How good was earnie shavers?

[fg2227]

What do you guys think, Could he have been champ in another era?

[MRBILL]

Doubtful.................... UNLESS! Shavers lands his haymaker right on his victims button early on....... However, even then it's iffy to say..... Aside from Jimmy Ellis and Ken Norton, Earnie Shavers NEVER really KO'd a top-notch opponent for a win.... Shavers padded his KO percentage by kayoing "B" & "C" fighters mixed in with a few bums and stiffs along the way...... Plus, Shavers' boxing skills and technique was below par for the most part...... A really cool and gracious guy who was strong as an Ox, but just not a really great boxer / fighter...

MR.BILL

[Bill1234]

He was a good fighter who's lack of stamina, technique, and speed failed him against the top tier opposition for the most part.

[Jorodz]

He was a good fighter who's lack of stamina, technique, and speed failed him against the top tier opposition for the most part.

pretty much sums it up.

shavers will be remembered for having the hardest single punch in heavyweight history. that's it. he was within 2 seconds of winning the title against holmes but other than the punch, he lacked any sort of elite skills or qualities. if he had better training, who knows how far he could have gone. as it stands, all anyone ever taught or told him was to throw the right

[he grant]

He actually had pretty solid technique. This is from Teddy Atlas, not me. However his trouble was always proper conditioning and a B chin. He took the bombs of Ali and Holmes well enough but his vulnerability was exposed v.s. Quarry.

If Shavers was well trained and well conditioned he could have been a terror for a long time. His power was real not overated. Ali has said Shavers was the hardest puncher he ever faced on multiple occassions. Ron Lyle said he hit harder than Foreman. Holmes said he hit harder than Tyson. That's pretty serious.

[TheGreatA]

Shavers nearly won the title against two of the greatest heavyweight champions who ever lived, Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes, so I'd say he has a fair chance of winning the title in another era. He wouldn't be a dominant champion but he would be a threat to anybody throughout boxing history.

[Jorodz]

Shavers nearly won the title against two of the greatest heavyweight champions who ever lived, Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes, so I'd say he has a fair chance of winning the title in another era. He wouldn't be a dominant champion but he would be a threat to anybody throughout boxing history.

the ali fight was MUCH closer than is usually portrayed. really shavers had a very good account of himself

[junior-soprano]

hmm i think that everything on him was average, not bad at all but also not great. except for his awesome power. but awesome power alone doesn't make you a champ.

[MRBILL]

Shavers was in great shape when he challenged Ali and Holmes for the title in 1977 and '79....... Shavers was solid with all muscle........ But, as usual, his stamina and wild punching betrayed him and he lost both fights......... Shavers was never the same after the second loss to Holmes by TKO.......... The 1980s version of Shavers was an aging war-horse hanging on for additional income... Peace....

MR.BILL

[rodney]

Not good enough.
Just watch Shavers/Quarry.
Then comment.

[My2Sense]

Not good enough.
Just watch Shavers/Quarry.
Then comment.

Why "just watch" that fight?

Why not just watch his blowouts of Norton or Ellis, both of whom were good enough to win titles in his day?

Or how about his fight with Ali, which many people thought he could've/should've won? (which would mean he actually should've been a champ even in his own era)

[Rock0052]

What do you guys think, Could he have been champ in another era?

Matched smartly, I believe Shavers could've been. He'd never have been the type to be able to consistently defend it vs top 10 fighters, but in a one-shot scenario, I don't see why he couldn't have at least picked up an ABC title. The first name that would pop up in my mind, of course, would be Norton, who should've regained the title 2 1/2 years prior to the Shavers fight fight had he not been jobbed vs Ali. I'm normally opposed to the idea of a fighter being awarded a world title over the phone, but it struck me as just desserts when Norton got awarded one of the very belts that he rightfully should've been awarded in the ring.

Norton then promptly lost that title vs Holmes in his first defense (shortly before Ken would go on to fight Earnie), which is the crux of my point: if Shavers had gotten to Norton before Holmes did, it's quite possible and in my mind pretty friggin' likely he'd have been able to win the title in his own era. That probably speaks more to how overrated the late 70's were for Heavyweight boxing than anything given how beatable Shavers himself was, but it's still a reasonable stretch that more fortunate timing for him would've meant him becoming champion.

