Earnie Shavers legacy?

drunkenpiper36
Middleweight
Posts: 1420
Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 11:13

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by drunkenpiper36 »

elmersalsa wrote:Earnie Shavers is one of the greatest punchers that ever lived. He definately is not a top 20, but, I could see him in the top 35 or top 40. I cannot see 100 heavyweights better than he.....NO WAY!

I bet if you started at John L. Sullivan and worked your way up to Wladimir Klitschko you could conceivably list 100 heavyweights who could outrank Shavers. That's not to say that those ratings would be " gospel" per say, as everyone has their own criteria. But you're talking about more than a 100 years of history and a significant number of men who range anywhere from being "very good" to being " great". Starting from 1970-2014 I bet an honest person could probably find somewhere between 30-40 men who could reasonably be ahead of Shavers. This obviously has nothing to do with comparing power or being a great puncher, but rather purely on resume. Shavers had some devastating knockout wins and some galant losing efforts to ATG's.. But what he lacks in my opinion are quality wins. Norton and Ellis were respectable names and good victories but also finished at the time of his meeting with them. Joe Bugner hadn't fought in years and was past his prime. Jimmy Young was 7-3 when he met Earnie the first time. In their second meeting he was around 13-4-1-3 and arguably deserved the win.. Roy Tiger Williams was basically fringe. Shavers also accumulated 14 losses in his career which are comprised of a myriad of men including young prospects, journeyman, fringe guys and a few ATG's.. He lost in some less than flattering performances... Overall he had a very good career. But I don't see him cracking top 70 and with the right argument he might even be just outside the top 100.
tiny_acres
Middleweight
Posts: 9462
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:43

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by tiny_acres »

drunkenpiper36 wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:Earnie Shavers is one of the greatest punchers that ever lived. He definately is not a top 20, but, I could see him in the top 35 or top 40. I cannot see 100 heavyweights better than he.....NO WAY!

I bet if you started at John L. Sullivan and worked your way up to Wladimir Klitschko you could conceivably list 100 heavyweights who could outrank Shavers. That's not to say that those ratings would be " gospel" per say, as everyone has their own criteria. But you're talking about more than a 100 years of history and a significant number of men who range anywhere from being "very good" to being " great". Starting from 1970-2014 I bet an honest person could probably find somewhere between 30-40 men who could reasonably be ahead of Shavers. This obviously has nothing to do with comparing power or being a great puncher, but rather purely on resume. Shavers had some devastating knockout wins and some galant losing efforts to ATG's.. But what he lacks in my opinion are quality wins. Norton and Ellis were respectable names and good victories but also finished at the time of his meeting with them. Joe Bugner hadn't fought in years and was past his prime. Jimmy Young was 7-3 when he met Earnie the first time. In their second meeting he was around 13-4-1-3 and arguably deserved the win.. Roy Tiger Williams was basically fringe. Shavers also accumulated 14 losses in his career which are comprised of a myriad of men including young prospects, journeyman, fringe guys and a few ATG's.. He lost in some less than flattering performances... Overall he had a very good career. But I don't see him cracking top 70 and with the right argument he might even be just outside the top 100.
Thank You.That was the point I was trying to make.
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15706
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by elmersalsa »

Name me 100 fighters at heavyweight that were BETTER TALENTED and had BETTER RESUME at the same time. It is mindboggling for me to see 100 heavyweights better than Earnie Shavers in skill and accomplishments
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by HomicideHenry »

elmersalsa wrote:Name me 100 fighters at heavyweight that were BETTER TALENTED and had BETTER RESUME at the same time. It is mindboggling for me to see 100 heavyweights better than Earnie Shavers in skill and accomplishments
What skill?

Im not being a dick or anything, but what skills are you trying to hype Shavers to have?

