Top 30 Heavyweights: Name Your 22

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Shavers was well past his best days when he faced Cobb. Like I said, Ike would have an edge in stamina but it's difficult to say about the durability with only one fight to go on.

The better resume doesn't ensure victory, but the complete resume answer all the questions about strengths and weaknesses. It's easy to look at earnie's flaws but it's also important to remember that shavers would be posing new questions to Ibeabuchi and we can only guess at how they would be answered.

I understand the frustration of always having the guy with the better resume winning these mythical match ups. The fight game has never played out that way. It's just hard to go against the percentages a lot of the time.

[Mr E]

OK, but I don't see twenty-five pounds being the difference between these two. They are simply not that far apart in size in any meaningful way.

If Ibeabuchi wins, it's because Shavers either couldn't take his punch, or burned out, IMO. If Shavers wins, it's because Ibeabuchi either couldn't take his punch, or lacked the big-game experience to hang with someone who'd been in there with fighters of such superior quality to Ibeabuchi's competition --- the Quarry's, Ellis', Ali's, Lyle's & co. Stands a man in very good stead, it does.

I think Ibeabuchi was not only heavier but fitter, and probably a lot stronger. I've seen a lot of both guys, both live and later on film, and that's the way it looks to me. As compared to Shavers, I think Ike was busier, tougher, better. I think he would have worked Shavers over, roughed him, and taken him out. Might have experienced a rough moment or three, but I think he would have prevailed. I think that very strongly in fact.

I think you're also over-stating the nature Shavers' big wins and fights against big name guys. Shavers was kind of lucky against a washed-up Ellis, seemed hurt early and landed that one big shot. Norton, you know, was made for Shavers. That version of Norton probably would have folded just as quickly against a dozen punchers in the last 25 years, including Ike. Quarry took him out without breaking a sweat, Ali was completely shot and all Shavers really did was hang with him, Holmes embarassed in the first fight and won every minute of the rematch except the KD (which I grant you was a big exception). And you can't ignore his losses to Stander, Stallings, Tillis, Cobb, Mercado.... Of course, Shavers had shocking power and some ability to deliver it. He was no bum by any means.

At the end of the day, though, I have just never been as imressed with the Acorn as I gather the rest of you were. But I can tell you I'd dearly love to take your action on this fight.

[Mr E]

Shavers was well past his best days when he faced Cobb. Like I said, Ike would have an edge in stamina but it's difficult to say about the durability with only one fight to go on.

The better resume doesn't ensure victory, but the complete resume answer all the questions about strengths and weaknesses. It's easy to look at earnie's flaws but it's also important to remember that shavers would be posing new questions to Ibeabuchi and we can only guess at how they would be answered.

I understand the frustration of always having the guy with the better resume winning these mythical match ups. The fight game has never played out that way. It's just hard to go against the percentages a lot of the time.

You're right about Shavers being past his best against Cobb-- also against Mercado and Tillis. But that doesn't mean those fights are irrelevant. I'm not sure Shavers' right was very much harder than Tua's left hook, though if I had to pick one I'd pick Shavers, so I'm not sure how many new questions Shavers really would pose.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I should add that I find David Tua's power to be extremely overrated. Shavers had more variety in his right hand and it was a punch that came from a lot of different angles that wasn't nearly as easy to see coming as Tua's hook is.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I didn't say Shavers beat everyone he faced --- I said facing the men he did, win or lose, puts you in better stead than what Ibeabuchi went up against, for the most part. I really don't think all that much of either of these two --- neither were poor or anything, but they are both quite over-rated, IMO.

On the subject of resume, I really would not be surprised if Shavers went 20-0-0 against Ibeabuchi's opposition (though I could certainly see him losing to Byrd, & that version of Tua. He would have beaten the rest of Ibeabuchi's victims, I'm sure of it). I would be stunned if Ibeabuchi did dramatically better than Shavers did facing those opponents in the 70's, though. Not if he did a little better, but a lot. They say the proof is in the pudding, & Ibeabuchi ate his in prison. We just haven't had enough questions answered, which is why I think his aura is pretty nonsensical.

One thing did jump out at me --- your measure of Ibeabuchi's durability. You're sure he'd shrug off any adversity in this fight? I can't remember any fight in which he got off the deck even once, let alone, say, multiple times to win, or came back from being wobbled & shaken very badly. Another question mark hanging over that crazed head of his, IMO. I don't share your confidence there.