So, I absolutely think Earnie Shavers could've been a "one and done" champ or possibly have a couple successful handpicked defenses before he lost his title, even with his shortcomings. He was damned close to doing it without even "what if"-ing him into a different era.

[ChrisPontius]

What do you guys think, Could he have been champ in another era?

No.

[Unforgiven]

Of course he could have been champion in other eras.

He could have been champion in his own era, but a prime Larry Holmes denied him.
He wouldn't have to face a prime Holmes in an eliminator in every era, and Norton's not the only fighter he's capable of beating.
Even in his own era I'd probably favour him against Leon Spinks, and he's got a good chance against John Tate too.

I'd give him a good chance against the Patterson who lost to Johansson. I'd give him a good chance against Johansson.
I'd give him a good chance against Jimmy Braddock, Max Baer, Primo Carnera, Michael Moorer, Hasim Rahman and the Lennox Lewis who lost to him.
I'd give him a good chance against several of the "alphabet" champions of recent years.
etc. etc. etc.

[The Kurgan]

Could he have been a champion? Sure. Could he has reigned for any period of time? No. He was much too vulnerable and inconsistent to dominate the division for any length of time. Sluggers like Shavers rarely last long at the top.

[TheGreatA]

I really don't think people should judge Shavers based on his performance against Quarry.

He was surely exposed in that fight but he came back better for it in my opinion. Shavers had fought for maybe 3 or 4 years at that point and hadn't exactly been in there against great opposition aside from Ellis whom he blew out in one round (after being hurt).

Against Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Ron Lyle, Roy Williams, Howard Smith and Henry Clark he displayed a solid chin in my opinion although he never truly improved on his stamina problems except maybe in the Ali fight.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[mr. magoo]

Shavers was a good fighter who blew hot and cold, depending on how he showed up and how he matched up with the stylistic traits of his opposition. The Jerry Quarry fight was a rare instance in which he just got caught in a flurry early on, and wasn't let off the hook. I don't know how the hell he lost to Bob Stallings, but I guess shit happens. At his best, he was a reasonably good contender from about 1975-1979.

To answer the question of the thread, I don't see very many eras where he would have been champ, but I can see him catching an unsuspecting titlist on the wrong night and finishing him. Had Floyd Patterson been in there on the night that Earnie nearly dethroned a peak Holmes, I think it would have been over with.

[rodney]

Why "just watch" that fight?

Why not just watch his blowouts of Norton or Ellis, both of whom were good enough to win titles in his day?

Or how about his fight with Ali, which many people thought he could've/should've won? (which would mean he actually should've been a champ even in his own era)

Like I said.
Just watch Quarry/Shavers.
Quarry took him apart in One --- so easy.

[Russell]

He never beat any world class opposition and won... Except the time that he did. :lol:

50 plus fights in 5 years.

Beat Ken Norton and Jimmy Ellis in a combined 2 rounds. Beat Mercado and Sims. Beat Jimmy Young dropping him in both their fights, stopping him in their first. Shaver's is one of the only men among a myriad of bangers to ever stop Young. Cooney couldn't even get Young off his feet despite Young being fat and having his fucking brains beaten in.

Chased a Foreman fight for decades and was shot down every time.

Came within a pubic hair of beating Ron Lyle, Ali, and Holmes, some of the best the 70's had to offer.

Roy Williams and Sims were much avoided 70's fighters and he beat them both.

Fought in four separate decades until he was 50 years old.

A b-level fighter no doubt but to act as if his record is made of fluff is no more legitimate then bitching about Chavez's early career, who also went on to fight world class opposition.

Also one of the most dangerous b-level fighters ever. Just feel he deserves a bit more respect then he gets, as if he didn't fit into the talent packed 70's.

[The Wanderer]

In the right era and against the right champ/titleholder, sure. As several have said though, it's highly doubtful he could have reigned for long, (maybe one or two successful defenses) before inconsistency or someone with better fundamentals would have come along and beat him.

That sort of power, regardless of anything else, is always a danger at any time. Ask Larry Holmes. If Holmes were any less great or had even the slightest less heart/recovery powers, Shavers would have taken his title.

