Earnie Shavers v. Nikolay Valuev

[man]

the work ethic of a prime shavers would be too
much for valuev over 12 rounds. these guys back
then really went for it, instead of playing tactics
for half a fight.

shavers, KO8

wouldn't be nice too watch, neither the fight nor
the stoppage.

[Tuan_Jim]

Winning and defending a cheap belt in an age of cheap belts doesn't make you better than men who didn't win a belt when there was only one to be had. To think that shows remedial level intellect. Defending a cheap title, safe from harm in a Don King bubble doesn't make you better than men who lacked such luxury. To believe Valuev is 'very big and he defended a belt so he is must be better than X fighters' is as remedial as it gets.

Here's my thinking, for what it is worth: Valuev lost clearly to Larry Donald, John Ruiz, Evander Holyfield, and David Haye, and outside of that he boxed nobody of note, just a faceless mob of overweight men. He lacks a live threat on his list of victims, and Earnie Shavers is one of the liveliest and most threatening heavyweights who ever existed. Shavers is badly hurting this pampered giant the first time he connects.

PS. Anyone who thinks Valuev cannot be hurt is wrong, and missed him rocking vs David Haye and Gerald Nobles. He was staggering around like a drunk, utterly out on his feet versus Taras Bidenko. It's no wonder he was cosseted for the entirety of his career.

[drunkenpiper36]

="Tuan_Jim"]Winning and defending a cheap belt in an age of cheap belts doesn't make you better than men who didn't win a belt when there was only one to be had.

No. But its at least as good, perhaps even better then consistently losing to lesser men at all stages of one's career which Shavers did.

Here's my thinking, for what it is worth: Valuev lost clearly to Larry Donald, John Ruiz, Evander Holyfield, and David Haye,

If this is your thinking, then you may want to rethink some things, because he didn't "clearly lose" to any of those men. He legitimately defeated three of the fighters you mentioned, while losing to the fourth in a very close and difficult fight to judge, when he was 36 years old, off for a year and in the last bout of his career.

and outside of that he boxed nobody of note, just a faceless mob of overweight men.

True to some extent, but also an over simplification.

Earnie Shavers is one of the liveliest and most threatening heavyweights who ever existed.

Incorrect. Shavers had deadly one punch power, true. But he was also known at times for being non-aggressive and even playing the role of the "nice guy" when he had a man hurt. He was well known for tiring by round 7 and his chin was one of his weaknesses.

Taken from wikipedia:

"At times lacking grace and accuracy, Earnie had a reputation for exhausting himself before round 7. Critics remarked he rarely won a bout that went beyond 8 rounds. His chin was his weakness. "

Shavers is badly hurting this pampered giant the first time he connects.

The first time he connects? Against a 7'0" 310 lbs guy who was never even decked in 50 pro fights? There were lesser men who survived Earnie Shavers power and even defeated him. So this claim that he "badly hurts" or "beats" Valuev with a single shot sounds like a great deal of nonsense to me.

PS. Anyone who thinks Valuev cannot be hurt is wrong, and missed him rocking vs David Haye and Gerald Nobles. He was staggering around like a drunk, utterly out on his feet versus Taras Bidenko. It's no wonder he was cosseted for the entirety of his career.

Again, Haye fought him when he was finished. I did not see him fight Nobles or whoever the hell that other guy is, so I'll take your word for it.. But if you think it only works one way, then I'd say that's selective bias. Shavers was beaten in a single round by Jerry Quarry, decked and decisioned by journeyman Bob Stallings, Stopped in 6 rounds by the moderately hitting Ron Lyle, and stopped by Tex Cobb and Bernardo Mercado. Sure he was past it for the last two, but then again he was the same age that Valuev was when he lost to Haye in a fight that at least went the distance and against a better opponent... See how selective bias works?

[BoxBuzz]

More I think about this, the more Valuev seems vulnerable....he can not get out of the way. One way to beat Ernie, is to not get hit......and Ernie would get tired chasing some opponents. Valuev is not going to be on the run. Way way way too much consideration given this guy IMHO. Ernie would retire Valuev.

