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