This much, & I wouldn't be putting any money down on this bout.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I should add that I find David Tua's power to be extremely overrated. Shavers had more variety in his right hand and it was a punch that came from a lot of different angles that wasn't nearly as easy to see coming as Tua's hook is.

Wait, are you saying the raw power of Tua's hook is over-rated, or the punch itself, when you consider it's lack of speed, timing & variety?

Shavers hit harder, IMO, but Tua had a mother of a punch. As limited as the guy was.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Shavers was well past his best days when he faced Cobb. Like I said, Ike would have an edge in stamina but it's difficult to say about the durability with only one fight to go on.

The better resume doesn't ensure victory, but the complete resume answer all the questions about strengths and weaknesses. It's easy to look at earnie's flaws but it's also important to remember that shavers would be posing new questions to Ibeabuchi and we can only guess at how they would be answered.

I understand the frustration of always having the guy with the better resume winning these mythical match ups. The fight game has never played out that way. It's just hard to go against the percentages a lot of the time.

You're right about Shavers being past his best against Cobb-- also against Mercado and Tillis. But that doesn't mean those fights are irrelevant. I'm not sure Shavers' right was very much harder than Tua's left hook, though if I had to pick one I'd pick Shavers, so I'm not sure how many new questions Shavers really would pose.

They should be irrelevant to the discussion. Like you said we are taking these guys and dropping them in a ring at their best. If that's the case, this mythical fight would take place long before those fights even happened.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I should add that I find David Tua's power to be extremely overrated. Shavers had more variety in his right hand and it was a punch that came from a lot of different angles that wasn't nearly as easy to see coming as Tua's hook is.

Wait, are you saying the raw power of Tua's hook is over-rated, or the punch itself, when you consider it's lack of speed, timing & variety?

Shavers hit harder, IMO, but Tua had a mother of a punch. As limited as the guy was.

Both, but more so how limited he was with his delivery. I don't consider him to sniff the realm of Shavers, Louis or Foreman. Not that there is any shame there. But I see people rate him that way. I'd take Morrison or ruddock over him in the power department.

[Mr E]

Okay fellas, this is turning into a nice give and take. I have to cut out now and take a couple kids a couple different places but I will return to respond to this latest series of comments manana.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Manana = ?

[Bricks]

I don't know why these kinds of discussions always need to become hostile on this board but c'est la vie. To respond.

This is boxing, not track and field.

Brilliant. Good thing you pointed that out.

We're talking experience and accomplishments, which is what matters in boxing.

Nonsense. We were discussing a hypothetical boxing tournament, in which what matters is who would have beaten whom. Many things "matter in boxing," depending on the context of the discussion.

Watch a prime Quarry, like the Spencer fight and tell me that Ike was as fast as Quarry.

As between Quarry and Ike, I wouldn't want to live on the difference, that's for sure. Quarry was no speed-demon, your evident wide-eyed fan worship notwithstanding. And I do think Ike was probably faster than Lyle and Shavers were.

TI couldn't agree more. Tua and Byrd were both very good HWs, probably two of the better HWs of the late 90's, behind Lewis. Maybe if Ike had continued beating good HWs he could be mentioned as a guy that would have stood a chance against the names you throw around so cavalierly.

I don't know what to say to this except that I don't believe for one minute you would bet a month's mortgage on any of these guys to beat Ike Ibeabuchi if this were more than mere fantasy and somebody gave you the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is.

"Especially" Shavers? I guess KOing Ellis, Young, Bugner, Norton, Smith and Williams, among others, doesn't compare well to Tua and Byrd?

That's an inane comment. He also lost to Ron Stander, Bob Stallings, didn't make it a single round against Quarry, collapsed against Tex Cobb and Bernardo Mercado, etc. Point is, Shavers was a thunderous puncher, with some skill, limited speed and limited durability. And, yes, I'd put a lot of money on Ibeabuchi to hand him his head. Less so with Lyle, who was better than Shavers, but I'd still make Ike the favorite.

Nobody is saying that Ike may not have developed into a top HW, but a close win over Tua and a stoppage of Byrd doesn't compare favorably to fighting top HWs for a decade, during what was arguably the best HW era, which is exactly what Quarry, Lyle and Shavers did. Some of us just like to see accomplishments, rather than possibilities.

The question is not where they rate in terms of historical significance or whatever sort of romantic notion you may have of overall 'worth.' The question is do you really think Earnie Shavers or Ron Lyle could have beaten Ike Ibeabuchi in a fight? For cryin' out loud, he was 235-240 (I forget exactly) in shape and he had some real skills. You would seriously take 210 pound Earnie Shavers, who got knocked out a dozen times in his career, to "stomp" him, as in the fight would be no contest??????