He was a buller, a puncher, nothing more than that.
tiny_acres
Middleweight
Posts: 9462
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:43

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by tiny_acres »

elmersalsa wrote:Name me 100 fighters at heavyweight that were BETTER TALENTED and had BETTER RESUME at the same time. It is mindboggling for me to see 100 heavyweights better than Earnie Shavers in skill and accomplishments
We are looking at over 100 years of history.It is "MINDBOGGLING" that you think there are not 1oo more
that could of beaten him.Shavers(my favorite fighter) lost to some very average opponents.
He was tough and fun to watch but not great.
I consider the top 100 as great heavyweights when comparing over 100 years of history.
Last edited by tiny_acres on 09 Nov 2014, 17:59, edited 1 time in total.
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by HomicideHenry »

tiny_acres wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:Name me 100 fighters at heavyweight that were BETTER TALENTED and had BETTER RESUME at the same time. It is mindboggling for me to see 100 heavyweights better than Earnie Shavers in skill and accomplishments
We are looking at over 100 years of history.It is "MIDBOGGLING" that you think there are not 1oo more
that could of beaten him.Shavers(my favorite fighter) lost to some very average opponents.
He was tough and fun to watch but not great.
I consider the top 100 as great heavyweights when comparing over 100 years of history.
Really boxing as we know it today began in 1865... that's over 150 years of boxing... alot of great heavyweights have come down the pipe... I interviewed Shavers on three occasions... and he said something along the lines that he felt he could of knocked out the Klitschko's in two-three rounds... I pointed out to him, "Earnie, you lost to Ron Stander on a knockout," and he still stuck to his guns.
drunkenpiper36
Middleweight
Posts: 1420
Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 11:13

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by drunkenpiper36 »

tiny_acres wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:Name me 100 fighters at heavyweight that were BETTER TALENTED and had BETTER RESUME at the same time. It is mindboggling for me to see 100 heavyweights better than Earnie Shavers in skill and accomplishments
We are looking at over 100 years of history.It is "MIDBOGGLING" that you think there are not 1oo more
that could of beaten him.Shavers(my favorite fighter) lost to some very average opponents.
He was tough and fun to watch but not great.
I consider the top 100 as great heavyweights when comparing over 100 years of history.
It really is that simple. And I don't think that list needs to be comprised exclusively of "great" fighters either. If we start comparing shavers best wins, losses, and weather or not world titles were ever acquired to the resumes of men like Tim Witherspoon, buster Douglas, Chris Byrd, Bob pastor, young stribling, George Godfrey, etc, I think those men rank higher.
Tuan_Jim
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by Tuan_Jim »

HomicideHenry wrote: Really boxing as we know it today began in 1865... that's over 150 years of boxing... alot of great heavyweights have come down the pipe... I interviewed Shavers on three occasions... and he said something along the lines that he felt he could of knocked out the Klitschko's in two-three rounds... I pointed out to him, "Earnie, you lost to Ron Stander on a knockout," and he still stuck to his guns.
And Wladimir has been down 12 or 15 times, KOd thrice, by men whose power & execution does not compare to Earnie Shavers. To bring up a loss to Ron Stander with a man who bombed Norton and Ellis and near killed Ali and Holmes really does make you sound like an imbecile.
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15706
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by elmersalsa »

I am still waiting the list of 100 great fighters better than Earnie Shavers at heavyweight. That is HARD TO BELIEVE. Maybe with the list, it will change my mind...I am waiting.
drunkenpiper36
Middleweight
Posts: 1420
Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 11:13

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by drunkenpiper36 »

elmersalsa wrote:I am still waiting the list of 100 great fighters better than Earnie Shavers at heavyweight. That is HARD TO BELIEVE. Maybe with the list, it will change my mind...I am waiting.

Rather than demanding someone else take the time to comprise a list, why don't you go through the list of top heavys from era to era, compare their resumes to Shavers and see for yourself. Be a good assignment and better than taking a blind shot in the dark. Shavers never left much of a legacy behind outside of having a few guys say " he hit me really hard." And mostly coming from men who beat him. He was a good contender with exceptional power, but there are many who's accomplishments surpass his own.
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15706
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by elmersalsa »

drunkenpiper36 wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:I am still waiting the list of 100 great fighters better than Earnie Shavers at heavyweight. That is HARD TO BELIEVE. Maybe with the list, it will change my mind...I am waiting.