[Bummy Davis]

Shavers had an excellent punch but along with that had shakey stamina and was not a top quality fighter...I rate him with the many dangerous punchers like Bob Satterfeild but not sure Earnie had the skill level of Bob....he had a punchers chance to bne champ but in a real competitive era would he make it to the # 1 contender

[My2Sense]

Like I said.
Just watch Quarry/Shavers.
Quarry took him apart in One --- so easy.

So what? Shavers just as easily picked apart Norton and Ellis in one each - and they were good enough to be champs.

[My2Sense]

He could have been champion in his own era, but a prime Larry Holmes denied him.


Good point there.

If he hadn't been matched with Holmes in an eliminator, or if he somehow managed to beat Holmes, then he would've fought Norton for the title - and we saw what that result would've been.

[Zakman]

Shavers nearly won the title against two of the greatest heavyweight champions who ever lived, Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes, so I'd say he has a fair chance of winning the title in another era. He wouldn't be a dominant champion but he would be a threat to anybody throughout boxing history.

I think this is absolutely correct. Was Shavers an all-time great? Certainly not. But he's a lot better than some seem to think. His power alone - which as others have said, was no joke - would make him a threat against anybody in the early going.

[time lost]

What do you guys think, Could he have been champ in another era? NO!!!!!!!!!!:nono

[KTFO]

What do you guys think, Could he have been champ in another era?


Champ...Yes. Undisputed...No.

[junior-soprano]

no.. it's as simple as that. nothing wrong with earnie shavers, but the only outstanding thing was his power. all the rest (defense, boxing technique, speed, stamina and so on) are all average to good. and to be a champ you have to be great with at least somethings

[Muchmoore]

People saying he couldn't be champ are insane.

Yes, Earnie really only had a big punch, but if you're going to have something that's what you want. He is the definition of the word dangerous, and basically the definition of a heavyweight as well. Slow, plodding, but has monster power. Actually though, Shavers was fairly quick and had under rated speed.

I can see Earnie beating anyone, and if he was prime from 80 onward I can see him picking up a belt. Guys like Rahman would of been dusted by him.

[KTFO]

Found some footage at YouTube. Shavers' body-head-combos are pretty fast. He definantoly got speed, but was a 4-rounder. Shavers was a typical slugger who lacked boxing skills. But if you think about it, so was Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson.

chIurKnmX60

[The Kurgan]

He definantoly got speed, but was a 4-rounder. Shavers was a typical slugger who lacked boxing skills. But if you think about it, so was Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson.


No.

Tyson and Frazier could out-work you over 12 rounds as well as KO you. To go forward against a taller fighter and throw punches without getting hit requires an unbelievable amount of skill.

Liston had an ATG jab; combination punching in his prime; and was not easy to hit cleanly. Liston could outbox opponents as well as knock them out.

Foreman was a crude slugger and accordingly had a short reign. Look at any division and look for a long-reigning dominant champion with Shavers' style: you will not find one. The closest example would be Julian Jackson, though he only looked crude next to very good boxers.

People who think Shavers could have been a dominant champion and ruled the division in heavyweight history are just taking their appreciation of the 1960s and 1970s- the greatest era of heavyweight boxing- too far.

[janitor]

What do you guys think, Could he have been champ in another era?

I guess that Jimmy Braddock and Leon Spinks could have been champion in another era but with a measure of luck.

So the answer is yes, if he met the right champion on the right day.

[Russell]

Shavers had an excellent punch but along with that had shakey stamina and was not a top quality fighter...I rate him with the many dangerous punchers like Bob Satterfeild but not sure Earnie had the skill level of Bob....he had a punchers chance to bne champ but in a real competitive era would he make it to the # 1 contender

And Shaver's had a better chin then Satterfield, no doubt.

I'd love to see Satterfield get up off the floor after Simms or Mercado unloaded on him. :tired

[KTFO]

Shavers had a pretty unlucky fight-schedule. If he fought that Ken Norton who grabbed the title from M.Ali he could've been champ.

[zadfrak]

Well they sure didn't match Earnie with too many punchers after that Quarry embarrassment. Just Lyle and Shavers was put down face first in that one. Most of his opponents were untested fringe guys like Howard Smith and that ilk. And nobody thought of Smith as a high pedigreed fighter.

