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

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.

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

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.

 

It was a trainers decision.

Foreman possessed a greater pedigree but he did not look like a fighter who had his **** 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'.

 

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.

 

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?

This content is protected

were ranked fighters in 1972, They were also punchers. Check the annual ratings in 1972:


[url]Frazier[/url], Champion

1. [url]Muhammad Ali[/url]
2. [url]George Foreman[/url]
3. [url]Jimmy Ellis[/url]
4. [url]Ron Lyle[/url]
5. [url]Floyd Patterson[/url]
6. [url]Ernie Terrell[/url]
7. [url]Jose Roman[/url]
8. [url]Joe Bugner[/url]
9. [url]Ken Norton[/url]
10. [url]Jose Luis Garcia[/url]

In 1973, Fraizer lost to Foreman badly, then picked gun shy - light punching Bugner, while punchers such as

This content is protected

were all rated higher annually by Ring Magazine.

[url]George Foreman[/url], Champion

1. [url]Muhammad Ali[/url]
2. [url]Joe Frazier[/url]
3. [url]Ken Norton[/url]
4. [url]Jerry Quarry[/url]
5. [url]Ron Lyle[/url]
6. [url]Earnie Shavers[/url]
7. [url]Oscar Bonavena[/url]
8. [url]Joe Bugner[/url]
9. [url]Jimmy Ellis[/url]
10. [url]Chuck Wepner[/url]

1974: Why pick Quarry again? At least Quarry was ranked, yet as we can see

This content is protected

were once again rated higher.

[url]Muhammad Ali[/url], Champion

1. [url]George Foreman[/url]
2. [url]Joe Frazier[/url]
3. [url]Ron Lyle[/url]
4. [url]Oscar Bonavena[/url]
5. [url]Joe Bugner[/url]
6. [url]Ken Norton[/url]
7. [url]Jerry Quarry[/url]
8. [url]Chuck Wepner[/url]
9. [url]Henry Clark[/url]
10. [url]Larry Middleton[/url]

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

This content is protected

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.

[url]Muhammad Ali[/url], Champion

1. [url]Ken Norton[/url]
2. [url]Jimmy Young[/url]
3. [url]Joe Frazier[/url]
4. [url]George Foreman[/url]
5. [url]Ron Lyle[/url]
6. [url]Earnie Shavers[/url]
7. [url]Duane Bobick[/url]
8. [url]Joe Bugner[/url]
9. [url]Chuck Wepner[/url]
10. [url]Randy Neumann[/url]

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.

 

:good

 

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.

 

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

 

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......

 

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.

 

Definitely Shavers.

 

Shavers Lyle had more on the ball than Earnie...and Foreman never seemed beatable at all, except vs ali and Young.

 

foreman was rather skilled, very good at cutting off the ring.

Shavers had a leaky chin
Lyle was getting older and older.

Either Shavers or Lyle