What makes you so sure of Ike over shavers? Earnie almost knocked out Ali & Holmes, he could turn out Ike's lights in the blink of an eye.

I agree that sometimes you have to just look at purely who beats who in a fight as opposed to what they achieved.

Earnie was super tough, could go 15 rounds, and of course that power. Now I remember Byrd taking a few of Ibeabuchis shots flush before he crumbled but it works both ways Ibeabuchi took some hellacious shots off Tua and didnt fold.

Who do you think would win out of
razor ruddock
earnie shavers
Ike Ibeabuchi

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I've made my thoughts on Ibeabuchi & Shavers pretty clear.

Shavers was vulnerable to big punchers so any of them are quite live. Ruddock dipping down to wing those uppercuts is a recipe for a concussion against Shavers right hand. Earnie wins 7 out of 10.

As I've stated ad nausea Ike is just difficult to rate against these bombers because i don't know how he could handle their shots. That makes Ruddock another tough one to call, though I think Ike would be slightly favored to win a decision.

[dajuggernaut]

Manana = ?

means tomorrow in spanish.

[Mr E]

OK, but I don't see twenty-five pounds being the difference between these two. They are simply not that far apart in size in any meaningful way.

If Ibeabuchi wins, it's because Shavers either couldn't take his punch, or burned out, IMO. If Shavers wins, it's because Ibeabuchi either couldn't take his punch, or lacked the big-game experience to hang with someone who'd been in there with fighters of such superior quality to Ibeabuchi's competition --- the Quarry's, Ellis', Ali's, Lyle's & co. Stands a man in very good stead, it does.

Well, you can't go too far overboard with the 'big name experience thing.' Chuck Wepner fought Sonny Liston, Ernie Terrell, Muhammad Ali, and George Foreman, for example, and there were plenty of other contenders of limited talent who have extensive 'big name resumes.' Shavers was not in that class, and his talent was far more than 'limited,' to be sure, but it's a sliding scale, don't you think?

But to focus on your first sentence, I think Shavers could not have taken Ibeabuchi's punch nor do I believe he could have matched Ibeabuchi's pace over the course of a 10 or 12 round fight. My opinion.

[Mr E]

I didn't say Shavers beat everyone he faced --- I said facing the men he did, win or lose, puts you in better stead than what Ibeabuchi went up against, for the most part. I really don't think all that much of either of these two --- neither were poor or anything, but they are both quite over-rated, IMO.

It's interesting to me that you keep saying Ibeabuchi is over-rated. I almost never see him rated, or even discussed, at all, so I'm not sure who's doing the over-rating. I've never put together a top 50 list but I think I would have a hard time naming 50 guys who I think could have actually beaten him in the ring. Do you think that's over-rating him?

On the subject of resume, I really would not be surprised if Shavers went 20-0-0 against Ibeabuchi's opposition (though I could certainly see him losing to Byrd, & that version of Tua. He would have beaten the rest of Ibeabuchi's victims, I'm sure of it). I would be stunned if Ibeabuchi did dramatically better than Shavers did facing those opponents in the 70's, though. Not if he did a little better, but a lot. They say the proof is in the pudding, & Ibeabuchi ate his in prison. We just haven't had enough questions answered, which is why I think his aura is pretty nonsensical.

I'd take on Byrd to beat Shavers probably 7 times out of any 10 fights. I'd take Tua 6 out of 10. Shavers was better than the rest of Ibeabuchi's opponents but was always susceptible to the upset because he didn't have a great chin and he tended to get discouraged when he got tired. So I doubt he really would go 18-0 against Ibeabuchi's other (meaning other than Tua and Byrd) opponents.

As for Ike against Shavers' opponents, let's think about that. Shavers beat Ellis, Young, and Norton but he probably did not beat any of them in their primes. I like Ibeabuchi's chances in all those fights (meaning, past-prime Ellis and Norton, inexperienced Young). Prime Young I think beats Shavers (he deserved the nod in the draw) and Ike. Ike would have no chance against Holmes, IMO. I think Quarry was superior to Ike pound-for-pound by a considerable margin but Ike's 40-pound weight advantage is, IMO, enough to make that a pick-'em fight. Certainly, Ike does not collapse in the first round the way Shavers did. Ike beats Stander and Stallings easily. Against the washed-up version of Ali against whom Shavers struggled, I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ike take that one. Ali looked awful to me in that fight.

