The Verbal Flatulence Of Earnest Shavers.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/boxing/8880967.stm
The weekend saw the announcement of an expected Vitali Klitschko-Shannon Briggs fight and the Klitschkos' take on their ongoing verbal spats with David Haye in today's moribund heavyweight scene.

"I like Shannon and because of that I have to go with him in the Klitschko fight," said Shavers.

"I used to love fighting big guys [like Klitschko] - you can't miss them!

"David Haye is a very good fighter and I hope he does well.

"But the guys [overall] these days don't seem to be of the same calibre, there's not a lot of good competition like in the '70s golden era when you had to be good to make it.

"If there isn't that competition in the game, television is not going to buy it."



For fucks sake....a guy who was beaten up by Tex Cobb and Jerry Quarry is now entitled to talk about how easy it is to deal with Vitali Klitschko?


Shavers was a serial loser. He needs reminding of this.

 

Nothing odd in here. First of all every fighter and boxing observer is biased towards the time they were in their prime. Just like Larry Holmes said during his comeback: If Joe Frazier were around now, nobody would have heard of Mike Tyson or Evander Holyfield. Of course it is not true but it is understandable why he says it.

Second, Shavers learned his trade back when the idea of correct boxing technique was narrow and very black-and-white (yes). When you look Vitali through those glasses, then yes he will seem very easy to hit and to have a poor footwork, even though all the evidence proves otherwise. That's why it becomes plausible to pick Briggs over him.

Shavers seems like an honest guy and he was a solid contender back in his day. His opinions however are just like George Foreman's view of wide shoulders intimidating opponents.

 

you find some weird things to get mad about, Irish.

 

::

This is true





But yeah Shavers is talking a lot of shite.

 

Oooo doesn't say that from a particular era,... christ,.. waz his name.. Chuck Wepner?... eee reckons ee could beat Wlad today.

 

absolutely agreed on that point

 

Vitali has to get hit cleanly less than any other heavyweight champ in history. Makes me wonder if Shavers has ever actually watched him fight.

 

He picked Shannon Briggs to win. Are we to take anything he is saying seriously?

 

Well, there's thousands of sentimental fans who just love to talk about how hard a puncher he was.

 

along with dozens of boxers who fought him

 

That's about the gist of it right there. He probably knows Briggs and doesn't have much of a choice but to pick him.

I've also never heard a bad thing about the guy from anybody who's ever met him.

Irish getting would up about it, is pretty funny though. ::

 

Yep. Shavers had his limitations but punching power was not one of them.

 

Yep. Earnie seems to be one of those fighters that everyone seems to like.

 

Good ole Earnie. :atu:

 

Sentimental? Get a grip. Shavers was a scary puncher.

It's always funny to see you trying to dismiss fighters you know nothing about. And you then try to build up the likes of "Swan Dive" Cintron.

 

You're going to refer to him as Earnie, and then claim not to be sentimental? You get a grip! You're living in the past man !

 

What's sad is you actually think you are clever.

 

Yawn. This most recent obsession of yours (one of many,...each one retarded in it's own special way) about dismissing any fighter who fought before you were a boxing fan is getting old.

 

it's not about dismissing fighters who fought before I was a fan. it's about dismissing fans who as a rule over-rate fighters who fought long ago.

 

But Double L no one is saying Shavers was a world beater. His punching power is certainly legitimate, and the actual BOXERS who felt his power all verify this.

 

He called him Earnie.

 

:Hanzkiller:

 

Shavers was laid out by Jerry Quarry. I reserve the same hatred for "Punchers" that Mickey from Rocky did for Southpaws. Nothing worse than a guy to whom the jab is a mystery. Punchers are fucking useless wastes of space. Wash rinse repeat. Throw a few bombs, eat a few jabs, lose a few more rounds, get desperate, lose, retire, talk shit. :shit:

 

I love Shavers. The guy thinks highly of his era but I've never heard him sound delusional about his place in that era. He knew what he was and what his limitations were. On top of that, he fought the best of the best in the best HW generation ever and still has all his faculties and wit intact.

But the respect of posters like me on a Boxing Forum really doesn't carry one ounce of the weight of his contemporaries like Holmes, Norton, Ali, Bugner, Lyle, etc that all called Shavers the hardest puncher they ever faced.

That being said, his amazing history in the sport doesn't make him an expert when it comes to evaluating today's talent. My guess is we are all smart enough to realize that.

 

Shavers said his loss to Ali was a fair decision.

I thought that was strange and felt Shavers clearly won.

 

Shavers said that Ali conned him a few times, and Shavers couldn't tell if Ali was really hurt or not. Fucking punchers.ointlaugh::shit:

 

Yes, sports fans. The Heavyweight landscape is as strong as it's ever been. I hope Vitali and Wlad play paddy-cake with the titles for the next 15 years.

Anybody who can't see this is not a true boxing fan.

After all, modern training methods and all..................I just saw Chris Arreola tossing medicine balls backwards over his head on a high school running track. If that doesn't prove he would bury somebody like Shavers, six feet under...........I don't know what will. athetic:

 

Shavers was an extremely-limited fighter. You could count on one hand his better attributes (& some would say one finger). I never rated him especially high, but you always had to nod to him as a live underdog, because of that punch. Irish is somewhat right that he wasn't a terrific fighter, but Shavers has never stated or implied he was, to my knowledge. I find him a little over-estimated, for the most part. Just too many flaws, & for all his crippling power, it was essentially resticted to one hand.

He is crazy to pick Briggs if he's being sincere, but he has every right to point out the difference between the Heavyweights when he was coming up & now. While that was a golden era to be sure, today's division doesn't look poor simply by comparison --- it's pure, unadulterated garbage, & both Klitschkos' have been fortunate to some extent they've been able to dominate so long, unfortunate to the extent I think they could beat better competition than this, but just how much better, it is dicey to say.

 

LOL, where did anyone say EARNIE (fuck yourself, trouble mel) was a great fighter?

its this simple... if you dont think that guy was one of the hardest punchers who ever lived, you are fucking wrong

thats where it ends

where did anybody say he was a great fighter?

 

As usual, you are talking out of your ass. Your biases are easy to see. You don't know jack about boxing from before this current era and, as a result, try to put down those fighters. It's really weak.