Ernie could get very tired missing....because...let's face it there was a lot of energy spent when took a swing, and more when it hits air instead of paydirt. It's a lot easier on a fighter when they are actually landing than when they are missing. Give this some thought. Not sure Ernie gets tired from hitting Valuev. That big guy is going to likely be wishing he was a welter weight by mid fight. Anything to get out of Ernies way......but that big mook won't be missed by a single shot.

Ouch....oops....and then Timber!!!

[drunkenpiper36]

One way to beat Ernie, is to not get hit......

And another is to simply outlast him, which worked for Ron Lyle, Tex Cobb and a few others, who weren't exactly Ray Leonard in the stick and move department.

[BoxBuzz]

Well I respect the "loose cannon" aspect of your statement here. I'm sort of thinking in terms of most likely outcome. Lyle had more fire power than Valuev, and I have to think of Cobb as one of most durable. And those were bad days at the office for Ernie. So you certainly can not rule out a Valuev victory. I just don't think it's at all a smart bet.

[drunkenpiper36]

Well I respect the "loose cannon" aspect of your statement here. I'm sort of thinking in terms of most likely outcome. Lyle had more fire power than Valuev, and I have to think of Cobb as one of most durable. And those were bad days at the office for Ernie. So you certainly can not rule out a Valuev victory. I just don't think it's at all a smart bet.

Fair enough, and in truth I don't see picking either of these men as being a "smart" or safe bet. Could have gone either way and depending on how either man showed up. I just don't buy some of these arguments that others have fronted saying that the fight would be over as soon as Earnie "Landed something big." Both men had more than their fair share of shortcomings and both had bad nights against lesser opposition.

[BoxBuzz]

But it's a legitimate question, as to just how Valuev would actually deal with perhaps the hardest hitting HW of all time.

Would you be this optimistic if it was Foreman? Of course with Foreman there's not quite as much a height discrepancy. If my memory of Shavers height is accurate.

[polecateddy]

It just strikes me that the only way ever demonstrated to have success against Valuev was a high-energy, counter-punching approach. Certainly by the Holyfield fight the joint injuries were getting too much and he became more beatable. But I don't think Shavers ever fought a smart, counter punching fight. The attacking blast out route would surely be fraught with the risk that Ernie and his fast-twitch muscles would run out of gas if Valuev stood firm.

[drunkenpiper36]

But it's a legitimate question, as to just how Valuev would actually deal with perhaps the hardest hitting HW of all time.

Would you be this optimistic if it was Foreman? Of course with Foreman there's not quite as much a height discrepancy. If my memory of Shavers height is accurate.

First of all, I'm not very optimistic either way. But I'm also not going to make one man a favorite on the basis of a lucky punch nor even a flury of them. Valuev was slow, unimpressive and not a terribly hard hitter ( for a guy his size ). But he seems to fall into the mold of the type of fighter who could weather the storm early and possibly outlast Shavers. Could he be KO'd? Definitely. This is not X-Men and no person is invincible. But we've seen more instances of Earnie losing fights due to stamina and durability issues then we have of Valuev being over powered by a much smaller, yet harder hitter. As for Foreman, he'd be faced with a similar challenge as Shavers. But even though his stamina in the 70's was poor due to lack of pacing himself, I do think it was a tad better than Earnie's as was his chin. He also used a very effective two fisted attack, knew the value of working the body and could a tie a man up pretty well. Therefore I would be more comfortable betting on Foreman to best the Russian Giant than I would the Acorn.

[drunkenpiper36]

It just strikes me that the only way ever demonstrated to have success against Valuev was a high-energy, counter-punching approach. Certainly by the Holyfield fight the joint injuries were getting too much and he became more beatable. But I don't think Shavers ever fought a smart, counter punching fight. The attacking blast out route would surely be fraught with the risk that Ernie and his fast-twitch muscles would run out of gas if Valuev stood firm.

