Who Looks Most "Beatable" in the 1970s: Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers, or George Foreman?

[Marciano Frazier]

I am now told that Joe Frazier's management, in spite of being scared to death of powerful punchers (according to this standpoint), opted to match their man up with George Foreman because they "thought he was beatable," and that they subsequently OPTED ONCE AGAIN to face Big George because "Frazier was declining and so was Foreman, so they decided to take a rematch" (?). However, according to this same position, this exact same management team in this exact same time period was unwilling to face contemporaries Ron Lyle or Earnie Shavers out of fear of those fighters' punching power. I am curious, then; if Foreman was an acceptable opponent because he was "thought beatable," why would Earnie Shavers or Ron Lyle be unacceptable opponents? Were they thought to be unbeatable? Is there some reason why defending your championship or risking your contention against George Foreman would actually be preferable to doing so against Lyle or Shavers?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you were a manager in 1973, who would look like the most "beatable" opponent to you?

Ron Lyle, 19-0 with 17 knockouts, whose best win is over Larry Middleton,

Earnie Shavers, 41-2 with 40 knockouts, who has been toasted by Frazier victim Ron Stander and has never beaten a top 50 heavyweight,

OR

George Foreman, 37-0 with 34 knockouts, an Olympic Gold Medalist who has knocked out his last 21 opponents and is the only man aside from Frazier himself to have stopped George Chuvalo?
----------------------------------------------------------------

If you were a manager in 1976, who would look the most beatable to you?

Ron Lyle, 31-4-1 with 22 knockouts, who has now beaten Shavers, but been smeared by Frazier victim Jerry Quarry and has lost three of his last four fights,

Earnie Shavers, 49-5-1 with 47 knockouts, who has now been iced by another Frazier victim in one round and is winless in his last three outings against top 20 heavyweights,

OR

George Foreman, 41-1 with 38 knockouts, former world heavyweight champion who already wiped Frazier himself out, who lost to Ali in his only professional defeat and just defeated Lyle in his last fight?
---------------------------------------------------------------

If you were a manager willing to match his man up with punchers on the condition that they looked "beatable," which of these men would you be willing to match your man against, and which would you NOT?

[la-califa]

Depends on what kind of boxer I had. If I was managing a Puncher. Then it would have to be Lyle first. he was vulnerable to the Counterpunch himself & my fighters chances were pretty good that, we might land the homerun punch first. The later match would have to be Shavers, who by that time was slower and had a leaky defense.
If I had a boxer, then Shavers first because he was alot slower & could have been outboxed. Later Lyle, because he himself was slower & his homerun shot was wide & predictable. But in both instances, I wouls steer wide of Big George Foreman.

[Muchmoore]

Definently not Foreman. Probably Shavers, he was very beatable if you had a solid chin/skills but at the same time the danger factor was always there.

With Lyle, he had good skills so he wouldn't be outboxed easily or outgunned which was proved against Shavers, he's someone I'd try to steer my fighter away from if I could. Although I'd do the same with Shavers and Foreman too.

[Vantage_West]

if i had a decent boxer puncher in my stable i would of managed him to fight lyle.
lyle was big puncher but could be outboxed and hurt.
shavers was too big a puncher and as much as i am confident in my fighters jaw i know any man can be koed.

foreman wasnt just a slugger he just enveloped you and busted you up. maybe you could wina few rounds but im sure my figther woudl of lost due to a beat down.

[tylerrcurtis]

shavers is the clear choice here

[mr. magoo]

I personally voted for Shavers as being the most beatable at that time ( though I don't think anyone looked forward to getting tagged by him. )

Shavers was simply not as proven at the world class level as the other two, and had suffered some bad losses by that point. I assume that this thread was started to gain support for why Joe Frazier chose the opposition that he fought.

There is no reason for me to believe that Frazier was deliberatley avoiding Shavers, Lyle or Foreman.

