power (which NO opponent disagrees with – there is no alternate to the stories): he was the first choice to play Clubber Lang in Rocky III. Stallone was unable to handle the pain of the PRETEND punches Shavers landed in the simulated boxing scenes, and Stallone trained with many full-fledged pros. So, the more obvious answer is that Shavers is as heavy a one-punch puncher as he is reputed to be, but has limited knockouts due to limited boxing ability.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Chuck says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Duta Sywo]
    #7864 Chuck (2015-05-27th)

    Well this is a fun read but the fact is punching power does not = KOs. Ali took all of Foreman's shots and knocked him out, nobody would say Ali was a harder puncher than Foreman. Ali says Foreman was one of the hardest punchers (but according to your statistics, this doesn't count because Foreman didn't KO Ali). Frazier was a hard puncher, Ali went how many rounds with him and got knocked down once? There are many examples which prove power doesn't always equate to KOs, especially against the higher skilled, top fighters.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • David says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Rode Lilu]
    #7903 David (2015-06-30th)

    Don't really rate Earnie Shavers, but I thought I would have an objective look at his KO stats and see if he should be considered a power puncher, or not. I have excluded his last three fights in his second career for fairness, so I can compare him to Wladimir and Foreman's first career.

    Earnie Shavers
    Sub 200 pounds. 200-214 pounds. 215-229 pounds. 230+ pounds
    28/31. 20/25. 6/12. 5/6
    90%. 80%. 50%. 84%

    Wladimir
    Sub 215 pounds. 215-229 pounds. 230+ pounds
    6/8. 14/19. 34/38
    75%. 74%. 89%

    Foreman's first career
    Sub 200 pounds. 200-214 pounds. 215-229 pounds. 230+ pounds
    13/16. 12/14. 8/9. 3/3
    81%. 86%. 89%. 100%

    Now first off I am not saying Earnie Shavers is a great boxers by any means, but he is a good boxer and you can see why he is considered a power puncher. There is clearly an unusual drop in the 215-229 category to 50%, but one of the reason for this drop his because he fought Ali, Ken Norton and Ron Lyle who were all in the 215-229 category. If you exclude those fights his record would be a not so bad 67% KO rate. Objectively Earnie Shavers is not a great fighter, but is clearly a power puncher. Also you can see from these stats a young George Foreman beate Shavers in all but the sub 200 pound category, and beats Wladimir decisively in every weight category.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Paul says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Newi Xupa]
    #7906 Paul (2015-07-06th)

    Since we are comparing average stats within modern standards, and you created all of these areas in which you came up with percentages heavily favoring the Klitschko's (who I am a HUGE fan of, by the way), why are you not taking into account average size of heavyweights as a whole back then compared to today, or other factors such as knowledge of anatomy and physiology and medicine? In any real scientific study I have read comparing strengths and ratios between either different eras, beings, or even economies, the numbers are ALWAYS formulaicly put into a form that is FAIRLY comparable. Of COURSE people will on average be more wealthy in modern times than during a time in the past if you just count the dollars but that doesn't mean nearly as much, because the VALUE of that dollar has changed so greatly through the years. A less perfect example is you compare an ant to a human in strength by how many pounds they can lift, a human will be MUCH stronger, right? Now compare them by how much they can lift relative to bodyweight, things are a little different. The average pro heavyweight was much smaller back in shavers' day, they didn't have the same facilities or knowledge (or even ped's) that exist today. You would have to create an equivalency for everything to TRULY be fair. Even that isn't fair, because we have NO idea what might have been were factors all the same. Unless you have a time machine (in which case, yes, whoever you favor from this era would kick ass back in time, but that would also be unfair because of the previously mentioned advantages of modern society to the professional boxer) there is NO way to say "this guy was better than anyone will ever be", or "this guy would beat the best from back then", because we can't account for all factors. I f*cking HATE fanboys, on any side, especially people creating improper scientific comparisons. Why can't people just talk about how GOOD their man is, instead of trying to sh*t on everyone else's.

    For the record, just cause it needs to be said, the stats you came up with are not an absolute measure of punching power. How hard you hit doesn't mean a goddamn thing if you can't land on your opponent. Inversely, if you have the most pathetic taps in the world, but can exhaust your opponent and land accurately at the PERFECT spot on the chin repetitively, you can STILL knock them out, so although it does OFTEN show that someone can hit hard, it often doesn't, too.

    No hate over here by the way, just don't like the fanboying of anybody, you're probably a chill, knowledgeable dude. :-)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Paul says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Newi Xupa]
    #7907 Paul (2015-07-06th)

    I see others have already answered similarly. Sorry for not reading more comments before repeating their own information :D

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

  • Write a comment

    :wink: :twisted: :roll: :oops: :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :evil: :cry: :arrow: :?: :-| :-x :-o :-P :-D :-? :-) :( :!: 8-O 8-)
    Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Cookies