Earnie Shavers was 34 years old when he fought Larry Holmes first time!!

S

spacetime

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
11,863
Reaction score
320
Was it common for middle-of the-road boxers to get their chance in the limelight so late? He was nowhere near his prime. Nobody ever talks about this.

Look how more fluid Shavers was just 3 years earlier. Shavers is in blue. He has a knockdown right right before the bell... He would have probably beaten Lyle otherwise.

 
spacetime said:
Was it common for middle-of the-road boxers to get their chance in the limelight so late? He was nowhere near his prime. Nobody ever talks about this.

Look how more fluid Shavers was just 3 years earlier. Shavers is in blue. He has a knockdown right right before the bell... He would have probably beaten Lyle otherwise.

Click to expand...


Middle of the road is a bit harsh

He went the distance with ali for the titles a couple of yrs before this.

In this era of mutliple champions he probably would have had one by the time he fought holmes
 
He went the distance against Parkinson Ali with no sting in his punches. It was embarrasing
 
Last edited:
I heard Shavers started boxing very late, didn’t start until he was 22.

He probably didn’t reach his peak until 30 at the earliest.

It’s like comparing the Foreman who was just getting back into the gym at 38 after 10 years off versus the Foreman that went the distance vs Holyfield at 42 - obviously the 42 year old version of Foreman was better than the 38 year old version.
 
He was 33 when he first fought Ali, which isn't all that old for a heavyweight but kind of old for a first world title bout. The guy took quite some time to earn his shot, as he lost a few bouts when he started fighting decent competition.

Also, the word "fluid" doesn't go very well with Shavers.
 
Not one mention of Holmes age advantage. Crazy. 34 in boxing is beyond over the hill for most people
 
Oh my god, all these years I thought he was 32 and a half years old. This changes everything.
 
spacetime said:
Not one mention of Holmes age advantage. Crazy. 34 in boxing is beyond over the hill for most people
Click to expand...
Depends on the kind of fighter we’re talking about. An out fighter who relies heavily on reaction time and elaborate foot work might be as old as a junkyard dog at 33 but a crafty technician or savvy counter puncher may not be at his best until his mid or even late 30’s when he has had the ring experience to really perfect his craft.
 
Blazeblack said:
Depends on the kind of fighter we’re talking about. An out fighter who relies heavily on reaction time and elaborate foot work might be as old as a junkyard dog at 33 but a crafty technician or savvy counter puncher may not be at his best until his mid or even late 30’s when he has had the ring experience to really perfect his craft.
Click to expand...

No. 34 is ancient no matter what style. We don't all age biologically the same however and those that are even close to their primes around that age are exceptional.
 
spacetime said:
No. 34 is ancient no matter what style. We don't all age biologically the same however and those that are even close to their primes around that age are exceptional.
Click to expand...

What's more remarkable is that he started boxing at 22 and managed to fight for a world title at any point in his life.

In this day and age of readily available online biographies can you find one example of a boxer who fought at 160 or below who started training at 22 and ever fought for a world title? No you can't. Most of them started training when their age was in the single digits. About 1% started training at an age where they'd be able to graduate high school.

It's a basic, logical fact of life that it takes many years of accumulated training time in the gym to develop world championship calibre boxing skills. Some manage to win a title after 6 or 7 years but they are very rarely dominant champions.
 
spacetime said:
No. 34 is ancient no matter what style. We don't all age biologically the same however and those that are even close to their primes around that age are exceptional.
Click to expand...
Ancient? There’s really no such thing as a universal biological prime. Most people peak somewhere in their late 20’s but that is a very vague and miss leading “rule”. Sure in boxing where fighters tend to start in the amateurs before the age of ten they are going to have their bodies break down earlier than you would see in the average endurance athlete. For a boxer that starts in his mid or late teens and relies more on ring iq, defense and has the punching power to keep his opponents honest can be competitive even at 40. Fighters that tend to rely heavily on physical gifts tend to age worse than fighters than guys who focus on tactical skill and protecting their bodies. Painting with too broad a brush doesn’t work in a sport like boxing were you have a wide verity of effective methods to be an elite level fighter. Shavers was actually probably worse example you could have brought up in arguing fighter aging since he could have been 50 and still ko’d a top contender or even a weaker title holder just because he had the punching power to drop an elephant.
 
Blazeblack said:
Shavers was actually probably worse example you could have brought up in arguing fighter aging since he could have been 50 and still ko’d a top contender or even a weaker title holder just because he had the punching power to drop an elephant.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Reflexes go down, set-up goes down, etc. Shavers wouldn't have been able to consistently time it, as we saw when he failed to beat a both physically and mentally crippled Ali on the beginning stages of Parkinson.

Another factor to take into consideration is that Shavers wasn't a brawler but instead a mid range fighter.
 
Last edited:
spacetime said:
Doesn't matter. Reflexes go down, set-up goes down, etc. Shavers wouldn't have been able to consistently time it, as we saw when he failed to beat a both physically and mentally crippled Ali on the beginning stages of Parkinson.

Another factor to take into consideration is that Shavers wasn't a brawler but instead a mid range fighter.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t suggesting he was but that’s besides the point. Suggesting that you need a Loma like reaction time or RJJ like reflexes doesn’t jive man. Nor do you go from a super athlete at 28 to a shot old man at 33 with out some serious trauma and damage like getting Ko’d several times or going through several wars and or doing all of the above without living a healthy lifestyle (parting, too much drinking, drugs, or getting to heavy out of fight camp and continually doing big weight cuts). The majority of title holders and ranked contenders from welterweight to Heavyweight are on average 31 years old should they all drop their belts and rankings and get on social security?
 
Blazeblack said:
I wasn’t suggesting he was but that’s besides the point. Suggesting that you need a Loma like reaction time or RJJ like reflexes doesn’t jive man. Nor do you go from a super athlete at 28 to a shot old man at 33 with out some serious trauma and damage like getting Ko’d several times or going through several wars and or doing all of the above without living a healthy lifestyle (parting, too much drinking, drugs, or getting to heavy out of fight camp and continually doing big weight cuts). The majority of title holders and ranked contenders from welterweight to Heavyweight are on average 31 years old should they all drop their belts and rankings and get on social security?
Click to expand...

I never said you need that. It is a fact that reflexes go down, no matter what level they were originally. Your ability to pull the trigger also goes down, to time the shots.
 
spacetime said:
I never said you need that. It is a fact that reflexes go down, no matter what level they were originally. Your ability to pull the trigger also goes down, to time the shots.
Click to expand...
Yes we can definitely agree on that. I just disagree on the amount of degradation you would see on a fighter in his early 30’s but it’s clear neither of us are going to change our opinions so let’s agree to disagree.
 
Blazeblack said:
Yes we can definitely agree on that. I just disagree on the amount of degradation you would see on a fighter in his early 30’s but it’s clear neither of us are going to change our opinions so let’s agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Depends on the sport. In boxing it's huge. Grappling heavy MMA not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,881
Messages
55,450,989
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top