[junior-soprano]

Found some footage at YouTube. Shavers' body-head-combos are pretty fast. He definantoly got speed, but was a 4-rounder. Shavers was a typical slugger who lacked boxing skills. But if you think about it, so was Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson.

chIurKnmX60

well i TOTALLY DISAGREE with you as it comes to tyson and most of all liston.. liston was a way better boxer then people tend to think

[JohnThomas1]

What's say Earnie got a fight in with Leaon Spinks right after he won the title.

How do them apples fall?

[TheGreatA]

What's say Earnie got a fight in with Leaon Spinks right after he won the title.

How do them apples fall?

I imagine Shavers could have been a champ then.

Well they sure didn't match Earnie with too many punchers after that Quarry embarrassment. Just Lyle and Shavers was put down face first in that one. Most of his opponents were untested fringe guys like Howard Smith and that ilk. And nobody thought of Smith as a high pedigreed fighter.What punchers should he have fought? He wanted Foreman, he fought Lyle, a brawl that could have gone Shavers' way as well, he fought Ken Norton, Roy Williams and Larry Holmes.

Howard Smith was still a highly rated contender by the Ring Magazine and Shavers walked right through him.

[The Kurgan]

What's say Earnie got a fight in with Leaon Spinks right after he won the title.

How do them apples fall?

He wins, then either loses to Holmes or faces John Tate and/or Mike Weaver at some point.

Which gives me an excellent idea for a poll! Cheers. :good

[KTFO]

well i TOTALLY DISAGREE with you as it comes to tyson and most of all liston.. liston was a way better boxer then people tend to think


Liston: natural slugger who 'tried' to box at times. Throwing some jabs doesn't make you a 'boxer' stylewise.

Tyson: natural slugger with quick body-head-combos, but lack of patience. A textbook 4-rounder and pressure-fighter.

[Tony_Jones]

I met him once wen he was workin the doors at Yates in Liverpool here in the UK. Absolute gentleman, think he was kinda surprised anybody knew who he was. seemed smaller height wise than i'd imagined lol still built like a house tho lol

[JohnThomas1]

He wins, then either loses to Holmes or faces John Tate and/or Mike Weaver at some point.

Which gives me an excellent idea for a poll! Cheers. :good

Yeah, i think Leon's agressive style and Earnies own little skillset would get The Acorn home.

[rodney]

So what? Shavers just as easily picked apart Norton and Ellis in one each - and they were good enough to be champs.

That would make Quarry a much better Champ.
Shavers looked like Dogmeat against him.
Baaad.

[KTFO]

That would make Quarry a much better Champ.
Shavers looked like Dogmeat against him.
Baaad.


Quarry had a chin that day. Something Shavers lacked in general.
Shavers hit him with some good punches, but Quarry took them without a blink.
Too bad for glass-jaw Shavers.

[punk]

He could be champ today, i think he would give all the beltholders a very tough fight. Imagine him landing flush on Wlad.

[Russell]

Anyone saying Howard Smith wasn't touted at the time is dead wrong, the commentators, Quarry included, showed that very clearly.

Watch the actual fight.

[Dempsey1238]

He actually had pretty solid technique. This is from Teddy Atlas, not me. However his trouble was always proper conditioning and a B chin. He took the bombs of Ali and Holmes well enough but his vulnerability was exposed v.s. Quarry.

If Shavers was well trained and well conditioned he could have been a terror for a long time. His power was real not overated. Ali has said Shavers was the hardest puncher he ever faced on multiple occassions. Ron Lyle said he hit harder than Foreman. Holmes said he hit harder than Tyson. That's pretty serious.


Not sure I take some of these fighters words face vaule.

Holmes was knockout by Tyson, were Shavers only got a kd. Stop or not Holmes was not getting up vs Tyson.

Lyle was also ko by Foreman in a sea saw battle, Lyle also ko Shavers.

Holmes and Lyle were able to take Shaver's punchings, but failed to take the best what Tyson and Foreman had.

[TheGreatA]

Not sure I take some of these fighters words face vaule.

Holmes was knockout by Tyson, were Shavers only got a kd. Stop or not Holmes was not getting up vs Tyson.

Lyle was also ko by Foreman in a sea saw battle, Lyle also ko Shavers.

