Shavers with either hand had tremondous power. BB you can't deride Shavers for not putting out Lyle . . Ron had a very good chin and have you seen the number of MONSTER shots he took from Foreman before getting knocked out?
Shavers was a great puncher but not a great finisher . . he became too wild and too anxious . . .he always fought too tense actually. The odd thing is that in some fights, particularly the Lyle affair, Earnie shows some decent boxing ability . . he was never a great boxer mind you, or even close, but he did understand feinting and double jabbing to get inside, and his combinations from the body to head were very impressive. I think he fell in love with his power too much and basically abandoned the jab and other fundamnetals by the time he fought Holmes and had his debacle with Tex Cobb (an ugly, sloppy affair) but he regained some form for his comeback career against the likes of Earnie Sims. Never very skilled, but more skilled then a guy like David Tua, for example.
Shavers Vs. Foreman: Who's The KO Master?
-
ringsider
- Heavyweight
Agreed. People see the punch Marciano ended Walcott with and conclude from the spectacular nature of that knockout that it must have been THE hardest punch ever landed. However, was it any harder than the right Shavers decked Holmes with? I doubt it. Not from a sheer force perspective.dan1030 wrote:As alluded to in a couple of earlier posts it's hard to rate a guy like Shavers on pure power, since his punching power seems to have been far greater than 1) His punching placement and accuaracy, 2) His overall boxing skills, and 3) His Chin.
I remeber an interview Ali once did in which he said his arms, shoulders, etc. never hurt more after a fight than where he'd been hit by Shavers. If those kinds of punches could have been landed cleanly--and if he'd had the defense and/or chin to stand up to more return fire--then maybe he would have finished better, and maybe he wouldn't have had 14 losses. But the, he'd have been a different fight in that case, wouldn't he?
If someone had drawn an X on Walcott's jaw, Marciano couldn't have been anymore on target. Not trying to take anything from him. That was a hellacious shot. But power is relevant to more than just highlight reel KOs. Marciano might have been a harder puncher pound-for-pound than Shavers or Foreman, but that's if you're making a pound-for-pound argument (power in proportion to size). Marciano toughest opponents were against guys who also only weighed about 185-190 pounds. All I'm saying is the "ham" that produces power is also the "ham" that absorbs it.
That's why I can't believe it's not more obvious to all those who feel the need to defend Marciano when it's suggested that he wouldn't have done as well against, say, the 70s era HWs. It's no diss on Marciano. It's just being realistic. Most of the top fighters, besides being good, were all 210+. That doesn't just mena they could've dished out more punishment. They also could have taken more punishment ... at least that coming from a big puncher, but one who only weighed 185 pounds.
Bob Foster was one of the best light heavies ever and a damn good puncher at his weight. But every time he moved up and fought HWs (Zora Folley, Ernie Terrell, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier), he just didn't have the horsepower he had against light heavies ... and he lost!!
kingpawn, I agree that it's tough to rate Marciano's power (which was certainly great) based on who he fought, and when in there careers. If you look at his title fights, the only guy he fought who was over 200 lbs. was a flabby Don Cockell. As far as beating great fighters goes, Louis was way past his prime and Walcott was getting there, and Charles and Moore where at their best at Lt. Heavy.
So it is tough to say what Rocky's punches would have done to someone like, say, Frazier, Liston, Ali, etc. With the exception of Patterson, all the major champs to come after him were much bigger and stronger guys than the ones he beat. On the other hand, he does have Louis, Moore, Charles and Walcott on his resume, which is pretty damned impressive.
So it is tough to say what Rocky's punches would have done to someone like, say, Frazier, Liston, Ali, etc. With the exception of Patterson, all the major champs to come after him were much bigger and stronger guys than the ones he beat. On the other hand, he does have Louis, Moore, Charles and Walcott on his resume, which is pretty damned impressive.
Dan1030 ... thanks for the reply. It is impressive that Marciano has Walcott, Charles, Moore and Louis on his resume. Marciano beat some great fighters, whether some say they were too old or I say they were too small. I only say they were too small to point out that how he beat them down and wore them out really isn't a reason to say he hit as hard (or harder) than Foreman or Shavers.
The "ham" that produces power is also the same "ham" that absorbs it. Marciano wears down a slender 185-pounder like Ezzard Charles with all those hooks to the body a lot faster than he wears down a 215-pound Larry Holmes. In the meantime, the leather he's catching from the same 215-pound Larry Holmes does more accumulative damage than the leather he catches from a 185-pound Ezzard Charles.
Different eras, different fighters. No one fighter is that much better than the other. It's the eras that are different.
The "ham" that produces power is also the same "ham" that absorbs it. Marciano wears down a slender 185-pounder like Ezzard Charles with all those hooks to the body a lot faster than he wears down a 215-pound Larry Holmes. In the meantime, the leather he's catching from the same 215-pound Larry Holmes does more accumulative damage than the leather he catches from a 185-pound Ezzard Charles.
Different eras, different fighters. No one fighter is that much better than the other. It's the eras that are different.