[zadfrak]

Agree w/ Earnie selection.

Sure don't see him ever absorbing those Frazier left hooks for very long. When he gets hit clean with them, he's in trouble & all he can do is try to wing away and hope for the best. And when Earnie missed his big shots, was he ever open.

[Marciano Frazier]

Ah! I forgot to make the poll public. Would the individual who voted for Foreman mind explaining his/her reasoning?

[ironchamp]

shavers is the clear choice here

Not quite....I think Lyle seems to be the easier choice.

He was green at this point, less than 20 fights under his belt. He had alot of potential but he hadnt blossmed.

From a mangement standpoint Foreman was the obvious choice. The risk reward ratio was a little bit better.

In 1973 Foreman was the right guy. He was undefeated, he was a gold medalist- he seemed to lack proper form and technique and he had just the right credentials to make a Frazier win look good. There is a reason why George came in the underdog.

Shavers - His record is intimidating and his KO ratio is very high and his
right hand was something to fear. The risk reward ratio isnt very high.

I would have avoided this fight until it was necessary.

[Mendoza]

It depends on the style of my fighter, and the time when the match happened in the 1970's. Here me out.

Foreman was at his best from 1970-1973

Lyle was likely at his best from say 1974-1978

Shavers was likely at his best from 1973-1979.

Post Ali, Foreman was a mess, and really had issues with Lyle and Young, though he had an easy time with Frazier again.

All three are tough matches for a smaller forward moving fighter who does not take the best punch in the world, but I would say Foreman would be the hardest of the three.

Lyle, for my money is a better boxer with far more stamina than Foreman, and Shavers to me hit a trifle harder than Foreman, and was a bit faster with his punches.

I would say Foreman was the hardest match up, then Lyle, then Shavers.

However if your using Frazier as an example here, he wasn't always a fast starter, and Shavers was. So maybe Shavers is more dangerous than we think.

IMO, Frazier could easily lose to Shavers or Lyle when they were in their prime years, and Frazier was not. ( 1973-1978 ) This is a reason why Frazier never fought them, and picked lower ranked, non-power punching fighters or fighters that had already beaten that were outside of their primes.

[SuzieQ49]

However if your using Frazier as an example here, he wasn't always a fast starter, and Shavers was.

he sure didnt look like he started fast vs jerry quarry!

[Marciano Frazier]

Not quite....I think Lyle seems to be the easier choice.

He was green at this point, less than 20 fights under his belt. He had alot of potential but he hadnt blossmed.

From a mangement standpoint Foreman was the obvious choice. The risk reward ratio was a little bit better.

In 1973 Foreman was the right guy. He was undefeated, he was a gold medalist- he seemed to lack proper form and technique and he had just the right credentials to make a Frazier win look good. There is a reason why George came in the underdog.
Yes, it is a reasonable viewpoint that, as of '73 (though not so much in '76, which you may note I also included), Foreman was a better risk/reward choice than Lyle or Shavers; however, this is specifically BECAUSE he was better than them and thus had a superior record and far superior credentials, meaning that a win over him (which was believed quite doable) would be worth more. Notice, the poll question is "Which would look most beatable to you?" not "Which would be the best choice of opponent, all factors taken into account?" and thus your vote should not follow this reasoning.

Shavers - His record is intimidating and his KO ratio is very high and his
right hand was something to fear. The risk reward ratio isnt very high.

I would have avoided this fight until it was necessary.
Note that Foreman had an even more intimidating record and an even more fearsome offense.

[mr. magoo]

Although Shavers seems to be leading in the pole, I think a fair case can be made for Lyle as well, but I don't think it really matters. The point illustrated here, is that neither of those two appeared to be as formidable as George Foreman anytime between 1973-1976. Frazier taking the fight with Foreman in 1973, and again in 1976, explodes any myths about him ducking Shavers and Lyle because they were dangerous punchers, and certainly any misconceptions about them being better fighters.

