Frazier vs Shavers Summer of '73

[BoxBuzz]

Here's a hypothetical....

Jimmy Ellis hurts himself in camp pulls out of his fight with Shavers that he is destined to lose in a single round KO, Joe Bugner vs Joe Frazier breaks down in negotiations. A fight which Frazier is destined to win in a hard fought 12 rounder.

Leaving Joe Frazier and Ernie Shavers agreeble to face each other in July of 73. Frazier was in training for Bugner and Shavers for Ellis so both are in good shape. What happens here and why?

Does Joe redeem himself in a follow up event with another huge puncher? Or is it deja vu all over again?

[Expug]

I see Joe puttin his head on Earnies chest , bangin him downstairs and upstairs , outworking him and stopping him in five.

[Controversial]

Hmm. I'd say Frazier would outwork Shavers and probably stop him in the middle rounds. Shavers stamina wasn't the best. However one of Shavers big right hands could flatten anyone, if that landed flush it could be all over for Frazier. My choice would be Frazier though.

[BoxBuzz]

I think this is an interesting one to call, Frazier always felt he could take it from anyone....and he tried that with George twice, and it didn't work. Would he try a different tactic? Or would he attempt to absorb the incoming in the same way he did Foreman? Are the styles different enough to give Frazier more opportunity? My guess is that Joe solves the puzzle, not sure if I'd want to bet on it the first summer after the first Foreman demolition.

And taking into account what each of their real performances were like that summer it seems even more difficult to call.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Summer of '81 would be more like it, if Shavers is to stand a legit chance of winning.

Realistically, what Shavers has in common with Foreman is an absolutely massive right hand --- & it ends right there. He lacks Foreman's left, Foreman's chin, Foreman's early-round intensity, Foreman's finishing ability, Foreman's height & range, & Foreman's physical strength. He even has an inferior corner team.

One shot from God himself isn't going to end Joe Frazier in 1973, when he was nearer to his peak than people credit him for being. Shavers' only real hope to beat a man better than himself is by sparking them on the spot --- he got it done against Ellis, & was close with Holmes (who isn't as tough as Frazier). He can't put Frazier away with one blow, & he can't take even a sniff of what Frazier's left hook or bodywork can dish out.

Granted, Frazier looked pudgy & sluggish against Bugner --- but Bugner could jab, had endurance, & was more durable than was Shavers. He's a more difficult foe to look good against, overall. In contrast, Shavers pulled a rabbit-from-the-hat against Ellis, who had him absolutely floundering. Quarry, too, was another inferior puncher to Frazier, & he continued what Ellis started that same year.

Good turn-around, but I don't feel that bodes well against Frazier, who hits ten times as hard as Ellis ever did. The first left Joe throws puts Earnie down. It's over within a round or two after that. Frazier KO3. Shavers would dead-set be counted out, IMO.

[Robinson]

Shavers matured into a better fighter I think in the
mid-late 70s. He always had the power, just he learned
to deliver it better.

The Foreman of 1973 was not the versatile man he was
of the first Ellis fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VsAhEugnsc
Here is a good indication of the short range power Shavers
had in 1973.

I think Shavers gets the upset against this version of Frazier.
A fun fight while it lasts.

[HomicideHenry]

Frazier starts slow, which isnt good considering the monster he shares the ring with. But Shavers is no Foreman, and Frazier gets rocked in round two, only to come back to start chopping his man down, and by round six, Shavers is about ready to go, and the fight is stopped.

[Ambling Alp]

That seems like a likely scenario. Of course almost anything could happen in a Shavers fight, but it seems logical that Frazier would as usual start slow, maybe gets hurt/decked. However, Frazier survives the storm and wins this.

[elmersalsa]

By 1972, the great Joe Frazier was not at his very best...Still, by 1973, after the great George Foreman demolition, I cannot picture Earnie Shavers beating Smokin Joe. Frazier by KO in 5 in a great slugfest.

[The Great John L]

Shavers KO 1

[BoxBuzz]

Shavers KO 1

You usually don't post "throwaway" responses....so I'm assuming your thinking Joe's not ready for another huge puncher in the wake of his confidence shaking loss to Foreman?

This makes some sense...but I want to be sure your not just having a laugh as some of us simply "drink the kool aid" here.

[The Great John L]

Frazier was a much better fighter than Shavers. He was quicker, threw better combinations, had a slightly better chin and was better conditioned. Even the '73 version of him, which was a few notches below a prime Frazier. Add to that the general consensus that Shavers needed room for his power shots and it probably doesn't look very good for Earnie. However, majority opinion aside, Earnie was not a one trick pony. While some of his better performances were in the future, by the summer of '73 Earnie was pretty much the fighter he was going to become, and that included one of the most lethal short right uppercuts in history, and also a devestating short left hook that he didn't always get into range to unleash. Getting in range would not have been a problem against Joe.

Some have stated that Earnie is no George Foreman, and I would agree. George was bigger, more durable, and at times exhibited much more skill in the ring than Shavers. But arguably Earnie was the hardest puncher in the past half century, and he could deliver power shots from short range. I see this matchup as very similar to the Shavers-Norton fight that occurred later in Earnie's career. A slightly past it great fighter, with better skills and conditioning than Earnie, is hammered with shots he wasn't expecting. The only caveat to my prediction is that Earnie wasn't the greatest finisher, but in general he hit hard enough that there usually wasn't much call for followup after he landed his big shots.