Holmes and Lyle were able to take Shaver's punchings, but failed to take the best what Tyson and Foreman had.

The difference between Tyson and Shavers was that Tyson fought a near 40 year old Holmes and was a much better finisher than Shavers.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
2:18

Lyle was pretty much out but saved by the bell in the 2nd round.

[Cheese]

What do you guys think, Could he have been champ in another era?
Frazier was probably the hardest hitters in boxing, but he had nothing else to offer. He was pretty much garbage. Jerry Quarry took him out in the 1st round of their fight.

[Hydraulix]

Frazier was probably the hardest hitters in boxing, but he had nothing else to offer. He was pretty much garbage. Jerry Quarry took him out in the 1st round of their fight.

Frazier? Err...don't you mean Earnie Shavers?

[zadfrak]

Anyone saying Howard Smith wasn't touted at the time is dead wrong, the commentators, Quarry included, showed that very clearly.

Watch the actual fight.

I saw the fight. At the time. I went to a bunch of Shavers fights. Smith was a guy barely on the radar screen and was hardly perceived to be a can't miss type prospect or anything. He was a regional fighter and he was making a huge step up in class. Stan Ward was a bigger name at the time and considered to be the better prospect.

Just how many announcers out there really go ahead and say a bout is a mismatch anyway? And stand behind those opinoins? They build up both guys and try to give the impression it's a competitive bout. it's called hyperbole. Guys like Smith/Shavers or "terrific" Pedro Agusto/Foreman does not necessarily mean the overall opinion of these guys matches what the announcers are saying..

[Stevie G]

Hardest right hand in boxing history,probably. That was about it. His skills were no more than rudimentary. In spite of that,he would probably win a belt if he were active in the current era.

[Duodenum]

Yes, Shavers could have become a titleholder during some of the weaker periods in the division's history, but with only a couple successful title defenses at most. (This is assuming he doesn't get the "Bum of the Month Club" windfall Louis enjoyed.) The fact remains that he did starch a pair of title claimants within a single round, ending their time as highly viable contenders.

A real case can be made that Earnie should have been the undisputed transitional champion between Ali and Holmes. Although Shavers was just three years younger than Ali, the version of Earnie who challenged him for the title was the best prepared edition to step foot in the ring. He jabbed his way to a ten round decision win over Henry Clark in their first meeting the year before, and Clark was a tough and talented, if defensively limited boxer. (This first match with Clark would make for interesting viewing, as Earnie had the reach to make good use of a jab. Along with underestimated handspeed, he has extremely long arms for a man of his height.)

By the end of the 1976, he also extended himself mightily over ten rounds with Tiger Williams, so this endurance challenged contender had actually built up a semblance of stamina through extended competition.

If Frank Luca had availed himself of access to the same televised scoring Dundee took advantage of, maybe Shavers would have taken the title. (As it was, just about everybody who saw it that I talked to the following morning thought Earnie deserved the decision.)

Had Shavers dethroned Ali, Norton might have been his first challenger. This probably would have been Earnie's only successful title defense, but he would have obtained tremendous historical mileage out of it. Holmes would have dethroned him in the championship rounds, but the popular Shavers may have gotten more than one additional shot to regain it.

Should Norton have dethroned Ali in Yankee Stadium, Shavers could have been his first defense. End of Kenny's one and only title reign.

Close examination of Earnie's record reveals that only a peak conditioned Larry Holmes was able to completely dominate him between 1973 (Quarry) and 1980 (Cobb). Only Cobb was able to stop him without having to get off the deck.

Norton is widely derided today, but with Foreman out of the picture he was considered the apex contender in the division, and very few believed that Shavers would prevail in their matchup, let alone with a single round wipeout. It's forgotten what a stunning upset that was. Norton was the biggest trophy to be had at the time.

Beyond Norton, a second marketable title defense could have been a third battle with Jimmy Young. Earnie had a rough time in their second fight after dropping him, but that was in late 1974. In December 1976, he quickly built up an insurmountable lead over Williams by relentlessly hammering his right to the body, and may have reproduced this strategy with Jimmy.

Ellis is an underrated win, as nobody else ever blew him out like that, let alone for the count.

