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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

shavers is the clear choice here

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.