I've got Frazier 7th in my ATG HW list, while Shavers is barely in the top 50, but Joe just doesn't matchup well with Shavers.

[BoxBuzz]

Thanks for you take on this.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Shavers KO 1

I'd like to see you put money on that. I doubt you would. C'mon, man. Foreman didn't do it. Shavers ain't doing it.

The only reason people even entertain this match-up is because of what Foreman did. The two have one thing in common --- a big punch. Shavers is comparative garbage, & one of the most stunningly over-rated contenders in division history. He benefits no end from having fought in the golden era. Put Tommy Morrison in the 70's in Shavers' place, & he has the same undeservingly-generous rep.

I can't think of a single decade where I'd favour Shavers to be the Heavyweight champion. Not even today.

[Ambling Alp]

I could see Shavers being the heavyweight champion for a short time. His power alone makes that possible. At the very least he would have a punchers chance against almost heavyweight champion.
He would probably be an even bet against Hart, Burns, Willard, Carnera, Braddock. I wouldn't bet on it, but it's not hard to imagine him beating Corbett, Fitz, Schemling, Sharkey,Charles, Walcott,Patterson,and Johannson.
He did knockout Ellis and Norton. While they were past their best, it's certainly possible that he could have done even if they had been at their best.

Shavers wasn't that bad. With the possible exceptions of chin and stamina, he was better at virtually every phase of boxing than Vitaly Klitschko.
He hit harder, had a better chin, and probably had better stamina than Wladimir Klitschko.

While this isn't saying much, Shavers did have better stamina, a better chin, was harder to hit, and was a harder puncher than Morrison.

Shavers certainly had his weaknesses. However, he had phenomenal power, threw a lot punches, had a decent chin. While that alone doesn't make you an All-Time great, it does make you very dangerous.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I could see Shavers being the heavyweight champion for a short time. His power alone makes that possible. At the very least he would have a punchers chance against almost heavyweight champion.
He would probably be an even bet against Hart, Burns, Willard, Carnera, Braddock. I wouldn't bet on it, but it's not hard to imagine him beating Corbett, Fitz, Schemling, Sharkey,Charles, Walcott,Patterson,and Johannson.
He did knockout Ellis and Norton. While they were past their best, it's certainly possible that he could have done even if they had been at their best.

Shavers wasn't that bad. With the possible exceptions of chin and stamina, he was better at virtually every phase of boxing than Vitaly Klitschko.
He hit harder, had a better chin, and probably had better stamina than Wladimir Klitschko.

While this isn't saying much, Shavers did have better stamina, a better chin, was harder to hit, and was a harder puncher than Morrison.

Shavers certainly had his weaknesses. However, he had phenomenal power, threw a lot punches, had a decent chin. While that alone doesn't make you an All-Time great, it does make you very dangerous.

I could see him being champ for a short time, too. Didn't say he wasn't dangerous, either. I just said I can't think of a single decade in which I'd actually favour him to become champion. Naturally, anything's possible, I just don't see it as probable. He's way over-rated.

[The Great John L]

Shavers KO 1

I'd like to see you put money on that. I doubt you would. C'mon, man. Foreman didn't do it. Shavers ain't doing it.

The only reason people even entertain this match-up is because of what Foreman did. The two have one thing in common --- a big punch. Shavers is comparative garbage, & one of the most stunningly over-rated contenders in division history. He benefits no end from having fought in the golden era. Put Tommy Morrison in the 70's in Shavers' place, & he has the same undeservingly-generous rep.

I can't think of a single decade where I'd favour Shavers to be the Heavyweight champion. Not even today.

As I and several people noted, Shavers isn't Foreman. Read my detailed post and try to pay attention.

And I didn't say that Shavers would be champ then, I said he would stop Frazier, who wasn't champ at the time. Besides to say that Shavers could have never been champion at any time in history is just silly and ignores the realities of boxing. Shavers, unlike many pretend HWs was a real massive KO puncher who stopped a number of very tough world class HWs, so of course he would have had a chance of stopping some of the past and current champs.

Styles make fights and if all you want to do is focus on what Shavers couldn't do, rather than seeing what he could do, then that's unfortunate. But to call someone who KO'd Ellis, Young, Clark, Williams, Smith, Bugner and Norton garbage, even relative to an ATG displays nothing more than ignorance and a total lack of class.

[Goodnight, Irene]

As far as paying attention goes, I never stated he couldn't be champion. I stated I wouldn't favour him to make the belt in any era. I never said he was garbage, either. I said he was comparative garbage, next to Foreman --- which I stand by. You've even misquoted yourself. You claim you stated he stops Frazier, but your official pick is a KO in one, not TKO.

[ghoster]

Logic tells us Frazier would overwelm Shavers but Frazier in 73 was not the same fighter he was three years earlier. He was heavier, slower, less confident and had vision problems. Shavers, is given the rep of having a bad set of whiskers but I attribute that more to an aggressive reckless style. These factors leave me to make this more of a pickem fight.

Ironic but later in 1978 these two were actually scheduled to meet. Good thing for the worn out Frazier as he pulled out and a replacement was found to face Earnie. The replacement was a undefeated fighter named Larry Holmes!