Schmeling might have tried starting out the same cautious way against Shavers that Norton did, letting Earnie unload first (as Max indeed let Louis do in their rematch). That could have well proved fatal. Patterson and Ingo would have been in dangerous territory with Shavers, and need to be very, very smart in dealing with him. Charles, Walcott, Braddock and Lewis all lost the heavyweight championship to a single shot. Earnie could certainly deliver it. (Among those four, I don't think Lennox would have let him get anywhere near close enough to unload a haymaker. The other three didn't have the height or reach to afford them this option.)

[Duodenum]

Just how many announcers out there really go ahead and say a bout is a mismatch anyway? And stand behind those opinions? They build up both guys and try to give the impression it's a competitive bout. it's called hyperbole. Guys like Smith/Shavers or "terrific" Pedro Agusto/Foreman does not necessarily mean the overall opinion of these guys matches what the announcers are saying..Even Howard Cosell's harshest critics fully credited him for freely and candidly going against his bosses when a stinker took place. In fact, he sometimes went overboard in this respect, but usually, "Told it like it is," as he famously did before Hagler/Lee. (Doesn't mean he wasn't an arrogant and ignorant jerk, just that he wasn't a complete kiss-ass.)

[zadfrak]

Yep, the announcers of the Shavers--Smith bout talked up Smith quite a bit. Why, i'll never know, but Quarry would talk up guys. I'd seen the guy in there a little while before that bout in a real dreary affair with Boudroux. Now there's 2 names that you don't hear ever mentioned in the scheme of things.

[rodney]

Quarry had a chin that day. Something Shavers lacked in general.
Shavers hit him with some good punches, but Quarry took them without a blink.
Too bad for glass-jaw Shavers.

Watch the fight.
Shavers did fuckall.
Definately not championship material.

[Gyro]

Why "just watch" that fight?

Why not just watch his blowouts of Norton or Ellis, both of whom were good enough to win titles in his day?

Or how about his fight with Ali, which many people thought he could've/should've won? (which would mean he actually should've been a champ even in his own era)

No, he didn't win against Ali. Most people saw him win 6 rounds at the most, which is pretty good in a 15 round bout. It may have looked as if he won because he had such a good finish in rounds 13-14 when he hit Ali pretty hard with power punches and then Ali finished the fight by hurting Shavers the same way in the last 45 seconds of the 15th. So no, he was not champion in his own era. He came close but no cigar, his fight against Holmes was probably better though, I mean he came close to knocking out Holmes for the championship. Two great performances although Ali was 35 by time he fought him. He almost knocked out a prime Holmes so the almost is certainly there, champion in another era? Of course he would be champion!

[Vince Voltage]

Of course he could have won a title. The question wasn't about how many defenses he'd have, the question was could he win a title. Absolutely.

Personally, I think he beat Ali. Muhammed threw his flashy jabs and flurries, Earnie's guard was high and he blocked most of those punches. Ali almost got him in the 15th, but really overall it was Ali who looked awful in that fight. In my opinion, Earnie won the title in his own era and got robbed of a legacy in the process. We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was a W15 Ali on his record. I know all the Ali-worshippers will have none of this....Ali can miss six punches in a row and the world gasps in awe of his greatness. Then Shavers probably would've taken out Norton after that. And he'd have killed Leon Spinks, maybe fought Young again. Eventually Larry Holmes would've gotten to him, though.

And going back to the Lyle fight, the knockdown of Lyle was so dramatic that nowadays the fight would've been stopped.

Yes, there were times when Earnie looked awful. After he'd get winded, all technique went out the window and he'd fight like a desparate windmill. That happened numerous times.

But yes, on the right night he could've knocked out nearly anyone. And with a touch of luck he'd be considered in an entirely different light.

[frankenfrank]

What do you guys think, Could he have been champ in another era?
His power vastly overrated , his chin and technique underrated .
Shavers was "stopped" by Holmes cause Holmes thumbed him.
Some say Shavers was robbed of the decision against Ali.
Shavers will always be remembered as Jimmy Young's daddy.
He also stopped Ellis and Norton , and almost stopped Lyle , but Lyle , saved by the bell , eventually stopped him instead .

[Unforgiven]

Shavers had the big punch and brought his A-game to his title shots.
He had too many weaknesses and not enough quality/consistency to be a long standing champ with defenses but he could have won the title if the matchmaking and timing had been different.