[Mendoza]

Although Shavers seems to be leading in the pole, I think a fair case can be made for Lyle as well, but I don't think it really matters. The point illustrated here, is that neither of those two appeared to be as formidable as George Foreman anytime between 1973-1976. Frazier taking the fight with Foreman in 1973, and again in 1976, explodes any myths about him ducking Shavers and Lyle because they were dangerous punchers, and certainly any misconceptions about them being better fighters.

Foreman was on a huge slide post Ali. He looked very beatable. Foreman was but one of many matches for Frazier. I think Lyle did better vs Foreman than Frazier by a mile. I also believe Patterson, Lyle, Norton and Shavers could have meet Frazier.

Bunger, a washed up Ellis, Stander, Daniels, Quarry, and others simply did not pose the same danger level for Frazier as Lyle, Shavers, Norton Or Patterson, which is a reason why I beleive they were not selected despite being ranked higher from 1972-1977.

[lfsdan]

Lyle would be my choice. Shavers might *look*the most beatable but one punch from that human sledgehammer and your lucky to ever be the same.

[mr. magoo]

=Mendoza]Foreman was on a huge slide post Ali. He looked very beatable. Foreman was but one of many matches for Frazier.

I still feel that Foreman was the best choice. He was afterall, the only man who ever truly obliterated Frazier, and it took guts for Joe to get back into the ring with him, certainly to the extent that he was not taking a " safe path back to the crown. " Also, Foreman had just beaten Lyle in troublesome, yet convincing fashion, while Lyle had in turn, just beaten Shavers. Frazier was in the ring with the right guy, when trying to prove himself as still being a key player.


I think Lyle did better vs Foreman than Frazier by a mile. I also believe Patterson, Lyle, Norton and Shavers could have meet Frazier.


Agreed, they all could have met Joe, and they would have been good names to have. I don't feel he ducked them though.


Bunger, a washed up Ellis, Stander, Daniels, Quarry, and others simply did not pose the same danger level for Frazier as Lyle, Shavers, Norton Or Patterson, which is a reason why I beleive they were not selected despite being ranked higher from 1972-1977.


I think its already been painted in red, that Shavers and Lyle were nobodies during the period that was Frazier's reign. Floyd Patterson was basically finished by 1972. Norton hadn't made his mark until right around the time that Frazier lost the title in 1973. Plus, political circumstances which surrounded their being friends and managed by the same handlers, made that fight difficult to set up. Both men publicly said that they never wanted to fight each other. It wasn't like we were getting different stories from each guy, where one of them called the other his brother, while the other said " brother my ass, I'm gonna kill em' ".

Conclusion: I really can't see any valid argument being made for Frazier avoiding Lyle, Shavers, Norton and Patterson, especially not during the time frames you've given.

[Ted Spoon]

It was a trainers decision.

Foreman possessed a greater pedigree but he did not look like a fighter who had his shit together; he looked open and beatable. By contrast Lyle, and even shavers boasted superior, classic form in the ring.

Frazier came in dry and had virtually zero anticipation for Foreman while dangerous George was positively wired and teary eyed before the first bell.

What looked like a dead set was then turned on its head as Foreman showed his iron constitution and strength.

When Ali beat Foreman it greatly encouraged Joe to apply a similar fight plan to try and foil the 'declining Foreman'.

[kenmore]

I would have to say Shavers, because of his shaky stamina and durability issues.

[Mendoza]

I would have to say Shavers, because of his shaky stamina and durability issues.

Was Shavers stamina that bad? He went 15 rounds with Ali, and the distance once with Holmes, and KO'd Roy Williams in 10. Shavers stamina cost him in the Tex Cobb fight, but he was pretty much past his best by then. Cobb was a human anvil type. He could tire you out when you hit him.

In terms of gassing, Foreman might have gassed sooner than Shavers did in the 1970's.