Rather than demanding someone else take the time to comprise a list, why don't you go through the list of top heavys from era to era, compare their resumes to Shavers and see for yourself. Be a good assignment and better than taking a blind shot in the dark. Shavers never left much of a legacy behind outside of having a few guys say " he hit me really hard." And mostly coming from men who beat him. He was a good contender with exceptional power, but there are many who's accomplishments surpass his own.
Why don't you make the list? If you are so confident that there were 100 better heavyweights than Earnie. I would like to see it. Let us see if it is truth. At least I know 20 heavyweights that were better than he was.
drunkenpiper36
Middleweight
Posts: 1420
Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 11:13

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by drunkenpiper36 »

elmersalsa wrote:
drunkenpiper36 wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:I am still waiting the list of 100 great fighters better than Earnie Shavers at heavyweight. That is HARD TO BELIEVE. Maybe with the list, it will change my mind...I am waiting.

Rather than demanding someone else take the time to comprise a list, why don't you go through the list of top heavys from era to era, compare their resumes to Shavers and see for yourself. Be a good assignment and better than taking a blind shot in the dark. Shavers never left much of a legacy behind outside of having a few guys say " he hit me really hard." And mostly coming from men who beat him. He was a good contender with exceptional power, but there are many who's accomplishments surpass his own.
Why don't you make the list? If you are so confident that there were 100 better heavyweights than Earnie.


I said in an earlier post that he doesn't make my top 70 and that I could see an "argument" for why he might not make top 100. I don't have to take the time and comprise a list of fighters that in my opinion ( which will likely differ from yours ) are above him. I've already stated the reasons why he doesn't rank that high and even listed some lower level heavys as a gauge to work with who rate higher in my mind.

I would like to see it. Let us see if it is truth. At least I know 20 heavyweights that were better than he was.
By saying that you can only think of 20 that rate higher, then I am assuming that he's listed in your top 25-30. Why?
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15706
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by elmersalsa »

drunkenpiper36 wrote:
By saying that you can only think of 20 that rate higher, then I am assuming that he's listed in your top 25-30. Why?

I have never said that. I have said that AT LEAST, AT LEAST I know 20 fighters at heavyweight better than Earnie. I want to see the next 80.
drunkenpiper36
Middleweight
Posts: 1420
Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 11:13

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by drunkenpiper36 »

elmersalsa wrote:
drunkenpiper36 wrote:
By saying that you can only think of 20 that rate higher, then I am assuming that he's listed in your top 25-30. Why?

I have never said that. I have said that AT LEAST, AT LEAST I know 20 fighters at heavyweight better than Earnie. I want to see the next 80.

I said in an earlier post that he doesn't make my top 70 and that I could see an "argument" for why he might not make top 100. I don't have to take the time and comprise a list of fighters that in my opinion ( which will likely differ from yours ) are above him. I've already stated the reasons why he doesn't rank that high and even listed some lower level heavys as a gauge to work with who rate higher in my mind.
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by HomicideHenry »

Tuan_Jim wrote:
HomicideHenry wrote: Really boxing as we know it today began in 1865... that's over 150 years of boxing... alot of great heavyweights have come down the pipe... I interviewed Shavers on three occasions... and he said something along the lines that he felt he could of knocked out the Klitschko's in two-three rounds... I pointed out to him, "Earnie, you lost to Ron Stander on a knockout," and he still stuck to his guns.
And Wladimir has been down 12 or 15 times, KOd thrice, by men whose power & execution does not compare to Earnie Shavers. To bring up a loss to Ron Stander with a man who bombed Norton and Ellis and near killed Ali and Holmes really does make you sound like an imbecile.
Outside of dropping Holmes in the rematch... who was all in his prime... Shavers' best moments came against men who were at the end of the line, or near the end of the line in their careers. I really do like Earnie, don't get me wrong, he was seldom ever in a dull contest--- but the majority of his victories came against unknowns and nonentities in boxing, and his best moments came against old men. I'm proud to say Shavers came from my home state of Ohio, and I've been around Warren (his home town) and its a real beautiful area in the state. To think that some country bumpkin from the sticks, managed to do what he did is something of a miracle, thank Jesus.

But, that still doesnt take away from Earnie's faults--- and his losses (in his prime or near prime). Mind you, he lost in his prime to Bernardo Mercado (KO7), the unheralded Bob Stallings (L10), and when he was 12-1 (12) as a pro he lost by kayo to Ron Stander (who was 9-0) in the 5th round. Alot of his wins were against guys like Charley Polite (14-20-3), Richard Pittman (0-15-2), Chuck Leslie (22-21-5), Leon Shaw (6-7-1), and Tommy Howard (2-17-2). Those guys I listed, were across the board in his career--- so just how "great" was he, when its obvious that the kayo ratio was inflated, because he was fed alot of hand picked dead men, even when he was facing guys like Lyle and Quarry.

