Earnie Shavers legacy?

[Tuan_Jim]

Samuel Peter at number 66.

Read that again.

Samuel Peter at number 66.

Enough said.

That list is an absolute joke.

Was it compiled by Lee Groves? The Ring guy who compiled the 10 greatest middleweights ever, but limited it to 'men who held world title belts' - which meant his 10 best middleweights ever included Felix Sturm and Arthur Abraham ("for their long reigns") and excluded a million middles who would have bounced them on their heads. Georgie Benton, Ezzard, Archie etc etc etc etc etc

Honestly, The Ring was so irrelevant by 2011, who cares what the hell their bottom of the heap hacks said?

[Tuan_Jim]

Holy crap, and Ruslan Chagaev at 41! Above Ron Lyle!

I'm starting to think there's a lot of comedy to be had with this list.

Ruslan Chagaev - one of the 50 best that ever did it!?!?! Great Brown Bomber in the sky that's a terrible list!

[Tuan_Jim]

Nikolay Valuev - officially better than Buster Douglas!!!!!!

[drunkenpiper36]

Samuel Peter at number 66.

Read that again.

Samuel Peter at number 66.

Enough said.

That list is an absolute joke.

Was it compiled by Lee Groves? The Ring guy who compiled the 10 greatest middleweights ever, but limited it to 'men who held world title belts' - which meant his 10 best middleweights ever included Felix Sturm and Arthur Abraham ("for their long reigns") and excluded a million middles who would have bounced them on their heads. Georgie Benton, Ezzard, Archie etc etc etc etc etc

Honestly, The Ring was so irrelevant by 2011, who cares what the hell their bottom of the heap hacks said?

I questioned the order of these rankings too and I'm not sure they read the way we think they read. Floyd Patterson is at #4 which is pretty absurd. But honestly I don't have Shavers rating too high on that list and again this list only reflects 1929 onward

[Ezzard]

I'm guessing that number after their names relates to some kind of points system. Interesting but those kind of systems are at best indicative of what ever the parameters are.

[drunkenpiper36]

I'm guessing that number after their names relates to some kind of points system. Interesting but those kind of systems are at best indicative of what ever the parameters are.

Yeah that's what I figured too. And I think part of it may have something to do with perhaps how long or how many times each man was ranked by the magazine? Not sure. I just found it interesting and decided to copy and paste it. Not likely to get very many kind responses though.

[HomicideHenry]

What should be done... is we take a list of all the heavyweight champions from Sullivan to the present... and discuss who Earnie would have the best shot against... then we take a list of heavyweight title challengers from Sullivan to the present... and then we take a list of guys who never were given title shots (unjustly) from Sullivan to the present...

I think, overall, we would find out of a "top 100" Shavers being capable of only beating a handful of such men all in their primes. Call me biased, because of my... "mentally deficient prism"... but let's be honest here. Shavers never did win the title, or even a fraction of a title. The only way we can rank his overall worth... is to determine it by hypothetical matches... for my own two cents, I'll rate Bob Satterfield higher than Shavers, but thats just me.

[drunkenpiper36]

What should be done... is we take a list of all the heavyweight champions from Sullivan to the present... and discuss who Earnie would have the best shot against... then we take a list of heavyweight title challengers from Sullivan to the present... and then we take a list of guys who never were given title shots (unjustly) from Sullivan to the present...

I think, overall, we would find out of a "top 100" Shavers being capable of only beating a handful of such men all in their primes. Call me biased, because of my... "mentally deficient prism"... but let's be honest here. Shavers never did win the title, or even a fraction of a title. The only way we can rank his overall worth... is to determine it by hypothetical matches... for my own two cents, I'll rate Bob Satterfield higher than Shavers, but thats just me.