[Mendoza]

Conclusion: I really can't see any valid argument being made for Frazier avoiding Lyle, Shavers, Norton and Patterson, especially not during the time frames you've given.

Magoo, did you read this?

I have re-read Marciano_Frazier’s initial post ( not all of it could be re-posted here due to character limit ), and he has his share of good points. I take it many liked his examples of Frazier facing highly ranked ring magazine contenders on his way up in the 1960's? Do we all agree here? Yes or no?

Read on. Can others ( M_F, John Thomas, and Chris ) admit the reverse? I see a pattern of Frazier not picking or facing higher ranked big punchers besides Foreman in the 1970’s, and not facing the biggest pucnhers in the 60's ( Patterson, Liston, or Mac Foster )

Let us fully examine them fairly, and like Marciano_Frazier's use Ring Magazine Annual ratings as the benchmark for the 1970's to see if Frazier avoided matches with higher ranked pucnhers.

This is fair:

1972. Frazier picked two non-ranked top ten guys in 1972 in Stander and Daniels. Why? Patterson, Norton, and Lyle were ranked fighters in 1972, They were also punchers. Check the annual ratings in 1972:


Frazier ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion
Muhammad Ali ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
George Foreman ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jimmy Ellis ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ron Lyle ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Floyd Patterson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ernie Terrell ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jose Roman ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joe Bugner ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ken Norton ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jose Luis Garcia ([Only registered and activated users can see links])In 1973, Fraizer lost to Foreman badly, then picked gun shy - light punching Bugner, while punchers such as Norton, Lyle and Shavers were all rated higher annually by Ring Magazine.

George Foreman ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion
Muhammad Ali ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joe Frazier ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ken Norton ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jerry Quarry ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ron Lyle ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Earnie Shavers ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Oscar Bonavena ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joe Bugner ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jimmy Ellis ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Chuck Wepner ([Only registered and activated users can see links])1974: Why pick Quarry again? At least Quarry was ranked, yet as we can see Lyle and Norton were once again rated higher.

Muhammad Ali ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion
George Foreman ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joe Frazier ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ron Lyle ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Oscar Bonavena ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joe Bugner ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ken Norton ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jerry Quarry ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Chuck Wepner ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Henry Clark ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Larry Middleton ([Only registered and activated users can see links])1975, and this one’s really bad. Why pick a washed up Ellis? Ellis, like Stander and Daniels was not annually ring ranked. Ellis was done. Once again, punchers like Norton, Lyle, and Shavers were highly ranked. If Frazier wanted to pass Norton, a fight with Lyle or Shavers might have done it. Or why not pick Norton? Heck, Bobbick who really was not that good, had a decent enough right hand and he would have been a much better choice then Ellis.

Muhammad Ali ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion
Ken Norton ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jimmy Young ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joe Frazier ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
George Foreman ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ron Lyle ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Earnie Shavers ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Duane Bobick ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joe Bugner ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Chuck Wepner ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Randy Neumann ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Summary: Using ring ranking, fights with Patterson, Shavers, Lyle, and Norton could have been made and were all higher rated that ANYONE Frazier fought with the exception of Foreman. I have little doubt Frazier management avoided punchers in the 1970's. I am twisitng no facts here at all. We know who was higher ranked, and we know who the pucnhers were. I also beleive Patterson, Shavers, Lyle, and Norton hit harder than ANYONE Frazier beat.

Regarding the second Foreman vs Frazier fight in 1976, it was clear Foreman lost a lot of confidence from the Ali fight. Foreman was nearly upset by Lyle before the 2nd fight with Frazier. So perhaps Frazier’s’ team figured this time was the best to avenge a bad TKO loss. As it was, Frazier did much better the second time around, but still did not come close to beating a mentally deflated Foreman.

[Holmes' Jab]

Lyle would be my choice. Shavers might *look*the most beatable but one punch from that human sledgehammer and your lucky to ever be the same.