Mind you, the one man, in my estimation that Shavers looked great against was Holmes. However, in their first encounter, Shavers lost the decision by a wide, wide margin (120-108). In the rematch, it was more of the same, until Holmes got caught and was dropped. The first six rounds of that rematch was all Holmes... and after being dropped, from the eighth round till its conclusion in the eleventh it was all Holmes again. Not to knock Shavers, I cant think of anyone else who was able to drop a prime Holmes--- but that moment is a bit enlarged, more so than it probably should be.

As for the "wins" or performances over Norton, Ali, Ellis, etc. let's break it all down okay?

Ken Norton, before facing Shavers, had lost to Holmes. After losing to Holmes, he won a kayo over a unknown named Randy Stephens. He then was kayoed by Shavers. After Shavers, he managed a draw against tough, durable (but limited) Scott LeDoux. After LeDoux, he won a controversial split decision over Randall Tex Cobb. After Cobb, he was almost killed by Gerry Cooney. I think it's the consensus of most on the forum that Norton (after Holmes) was nowhere near the same man he once was. So the "win" for Shavers, is a bit askewed.

Muhammad Ali, before facing Shavers, was doing the "Bum of the Month" worldwide international tour. He defeated unknown, unheralded Coopman. He won a highly controversial decision over the little regarded Jimmy Young, a fight that historians say was clearly a gift decision. He defeated European champion Dunn. He won a highly controversial decision over Ken Norton (most today believe Norton won this contest). He then took on the unknown, unheralded, and undeserving challenger Alfredo Evangelista, in a fight that Howard Cosell (Ali's #1 fan) said was the worst fight of all time. Then came Shavers... and Earnie blew it, missed his big chance in the second round... Much like the Holmes fight, Shavers had one magic moment, but otherwise was out thought, out fought, out boxed, etc. Of course, after Shavers came the Spinks bouts (who only had 7 fights to his credit when he fought Ali). So the performance, also, must be taken into account as being a bit overblown.

Jimmy Ellis, before facing Shavers, fought a slew of tomato cans. Rico Brooks (twice), Joe Harris, Charlie Harris, Bob Felstein, Harold Carter, Ollie Wilson, and Dick Gosha (to be exact). AFTER facing Shavers, Ellis went 2-4-1 against the likes of Larry Middleton, Boone Kirkman, Ron Lyle, Joe Frazier, and Joe Bugner. While that seems not so bad a losing record--- consider this, most insiders at the time considered Ellis "washed up" at the time of the Kirkman fight. I'm not trying to be a dick, honestly, but in the "Foreman/Frazier" thread thats been hotly debated the passed two weeks on this forum--- its been pretty much the consensus of the forum that by the time Ellis fought Frazier, both he and Smokin' Joe were well passed it as fighters. After all, in their primes, Frazier stopped Ellis in four rounds. In the rematch, it took Frazier nine grueling rounds to put him away. Again--- the importance of this victory, must be in question.

You also have to figure Shavers was also defeated in one round to Jerry Quarry*, and in five rounds to Ron Lyle. He only managed a draw against a near-prime Jimmy Young--- and it may be THAT fight, in which his biggest accomplishment as a fighter lies. Not that its a disgrace to lose to such men--- not in the least bit--- hell, Lyle almost kayoed Foreman and he was ahead on the cards when he fought Ali. Damned good fighters these men were; however, Shavers still lost to these men and whatever wins and performances he had are to be judged. A loss is still a loss, regardless of performance--- otherwise, we'd be talking about how destructive and awesome Bob Satterfield is, more so than Shavers.