Agreed. For as little as I think of Ruslan Chagaev and David Haye, they at least had the right idea by using movement and giving angles even their efforts weren't pretty. Even a near 50 year old Holyfield followed a similar approach which gave him some success and against as you say, a diminished Valuev. But standing directly in front of a man who has a foot in height and 100 lbs in weight on you along with a chin that was never cracked in 50 fights is a terrible idea. Especially if you're OWN chin and stamina have failed you on multiple occasions before, and against lesser men.

[BoxBuzz]

.......honestly....he wasn't all that tested. And when he was....he lost. And a good argument can be made that a nearly extinct Holyfield beat him. That decision did not seem fully supportable though I wouldn't call it a robbery.

[drunkenpiper36]

="BoxBuzz"].......honestly....he wasn't all that tested. And when he was....he lost.

But against who, how and when? Did these fights happen to Valuev in his prime and did his conquerors employ the same techniques that Shavers likely would?

And a good argument can be made that a nearly extinct Holyfield beat him.

A very good argument indeed. But again, what strategy was used, how did it compare to Shavers' and while Holyfield was ancient to the point of being an archeological find, was this the same Valuev that Shavers would face if at his best?

P.S. so not to appear that I was ignoring your statement about Valuev never being truly tested, I'll agree with you. But Earnie Shavers though tested quite extensively, often failed at the highest levels and even at levels that weren't so high.

P.P.S. F-ck it... I'll just give in and provide the answer that most want to hear.... Earnie Shavers KO 1 Nikolay Valuev.......

....END OF THREAD......

[Tuan_Jim]

Drunkenpiper, first you call David Haye a 'southpaw' who beat Valuev in a 'fast-paced fight', and now you call Ron Lyle "moderately hitting" and try make your points by copying and pasting from Wikipedia?

Are you serious?

I also notice you keep referring to fights you haven't seen and have never researched.

I also notice that you cannot comprehend that some decisions in boxing are controversial and often go to the house fighter than the actual winner. Are you new to boxing?

It's abundantly clear you have no comprehension of the boxing landscape of the 1970s, where fighters like Shavers were lumps of meat to be thrown in anywhere against anyone, often short notice regardless of the condition they were in, simply to line a manager's pockets. It was a different dimension to the world Nikolay Valuev boxed in, mollycoddling a fighter to build an undefeated record then cash out at the end.

So naturally, their records reflect their respective eras. However the reasons for the dissonance in form always seem to fly right over the heads of this cyber YouTube/Wikipedia breed of young boxing fan. There seems to be a lack of thinking.

Put it this way. You'll do well to find footage of Earnie Shavers fighting a fat man.

You are incredibly opinionated and dominating, and speak as if your views are facts, when time and again your views are embarrassingly and obviously incorrect. David Haye a southpaw? Ron Lyle a non-puncher? If you love boxing you are free to dig deeper than Wikipedia and YouTube.

[drunkenpiper36]

Drunkenpiper, first you call David Haye a 'southpaw' who beat Valuev in a 'fast-paced fight', and now you call Ron Lyle "moderately hitting" and try make your points by copying and pasting from Wikipedia?

Are you serious?

I also notice you keep referring to fights you haven't seen and have never researched.

I also notice that you cannot comprehend that some decisions in boxing are controversial and often go to the house fighter than the actual winner. Are you new to boxing?

It's abundantly clear you have no comprehension of the boxing landscape of the 1970s, where fighters like Shavers were lumps of meat to be thrown in anywhere against anyone, often short notice regardless of the condition they were in, simply to line a manager's pockets. It was a different dimension to the world Nikolay Valuev boxed in, mollycoddling a fighter to build an undefeated record then cash out at the end.

So naturally, their records reflect their respective eras. However the reasons for the dissonance in form always seem to fly right over the heads of this cyber YouTube/Wikipedia breed of young boxing fan. There seems to be a lack of thinking.