One thing did jump out at me --- your measure of Ibeabuchi's durability. You're sure he'd shrug off any adversity in this fight? I can't remember any fight in which he got off the deck even once, let alone, say, multiple times to win, or came back from being wobbled & shaken very badly. Another question mark hanging over that crazed head of his, IMO. I don't share your confidence there.This much, & I wouldn't be putting any money down on this bout.

Look at it this way. Ike had a limited career because he was scumbag f****n' rapist and domestic terrorist who got thrown in the slammer where he absolutely belonged and still belongs. As a result we have only 20 fights on which to base our evaluation.

You think it's a logical error to assume he could have done this or that when he didn't prove it. I submit, however, that it is as much a logical error to assume he could not have done those things. These kinds of historical match-up discussions are always fraught with speculation. All we can do is look at the evidence in front of us and make our best guesses. Based on the Tua fight, I think Ike Ibeabuchi was one tough hombre -- and specifically that he was tougher -- i.e., more durable -- by far than Earnie Shavers.

[Mr E]

I should add that I find David Tua's power to be extremely overrated. Shavers had more variety in his right hand and it was a punch that came from a lot of different angles that wasn't nearly as easy to see coming as Tua's hook is.

Wait, are you saying the raw power of Tua's hook is over-rated, or the punch itself, when you consider it's lack of speed, timing & variety?

Shavers hit harder, IMO, but Tua had a mother of a punch. As limited as the guy was.

Both, but more so how limited he was with his delivery. I don't consider him to sniff the realm of Shavers, Louis or Foreman. Not that there is any shame there. But I see people rate him that way. I'd take Morrison or ruddock over him in the power department.

I disagree with that. I think Tua's left hook was a freakin' bazooka-- particularly back in the days -- now long gone -- when he was fit enough that he had some speed of delivery.

[Mr E]

Shavers was well past his best days when he faced Cobb. Like I said, Ike would have an edge in stamina but it's difficult to say about the durability with only one fight to go on.

The better resume doesn't ensure victory, but the complete resume answer all the questions about strengths and weaknesses. It's easy to look at earnie's flaws but it's also important to remember that shavers would be posing new questions to Ibeabuchi and we can only guess at how they would be answered.

I understand the frustration of always having the guy with the better resume winning these mythical match ups. The fight game has never played out that way. It's just hard to go against the percentages a lot of the time.

You're right about Shavers being past his best against Cobb-- also against Mercado and Tillis. But that doesn't mean those fights are irrelevant. I'm not sure Shavers' right was very much harder than Tua's left hook, though if I had to pick one I'd pick Shavers, so I'm not sure how many new questions Shavers really would pose.

They should be irrelevant to the discussion. Like you said we are taking these guys and dropping them in a ring at their best. If that's the case, this mythical fight would take place long before those fights even happened.

No, not irrelevant. Shavers was past his prime against Cobb but he wasn't shot. Probably he was operating at, what, 85-90% peak punching power? It is still significant that he tee'd off on Cobb's head for 5 rounds to very little effect. Had that been George Foreman in there, I think we would have seen Cobbs neckless body crumple to the canvas whilst his head sailed out into orbit.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You're right about Shavers being past his best against Cobb-- also against Mercado and Tillis. But that doesn't mean those fights are irrelevant. I'm not sure Shavers' right was very much harder than Tua's left hook, though if I had to pick one I'd pick Shavers, so I'm not sure how many new questions Shavers really would pose.

They should be irrelevant to the discussion. Like you said we are taking these guys and dropping them in a ring at their best. If that's the case, this mythical fight would take place long before those fights even happened.

No, not irrelevant. Shavers was past his prime against Cobb but he wasn't shot. Probably he was operating at, what, 85-90% peak punching power? It is still significant that he tee'd off on Cobb's head for 5 rounds to very little effect. Had that been George Foreman in there, I think we would have seen Cobbs neckless body crumple to the canvas whilst his head sailed out into orbit.

That's absurd, nothing could be more irrelevant in discussing a prime Shavers. You didn't get enough out of his other 60 fights? If I mention Ali/Ibeabuchi are you going to start talking about how Muhammad was vulnerable to pressure as evidenced by the Leon Spinks fight?