[Duodenum]

Think of it from another angle. How many of the other failed HW Title challengers during his years of contention would have beaten him? (Let's close this window of opportunity at 1982.) Stander, Lyle, JQ, Cobb and Tillis actually did defeat him, although Lyle and Tillis were nearly knocked out in the process. Young managed to draw with Earnie in their rematch, but had to climb off the floor to do it. Bugner would most assuredly be thought of as a foolproof candidate to beat Shavers, except for what actually happened when they did square off in 1982. At no time does Norton prevail against Earnie, or even get out of the opening two rounds, as slow a starter as Kenny was.

Cooney? Jimmy Young absorbed his hooks to the body as if they were nothing. Shavers decked Jimmy multiple times. Holmes needed one right hand to drop Gerry in round two. Cooney wouldn't get up from Earnie's right.

Leon Spinks might be a real dark horse here. Stopping the huge and deadly Mercado the way he did suggests he might have been capable of a massive surprise against Shavers if he was on top of his game, and he'd go into a match with the much older Shavers knowing he might be killed if he wasn't very alert and focused. Mercado should have annihilated Leon, but instead got eliminated from title shot contention himself.

Another dark horse would have been Big John Tate, who was pretty good against the lethal Knoetze, Coetzee and Mercado when he had fair warning. I think he'd studiously tackle Earnie with due caution, and similarly prevail.

Shavers-Young III might have been a lot more interesting than is commonly supposed by those expecting that Jimmy would completely take him to school after their 1974 draw. In December 1976, Earnie built up an early insurmountable lead on Tiger Williams by repeatedly hurling right hands into the left side of the big man's body, and Norton controversially shaded Young in 1978 with a dedicated targeting of the body. Within his limitations, Shavers was a fairly smart operator. Young-Shavers III might be Young-Lyle I & II, and Holmes-Shavers I, a one sided boxing lesson by Jimmy, or something a good deal more compelling, as Earnie already knew he could inflict damage on Young.

Was it possible for him to be champion in another era? He did beat title claimants Ellis and Norton in less than a round each, but it can be argued that both had their tanks empty by then. Given a more characteristically aggressive attack, he might have decisioned Ali, or expended himself in the process and been stopped by fatigue. I just can't see Norton ever surviving him though, and in fact, does Ali-Norton III even take place if Ken has to rematch a still active Foreman to get there?

Really, a case might be made that Norton was always more vulnerable than Earnie, but profited more by deft matchmaking. (Could Ken have ever survived fearsome young slugger Jeff Sims, who Shavers came off the floor to knock out?)

I like the way Earnie took on all styles and comers, and was able to produce quality wins against each of these types, in a way Norton was never able to against a huge puncher.

[Vince Voltage]

Duodendum, I take my hat off for your studious, thoughtul, and balanced posts. I agree with many of your statements and appreciate that you approach such discussions in a speculative fashion, rather than speaking with certainty that THIS would happen or THAT would happen, which many others do. You have done justice to Earnie.

[Muchmoore]

duodendum, i take my hat off for your studious, thoughtul, and balanced posts. I agree with many of your statements and appreciate that you approach such discussions in a speculative fashion, rather than speaking with certainty that this would happen or that would happen, which many others do. You have done justice to earnie.

+1

[Armstrong!]

He gets badly underrated in my opinion. It's not like he was terrible. He was a solid B level contender with the ability to knock any heavyweight out.
His chin is shaky but people make it out to be glass. It's not. He had a monster punch, and some very underrated boxing skills and was actually quite a decent finisher.

His stamina was his main problem, if he caught you in the later rounds he'd make himself look like a bad finisher because he was so tired.

So there you have it. He flattened Jimmy Ellis and Ken Norton, two very credible A level contenders and champions. Ellis beat Ali in the amateurs!

[Armstrong!]

Duodendum, I take my hat off for your studious, thoughtul, and balanced posts. I agree with many of your statements and appreciate that you approach such discussions in a speculative fashion, rather than speaking with certainty that THIS would happen or THAT would happen, which many others do. You have done justice to Earnie.

Yes, Duodendum is one of the best posters on here without a shadow of a doubt. Every single one of his posts are worth the read, and he's a VERY knowledgeable poster.