Jerry Quarry

[Goodnight, Irene]

Lyle's age is misleading, as he didn't start until he was twenty-nine. I think it's fair to class him as a top contender at the time Foreman got him. I actually agree with most of your points, though. Foreman did have an edge physically on Lyle, on account of the age disparity, & Lyle was indeed a better boxer (even if his hands were routinely low). However, I think Lyle having lost two of his previous three is a red herring. He dropped a decision to the very-slick Young, & was stopped --- controversially, in my view --- in a fight against a pre-Manila Ali he was winning quite handily. It's not as if he was at the end of the line. There's no shame or detriment in either of those defeats.

Lyle would always have his chances, but he met Foreman at the best possible time (at least, in the context of Foreman's career). It was post-Zaire, but before Foreman could establish any rhythm, as it was his return bout. Pre-Zaire, Foreman was quicker out of the blocks & more aggressive. I think the chances are strong he gets Lyle early in that setting, & without having to endure the heavy knocks he did in reality. He was faster (in terms of his assault) than was Lyle, was a better finisher than Lyle, hit harder & was at least as durable.

[dempseyfire]

How is starting slower a bad thing? Clancy had George smartly sticking the jab vs a dangerous hitter like Lyle. Foreman goes for broke vs Lyle, a good counter-puncher in the first round, and he probably ends up getting stopped. George started getting in trouble vs Lyle when he reverted back to looking for one big punch instead of boxing.

I fully concur with John L; the Foreman who fought in the Frazier rematch was the best Foreman ever. The power and aggression of the Foreman who won the title but fighting more controlled and smarter, with the emphasis on his telephone poll jab, whose absence was a HUGE factor of why Foreman lost in Zaire.

[Goodnight, Irene]

How is starting slower a bad thing? Clancy had George smartly sticking the jab vs a dangerous hitter like Lyle. Foreman goes for broke vs Lyle, a good counter-puncher in the first round, and he probably ends up getting stopped. George started getting in trouble vs Lyle when he reverted back to looking for one big punch instead of boxing.

I fully concur with John L; the Foreman who fought in the Frazier rematch was the best Foreman ever. The power and aggression of the Foreman who won the title but fighting more controlled and smarter, with the emphasis on his telephone poll jab, whose absence was a HUGE factor of why Foreman lost in Zaire.

I disagree strongly, but I think we've gotten off-point, at any rate. My contention is Quarry is over-rated, am in agreement with Henry, there.

[Robinson]

I think Foreman in the Frazier rematch was a better fighter, in condition,
skill and schooling that his younger though ever aggressive self that
destroyed Norton, Frazier and lost to Ali.

The 1976 Foreman was fueled by a hunger to redeem himself, whether he
needed to or not, he was in good shape, he as Foreman always was, a
student of boxing, and he was focused.

It took Young to frustrate his plans, and perhaps being avoided by Ali,
for Foreman to give it all up.

The Toronto exhibition to me was impressive more than it was an
embarrasment. To FIGHT 5 guys who were capable pros in one night is
an impressive throw back spectactle to do. If Ali, Johnson or Louis had
done it, then it would have only been a tick against there name. For George
it was just a confused statement in an era of his own personal frustrations.

Sorry to disagree with you GI on your boy. And of all people for me to
agree with...DF. It scares me when DF and I agree on matters. Maybe we
are not boxing polar opposites after all ;)

[Brutu]

Thad Spencer was supposed to beat Jery Quarry.
Mac Foster was supposed to beat Jerry Quarry.
Earnie Shavers was supposed to destroy Jerry Quarry.
None of them did.

[Robinson]

Quarry lost the big fights, and even some not so big fights
when he was at or near his best.

He also beat some damned decent contenders, and arguably
beat (I am biased to Floyd) Patterson in two fun filled fights.

I however do not feel that Foreman 'ducked' Quarry, I just do
not think that their fates saw them meeting. It seems that they
were some what friendly and fond of one another, much like
Frazier and Norton, so perhaps this also in some ways steered
them away from a show down.

Had Foreman been champ longer, then perhaps there would have
been a need for them to fight, as Quarry was always popular and
seemed to slide him self into contention often.

