This one again? Foreman would have destroyed Quarry. Foreman would have destroyed Shavers. Why does the fact that Quarry stopped Shavers mean anything? Shavers couldn't take punishment like Foreman could. The fact that Shavers punched hard means nothing, he was nothing like Foreman.
Lyle would improve after the Quarry fight. Lyle did much better vs. Ali than Quarry did. He also stopped Shavers, like Quarry did, but not as quick. The Foreman who fought Lyle wasn't the same Foreman who beat Frazier in '73... he still beat Lyle though, by KO!
It's very possible for Quarry to beat Foreman, but he may have to go through tremendous hell to do it.
I don't see it, Foreman would bust him up with jabs ,push him back to his optimum punching range when he tried to get close and bomb him with big shots.Quarry's chin is also overated he could be hurt and dropped and was,and by lesser punchers than George. 7rds tko .
Foreman never ducked Quarry. To duck, at least in my definition, is to sidestep a challenger who has a strong claim for a title shot. After George won the title he did one gimme defence against Roman and the took on his top contenders in Norton and Ali. Quarry was behind Norton and Ali as well as Frazier in the pecking order. But I can easily see that Quarry wasn't someone team Foreman really fancied facing when George was building his case for a title challenge. The risk reward probably wasn't right against a tough, pretty skilled veteran such as Jerry at that stage.
If you lived through those times you would remember a few articles in BI regarding "Is Foreman ducking Quarry?". However you can find articles concerning many crazy topics as writers have to write. Foreman has stated since he did not relish the idea of fighting Quarry. But then again Foreman says lots of things many untrue. I don't see a way Quarry beats Foreman. Jerry lots all of his biggest fights....twice with Ali, twice with Frazier. Suspect Foreman corners him, hurts and cuts him, leading to a stoppage within five rounds.
You need to consider the timing of it all. To win the title Foreman had to fight Fraizer. Ali was coming off a loss to Frazier in the FOC. Norton was an unknown at that time. Lyle had been beaten by Quarry. A Foreman vs Quarry fight was the biggest money maker at that time in all of boxing. So why not make the fight, unless there were concerns of losing.
I just can't see Quarry having the strength to stop exactly this from happening Mac. Because he certainly hasn't got the height or reach.
This subject is nothing more than an urban legend. Foreman vs. Quarry would have been an utter mismatch. It would have been a bulldozer vs. a pick-up truck. Part of George's faux nice-guy act is to say lots of things that make him sound humble, kind of a 'little ol' me', down-yonder, southern gentleman kind of schtick. That's to offset the fact that in the ring he was a vicious killer, someone who could eat Jerry Quarry for breakfast.
A couple of the magazines of the day wrote about this, probably to sell magazines. At the time Foreman was having managerial problems, **** Sadler sold like 150% of him or something like that, and it didn't make sense for him to fight at the time. Foreman feared nobody, especially Quarry. That's not to say that Quarry couldn't have given him a fight if it was one of his on nights. Jerry could fight and his counterpunching style might have given George problems if George's yet to be exposed stamina problems came into play, but George ducking him? I don't think so
I like and respect Jerry Quarry, but the only way anyone would've have fancied his chances against George Foreman of that era is if they had not seen George Foreman of that era fight. As for Foreman's motives for saying these kind of things after the fact about how "dangerous" Quarry was, Vince Voltage summed it up perfectly a few posts ago.