*At the time of the Shavers fight, it was the consensus of the media that Quarry was on the way down in his career. This wasn't the first time, however, that Quarry had been written off. When he lost unexpectedly (by kayo) to Chuvalo he was considered cannon fodder. To prove he wasn't some bum, he took on the highly touted Mac Foster, and obliterated him. He was back in the running, and then he lost to Ali. Again, he was written off. He then went over to England as an underdog and annihilated Jack Boddell in one round--- and he was back in the game. He then, of course, lost the rematch to Ali--- and was considered just a fringe contender, nothing more, and BLAM he destroys Shavers. The ultimate come back kid.
Tuan_Jim
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by Tuan_Jim »

It's like talking to a man who only reads Boxrec records and can't analyse the fights themselves. Life is much too short to drivel with yahoos like Henry. I'm done with this discussion.

However I still look forward to someone listing 70-100 men who would beat Earnie Shavers. That might give this thread some redeeming comic value.
drunkenpiper36
Middleweight
Posts: 1420
Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 11:13

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by drunkenpiper36 »

Tuan_Jim wrote:It's like talking to a man who only reads Boxrec records and can't analyse the fights themselves. Life is much too short to drivel with yahoos like Henry. I'm done with this discussion.

However I still look forward to someone listing 70-100 men who would beat Earnie Shavers. That might give this thread some redeeming comic value.
No one ever said anything about 70-100 guys "beating" Shavers.
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by HomicideHenry »

Tuan_Jim wrote:It's like talking to a man who only reads Boxrec records and can't analyse the fights themselves. Life is much too short to drivel with yahoos like Henry. I'm done with this discussion.

However I still look forward to someone listing 70-100 men who would beat Earnie Shavers. That might give this thread some redeeming comic value.
FACTS, FIGURES, STATS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DOESNT LIE

SHAVERS WAS GOOD, BUT NOT GREAT. PERIOD.

HE FOUGHT ALOT OF BUMS, AND OLD MEN. HE ALSO LOST TO BUMS AND OLD MEN.
drunkenpiper36 wrote:
No one ever said anything about 70-100 guys "beating" Shavers.
No, nobody did--- but when you take into account the "worth" of Shavers wins... just how many men could you really name, who could beat him? I'd venture to say at least 50 heavyweights in history could.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15178
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

It's been a while, bit I have seem Top 100 heavyweight lists on this Forum. I made myself once. I believe everyone had Shavers on the list; don't recalling anyone comment that he should not be.

If you have ever done a list like this, you will that it is sort of like a pyramid. There are a small handful at the top, and it levels get bigger the farther you get down. In other words, the difference between say #5 and #12 is much closer than #55 and # 62.

For example. with Shavers, do you put him ahead of the relatively WBS champions from the late 1970s-1980s era? Weaver, Coetzee, Thomas, Tate, Page etc? They all had their ups and downs like Shavers.

You could reasonably have him in the Top 50 or or maybe as low as the 75 or so. He has to be in the top 100 though.
Tuan_Jim
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by Tuan_Jim »

HomicideHenry wrote: FACTS, FIGURES, STATS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DOESNT LIE
Through your mentally deficient prism they mislead.
drunkenpiper36
Middleweight
Posts: 1420
Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 11:13

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by drunkenpiper36 »

Ambling Alp II wrote:It's been a while, bit I have seem Top 100 heavyweight lists on this Forum. I made myself once. I believe everyone had Shavers on the list; don't recalling anyone comment that he should not be.

If you have ever done a list like this, you will that it is sort of like a pyramid. There are a small handful at the top, and it levels get bigger the farther you get down. In other words, the difference between say #5 and #12 is much closer than #55 and # 62.

For example. with Shavers, do you put him ahead of the relatively WBS champions from the late 1970s-1980s era? Weaver, Coetzee, Thomas, Tate, Page etc? They all had their ups and downs like Shavers.

You could reasonably have him in the Top 50 or or maybe as low as the 75 or so. He has to be in the top 100 though.
Top 100 is reasonable. Though I'm not sure I'd secure him as having a definite lock on it.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15178
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Until I actually see a list of 100 fighters who I think were at least arguably better, he is a lock to me.
It looks like 100 is just a number being thrown around.
drunkenpiper36
Middleweight
Posts: 1420
Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 11:13

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by drunkenpiper36 »

Ambling Alp II wrote:Until I actually see a list of 100 fighters who I think were at least arguably better, he is a lock to me.
Resume wise? I mean I can see him beating some dudes who may rank higher than he does. But if we're going on the basis of pure credentials, comprising a list might not be that difficult.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15178
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

I look forward to seeing it.
drunkenpiper36
Middleweight
Posts: 1420
Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 11:13

Re: Earnie Shavers legacy?