Put it this way. You'll do well to find footage of Earnie Shavers fighting a fat man.

You are incredibly opinionated and dominating, and speak as if your views are facts, when time and again your views are embarrassingly and obviously incorrect. David Haye a southpaw? Ron Lyle a non-puncher? If you love boxing you are free to dig deeper than Wikipedia and YouTube.

Nice ranting fella.

I never called Lyle a " non puncher". I called him a " moderate hitter." If you're going to quote, then do it correctly, and if you look at most of Lyle's BEST wins, he had to settle for decisions in nearly every one with the exception of course of Earnie Shavers and a 280 lb Buster Mathis. If you don't like my reference to wikipedia then post something else to disprove the quote which referenced Shaver's tendency to gas beyond round 7 and showing a weak chin. I don't see anything from you except " Valuev was a pampered giant who Shavers would kill as soon as he landed ONE punch", which is ridiculous to say the least. Calling David Haye a south paw was the burp that I think I made, but it doesn't change the fact that Shavers would be facing a very large man who is more than durable enough to out last him. Is this gospel? No. But there's more reason behind it then your fantasies of a guy half his size going out there and ending things with a single punch - something that didn't always work for him even against much smaller and less durable men.....

Have a good day...

[Tuan_Jim]

Thank you for proving my point for me.

In quickly skimming over Ron Lyle's record just to confirm to yourself he wasn't a puncher, you missed a fight called George Foreman vs Ron Lyle.

It's on YouTube, go have a look at two of the most powerful punching heavyweights who ever existed going at it. It will be a joy to watch after viewing so many hours of Nikolay Valuev.

[drunkenpiper36]

Thank you for proving my point for me.

In quickly skimming over Ron Lyle's record just to confirm to yourself he wasn't a puncher, you missed a fight called George Foreman vs Ron Lyle.

It's on YouTube, go have a look at two of the most powerful punching heavyweights who ever existed going at it. It will be a joy to watch after viewing so many hours of Nikolay Valuev.

LOL. I saw a replay of that fight for the first time around 1989 ( likely before you ever saw it ) and several times since. So its your position that because a guy manages to deck another guy in a single fight, that this automatically places him in the category as " one of the most powerful punching heavyweights who ever existed?" That's ridiculous, and I doubt that there are many who would agree with you that he was. I'm guessing you feel that Lyle would knock out Valuev with one punch as well.. The man could crack, but he was no all time great puncher. As for your rantings about my credibility , I'll remind you that you're the man who claimed that John Ruiz, Larry Donald and Evander Holyfield " clearly" beat Nikolay Valuev. Pot, kettle,etc.etc..

Anyway if you want to believe that Shavers would spark Valuev "the first time he lands something big", as you stated before, then run with it.. I can care less.....

[Bodyshot3]

Valuev and Carnera will always be doomed to share the same dubious legacy....two freakishly huge men, often unattractive to watch and criticised for their lack of power despite their size, yet briefly successful and effective in their own ways.

The view that their careers were also managed/manufactured to allow them to get to the top - with their size being a selling point and worth protecting - also hangs over both men as well. There's also a credible suggestion that Carnera was managed by the Mob and that some of his fights were fixes.

Just for the record I think Shavers beats Valuev and actually does so early with his tried-and-tested explosive, bombing start. But the shots need to go right at the body, rather than the usual Shavers jaw-breakers.

[dempseyfire]

Shavers couldn't do a thing with Cobb, who sort of was a small version of Valuev. Unless you retro-geeks are now suggesting Cobb was better than the big Russian, then perhaps you'll have to concede that Shavers would run out of ideas and run out if gas. Especially if he steamed in there looking for the quick win.

Shavers also was nearly 39 years old and well past his best when he fought Cobb.

As for this fight . . I mean if the incredibly average in every department (including size . . Shavers was the bigger man) John Ruiz got jobbed out of a decision vs Valuev, then the much more talented Shavers can pull out a decision and maybe even stop the big man early.