I don't waste time or effort with rating men based on who they'd "hypothetically" beat if doing the time machine thing. If that's the only criteria a person uses, then the whole argument would get turned on its head if the other guy who was supposed to lose actually won. Even in actual instances where one fighter actually defeated another from the same era it still did not guarantee a higher rating. Does Iran Barkley rate higher than Hearns? Does Douglas rate higher than Tyson or McCall above Lewis? No.. Certainly not. The only workable criteria that a reasonable person should use is stats, records, personal achievements and quality of competition. The last one is subjective of course as opinions vary on what quality comp is and who was superior between this era or that era. Earnie Shavers fought during a very competitive period in heavyweight boxing. His opposition was stellar. But its what he either did or didn't do against those opponents that makes him fall short in my eyes. His name is commonly thrown in the mix with Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Ken Norton, etc, and its the charisma that surrounds those names which I believe ads spunk to his resume. But if we're honest, he lost to the best men he ever faced and additionally lost to even some lesser opponents as well. He has perhaps 4 or 5 quality names on his record, but most were outside their primes and in some case considerably so. Of his 74 victories, about 35 of them came against guys with losing records, while a fair number of the remaining ones were against semi-respectable journeyman at best. He lost almost every round he ever had against Holmes, with the exception of the colossal Knockdown in the rematch, and that had just as much do with Holmes being complacent as it did anything Earnie crafted himself. The rendition of Muhammad Ali who claimed that his relatives in African heard the shot that Earnie hit him with, was the same version who lost to Leon Spinks.. Jerry Quarry was viewed as finished by some in 1973 yet Shavers at 28 years of age and with a record of 45-2 was dispatched in one round and without even given a chance to work up a sweat. Journeyman Bob Stallings outboxed him to a decision. I can go on but I won't.. In my mind, men like Tim Witherspoon, Primo Carnera, Peter Jackson, Bob Pastor, Young Stribling and Eddie Machen rate higher, and without looking at anyone's list, I doubt most of those guys rate terribly high on a lot of people's top 75 or even 100.

[HomicideHenry]

What should be done... is we take a list of all the heavyweight champions from Sullivan to the present... and discuss who Earnie would have the best shot against... then we take a list of heavyweight title challengers from Sullivan to the present... and then we take a list of guys who never were given title shots (unjustly) from Sullivan to the present...

I think, overall, we would find out of a "top 100" Shavers being capable of only beating a handful of such men all in their primes. Call me biased, because of my... "mentally deficient prism"... but let's be honest here. Shavers never did win the title, or even a fraction of a title. The only way we can rank his overall worth... is to determine it by hypothetical matches... for my own two cents, I'll rate Bob Satterfield higher than Shavers, but thats just me.

I don't waste time or effort with rating men based on who they'd "hypothetically" beat if doing the time machine thing. If that's the only criteria a person uses, then the whole argument would get turned on its head if the other guy who was supposed to lose actually won. Even in actual instances where one fighter actually defeated another from the same era it still did not guarantee a higher rating. Does Iran Barkley rate higher than Hearns? Does Douglas rate higher than Tyson or McCall above Lewis? No.. Certainly not. The only workable criteria that a reasonable person should use is stats, records, personal achievements and quality of competition. The last one is subjective of course as opinions vary on what quality comp is and who was superior between this era or that era. Earnie Shavers fought during a very competitive period in heavyweight boxing. His opposition was stellar. But its what he either did or didn't do against those opponents that makes him fall short in my eyes. His name is commonly thrown in the mix with Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Ken Norton, etc, and its the charisma that surrounds those names which I believe ads spunk to his resume. But if we're honest, he lost to the best men he ever faced and additionally lost to even some lesser opponents as well. He has perhaps 4 or 5 quality names on his record, but most were outside their primes and in some case considerably so. Of his 74 victories, about 35 of them came against guys with losing records, while a fair number of the remaining ones were against semi-respectable journeyman at best. He lost almost every round he ever had against Holmes, with the exception of the colossal Knockdown in the rematch, and that had just as much do with Holmes being complacent as it did anything Earnie crafted himself. The rendition of Muhammad Ali who claimed that his relatives in African heard the shot that Earnie hit him with, was the same version who lost to Leon Spinks.. Jerry Quarry was viewed as finished by some in 1973 yet Shavers at 28 years of age and with a record of 45-2 was dispatched in one round and without even given a chance to work up a sweat. Journeyman Bob Stallings outboxed him to a decision. I can go on but I won't.. In my mind, men like Tim Witherspoon, Primo Carnera, Peter Jackson, Bob Pastor, Young Stribling and Eddie Machen rate higher, and without looking at anyone's list, I doubt most of those guys rate terribly high on a lot of people's top 75 or even 100.

You sir... just spoke the Gospel truth.

[cjdragon]

What Drunkenpiper said ^

[tiny_acres]

What Drunkenpiper said ^

Yep what drunkenpiper said

[Tuan_Jim]

Meanwhile the staff study the patients, who seem to have resolved some manner of debate among themselves.

[drunkenpiper36]

Meanwhile the staff study the patients, who seem to have resolved some manner of debate among themselves.

You're more than entitled to disagree.