Post by drunkenpiper36 »

Ambling Alp II wrote:I look forward to seeing it.

Okay. This was Ring magazine's top 100 all time heavyweight ratings which spanned from 1929 to 2011. Shavers is ranked at #94, but bare in mind, these ratings don't include anyone who came BEFORE 1929, which omits a fair number of fighters, ie, Dempsey, Jeffries, Fitz, Langford, Wills, etc... I have a feeling these ratings aren't in order as for some reason Floyd Patterson is at #4. In either case if we were to comprise a complete list going back to Sullivan I can certainly see a case for men like Shavers, Eddie Chambers, Mac Foster and Duane Bobick being bumped off.

TOP 100 HEAVYWEIGHTS 1929-2011
BASED ON RING MAGAZINE’S RANKINGS

{*Heavyweight Champion}

1. Joe Louis* 176 34. Lee Q. Murray 46 67. Willie Pastrano 27
2. Muhammad Ali* 174 35. Ernie Terrell 44 68. Roland LaStarza 26
3. Evander Holyfield* 144 36. Michael Dokes 44 69. Joey Maxim 26
4. Floyd Patterson* 122 37. Lee Savold 43 70. Melio Bettina 26
5. Lennox Lewis* 120 38. Bob Pastor 42 71. Gerry Cooney 26
6. Larry Holmes* 114 39. John Ruiz 39 72. Nicolay Valvev 26
7. Mike Tyson* 108 40. Jimmy Ellis 38 73. King Levinsky 25
8. George Foreman* 106 41. Ruslan Chagaev 37 74. Tony Galento 25
9. Joe Frazier* 94 42. Henry Cooper 37 75. Billy Conn 25
10. Wladimir Klitschko* 86 43. George Chuvalo 35 76. Lee Q. Murray 25
11. Max Schmeling* 84 44. Ron Lyle 34 77. Ray Mercer 25
12. Tim Witherspoon 80 45. Razor Ruddock 34 78. K. Milderberger 25
13. Sonny Liston* 78 46. David Tua 33 79. Buster Douglas* 25
14. Zory Folley 78 47. Greg Page 33 80. Tony Tucker 25
15. Jersey Joe Walcott* 76 48. Trevor Berbick 32 81. Oleg Maskaev 24
16. Ezzard Charles* 68 49. Leon Spinks* 32 82. Michael Grant 23
17. Riddick Bowe*62 50. Archie Moore 31 83. Andrew Golota 23
18. Chris Byrd 62 51. Michael Spinks* 31 84. Doug Jones 23
19. Ken Norton 61 52. James Toney 31 85. Carl Williams 23
20. Eddie Machen 60 53. Bob Baker 31 86. Tom Loughran 22
21. Rocky Marciano* 56 54. Elmer Ray 30 87. Oliver McCall 22
22. Vitali Klitschko* 56 55. Joe Baksi 30 88. Thad Spencer 21
23. Gerrie Coetzee 56 56. Jimmy Young 29 89. David Haye 21
24. Max Baer* 56 57. Tommy Jackson 29 90. Cleveland Williams 20
25. Jack Sharkey* 53 58. Nino Valdes 28 91. George Godfrey 19
26. Michael Moorer* 53 59. Alexander Povetkin 28 92. Johnny Risko 19
27. Mike Weaver 52 60. Young Striblng 27 93. Arturo Godoy 19
28. Jerry Quarry 51 61. Jimmy Braddock* 27 94. Earnie Shavers 18
29. Primo Carnera* 51 62. Tommy Farr 27 95. Eddie Chambers 18
30. Pinklon Thomas 50 63. Lou Nova 27 96. Mac Foster 17
31. Oscar Bonavena 50 64. Lee Oma 27 97. Duane Bobick 17
32. Tami Mauriello 48 65. Bruce Woodcock 27 98. Steve Hamas 17
33. Hasim Rahman* 46 66. Samuel Peter 27 99. M. Rosenbloom 17
100. Pat Valentino 17 101. D. Francesco 17
Post Reply