:good

[My dinner with Conteh]

1974: Why pick Quarry again? At least Quarry was ranked, yet as we can see Lyle and Norton were once again rated higher.

Muhammad Ali ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion

George Foreman ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joe Frazier ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ron Lyle ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Oscar Bonavena ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joe Bugner ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ken Norton ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jerry Quarry ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Chuck Wepner ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Henry Clark ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Larry Middleton ([Only registered and activated users can see links]).

Although I have always been (a bit) puzzled as to why Joe never faced that many big punchers besides Foreman, your point above is null and void as these ratings were taken after Fraizer had beaten Quarry who, at the time of their fight, was rated above Ron.

[Bummy Davis]

They were all beatable, Foreman had the biggest build up ever, most of his opponents were fighters with losing records and when he did fight Chuvalo,Kirkman,Peralta, they were wins but Chuvalo was already shot, Peralta a blown up light heavy and Kirkman a fighter no one ever saw. Ron Lyle is spoken about as a great puncher but this is not true. He KO'd Shavers after getting dropped but Earnie got shook in every fight, even the ones he won...Earnie had a big uppper body and thin legs and he wobbled in every fight and was stopped and beaten many times, could Earnie punch yes but he also had shakey pins. If you look at the Lyle/Quarry fight, Lyle was dominated, hurt went into defensive mode,Shavers Ko'd in 1 rd....Foreman avoided Quarry because Jerry had the style to give him trouble. OUT of the 3 Foreman was the most gifted overall and had the best foundation but was carefully and cautiously managed...LOOK at his record....Jimmy Young was a fighter I saw early on in his career, did not look like anything but they threw him in with the lions in & out of the ring and he came into his own...Big difference how he fought Shavers 1st and 2nd time, he handled Lyle and Foreman as well but was Young a fighter like J.Joe Walcott, No way...Walcott could box like him and hit like Foreman when he wanted to and his punchers were pinpoint not the clubbing variety that BIG George through. Out of all 3 I think Foreman had what it took inside himself to come back and mature mentally later in life but even that version won a title over a beatable split Champ. If fighter like Ezzard Charles, JJwalcott were around in the 70's, I think the careers of Shaver, Lyle and Foreman may have been deflated earlier

[groove]

everyone's beatable and how many times did Walcott lose? johnny allen? well he was just over 200 pounds and his record was 22 wins 21 losses and 1 draw so he must be in the same league as foreman, young, shavers etc..keep talking......

[Marciano Frazier]

I still feel that Foreman was the best choice. He was afterall, the only man who ever truly obliterated Frazier, and it took guts for Joe to get back into the ring with him, certainly to the extent that he was not taking a " safe path back to the crown. " Also, Foreman had just beaten Lyle in troublesome, yet convincing fashion, while Lyle had in turn, just beaten Shavers. Frazier was in the ring with the right guy, when trying to prove himself as still being a key player.
Note that no matter how much Mendoza may try to play up Foreman being "on a slide" post-Ali, he had STILL just knocked out Lyle in his VERY LAST FIGHT before he fought Frazier, which makes the "Frazier-was-ducking-Lyle-but-willing-to-risk-his-chances-at-another-title-shot-by-facing-Foreman-who-had-already-even-previously-obliterated-Frazier-himself-in-two-rounds" historical reconstruction even more obviously silly.

[Marciano Frazier]

everyone's beatable and how many times did Walcott lose? johnny allen? well he was just over 200 pounds and his record was 22 wins 21 losses and 1 draw so he must be in the same league as foreman, young, shavers etc..keep talking......
Um, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread or even any of the discussion being held therein.

[heehoo]

Out of the three, Shavers, He was probably the single hardest puncher in boxing history, but he had a shaky chin and could be outboxed, as he relied exclusively on his power.

Lyle was a decent boxer-puncher, tough to beat any way one looks at it.

Foreman was the hardest of the three to beat, though Lyle came THIS close to doing it in their classic fight.