It's even more ridiculous considering we are talking about a guy with a mere 20 fights. I'll take the Shavers from the Cobb fight against the Ibeabuchi rotting in a cell now.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Wait, are you saying the raw power of Tua's hook is over-rated, or the punch itself, when you consider it's lack of speed, timing & variety?

Shavers hit harder, IMO, but Tua had a mother of a punch. As limited as the guy was.

Both, but more so how limited he was with his delivery. I don't consider him to sniff the realm of Shavers, Louis or Foreman. Not that there is any shame there. But I see people rate him that way. I'd take Morrison or ruddock over him in the power department.

I disagree with that. I think Tua's left hook was a freakin' bazooka-- particularly back in the days -- now long gone -- when he was fit enough that he had some speed of delivery.

Most agree with you, I have no doubt that Maskaev or Rahman have both been hit harder. And David never any speed to his delivery, that's why a guy like Rahman was able to toy with him twice.

[Mr E]

Both, but more so how limited he was with his delivery. I don't consider him to sniff the realm of Shavers, Louis or Foreman. Not that there is any shame there. But I see people rate him that way. I'd take Morrison or ruddock over him in the power department.

I disagree with that. I think Tua's left hook was a freakin' bazooka-- particularly back in the days -- now long gone -- when he was fit enough that he had some speed of delivery.

Most agree with you, I have no doubt that Maskaev or Rahman have both been hit harder. And David never any speed to his delivery, that's why a guy like Rahman was able to toy with him twice.

Tua was never fast but early in his career he had a real quick release on the hook. He'd be sort of wrestling around inside and then -- bam! -- that hook would come over. He'd just dip a little and roll his shoulder -- it was a very smooth shot. Take another look at some of his early fights and tell me if you still disagree.

[Mr E]

That's absurd, nothing could be more irrelevant in discussing a prime Shavers. You didn't get enough out of his other 60 fights?

Fighters rarely go from prime to past-prime in a single precipitous drop. Shavers certainly did not.

You need to stop using so much hyperbole. I didn't say that no fighter could ever be so far past his prime that no fight result could ever be "irrelevant." I was talking about Cobb-Shavers specifically. As to that fight, I think that, while Shavers was indeed past his prime against Cobb, he nevertheless had enough left that the fight was relevant, regardless of the number of fights he had previously. But let me ask you -- how much of his power do you imagine Shavers had lost at the time of the Cobb fight?

If I mention Ali/Ibeabuchi are you going to start talking about how Muhammad was vulnerable to pressure as evidenced by the Leon Spinks fight?

Again with the hyperbole. No, I would not advance that argument. Nor does my view of the Shavers-Cobb bout compel me to.

It's even more ridiculous considering we are talking about a guy with a mere 20 fights.

You're going to have to explain this one to me. I don't follow your line of reasoning here.

I'll take the Shavers from the Cobb fight against the Ibeabuchi rotting in a cell now.

Me too. So what?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

That's absurd, nothing could be more irrelevant in discussing a prime Shavers. You didn't get enough out of his other 60 fights?

Fighters rarely go from prime to past-prime in a single precipitous drop. Shavers certainly did not.

You need to stop using so much hyperbole. I didn't say that no fighter could ever be so far past his prime that no fight result could ever be "irrelevant." I was talking about Cobb-Shavers specifically. As to that fight, I think that, while Shavers was indeed past his prime against Cobb, he nevertheless had enough left that the fight was relevant, regardless of the number of fights he had previously. But let me ask you -- how much of his power do you imagine Shavers had lost at the time of the Cobb fight?

If I mention Ali/Ibeabuchi are you going to start talking about how Muhammad was vulnerable to pressure as evidenced by the Leon Spinks fight?

Again with the hyperbole. No, I would not advance that argument. Nor does my view of the Shavers-Cobb bout compel me to.

It's even more ridiculous considering we are talking about a guy with a mere 20 fights.

You're going to have to explain this one to me. I don't follow your line of reasoning here.

I'll take the Shavers from the Cobb fight against the Ibeabuchi rotting in a cell now.

Me too. So what?

Hyperbole? WTF are you even talking about? I'm saying that in a best on best match up fights after a guys prime are irrelevant. It's one thing in a Roy Jones kind of situation where you may have learned something new.

What did you learn about earnie Shavers in the Tex Cobb fight? The reason I find it even more astounding is that Ike was far from a proven commodity and you're talking about fights well into a career for his proposed opponent.

So as not to quote two posts, no need to attempt to be condescending. I can promise you I have seen as many, if not more, Tua fights than you have and my opinion is unyielding.