How Foreman vs Quarry would have played out....sorry Jerry. I
just see big George banging him into a stoppage, though Jerry does
land that right and some nice left hooks.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Bah, y'all are just plain crazy if you think Foreman improved after losing to Ali. Bunch of nutters

Thing is, Foreman wasn't champ until '73, & Quarry was on the slide, by then. He was essentially out of the legitimate contenders' picture by the time Foreman lost the belt in late-74, so a fight couldn't have eventuated between them any earlier than the opening months of 1975...far too late for Quarry, whose peak was around the time Foreman was making his pro debut.

Best-on-best, Quarry, with his fast hands, respectable wallop & stop-start offense has a small chance, but the emphasis is on small. He wasn't really in Foreman's class, just as he wasn't Frazier's or Ali's. Foreman made more technical errors in-ring than those two though, so the door is ajar for Quarry there...but I fancy it's getting slammed in his face

[TheGreatA]

Foreman wasn't the same after losing to Ali in my opinion. Taking 5 rounds to dispose of a near-blind, overweight, close to shot Frazier is certainly not more impressive than blowing a near prime/prime Joe out in 2. If he was at his best then I guess that disproves the notion that a prime Foreman would always destroy a prime Frazier inside two or three rounds.

Quarry to me has a better chance against Big George than he did against Ali or Frazier although it's still a minor chance. He was good against big slow sluggers and what people tend to forget is that he boxed all his life since he was a kid and had a huge advantage in experience over the likes of Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers and even George Foreman.

[jezzamundo]

Lennox Lewis KO8 Quarry

Evander Holfyfield MD15 Quarry - depends which Evander shows up

George Foreman KO5 Quarry

Wlad Klitschko UD15 Quarry - Quarry could easily win by KO, but I think the best version of Wlad beats him

Quarry UD15 Chris Byrd - Could go either way

Mike Tyson TKO6 Quarry

Riddick Bowe UD15 Quarry - again, depends which Bowe shows up

Quarry KO3 Tommy Morrison

[The Great John L]

Quarry is over-rated. Sure he was a few notches above Wepner and Stander, other 'white hopes' of the 1970's, but he was also a few notches below Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Norton. He would have been champion, maybe, in another era, but he wasn't the greatest HW to never win a heavyweight title, like some have claimed. IMO, Bonavena was a shy better than Quarry. Yet you hardly see him get a mention on the forum.

A way past his best and out of shape Quarry gave Norton hell on a few weeks notice, and he also handled Lyle quite easily, so this post makes very little sense. Everybody always says Quarry was a notch below Ali, Frazier and Foreman, but they conveniently forget that Quarry handled Lyle quite easily, and Lyle and Foreman were pretty much equal, as evidenced by their life and death struggle. The evidence clearly supports Quarry being outclassed by Ali and Frazier, but hardly that Foreman would have handled him easily.

And Ringo gets quite a bit of mention on this forum, and most of it is positive.

...A George Foreman with his head screwed on every which way but straight, returning from a 15-month lay-off & facing a top contender in Lyle in his first fight back. Hardly the same Foreman who won the title.

Facts feeling inconvenient today?

Of course not. George may not have been at his absolute best, but george was George that day. What did he do different in that fight than every other fight prior to that one, besides getting tagged by a guy who could punch as hard as he could. As I've stated before, George was a great fighter, but his reputation was built on his demolishing Frazier and Norton; two guys who were great fighters themselves, but who were not exactly hard to hit.

The facts are that the only time Lyle and Foreman fought it was a war that Foreman won through sheer determination and will. Isn't that a fact? Any other take on their fighting any other time is nothing more than opinion. If you can't see the similarity in Foreman and Lyle then you really aren't being very objective. George and Lyle were similar physically, with the difference being that Lyle, often to his detriment, fought more controlled than the more aggressive Foreman.

[The Great John L]

When they fought, Foreman was 8 years younger than Lyle and Lyle had been stabbed and nearly killed earlier in his life so Foreman should have had an edge physically. Lyle probably had better boxing skills than Foreman. Both could hurt the other. Lyle had lost 2 of his previous 3 and had almost lost the other one prior to fighting Foreman. He had also taken some big punches and had been hurt badly in his previous fight. Lyle was probably seen as damaged goods and as an easy win for Foreman's comeback.

But, styles make fights. Foreman was a clubbing, wild swinger and would have always been in danger of catching a shot from the straighter punching, almost as big, Lyle. There is always the chance that Foreman would have gotten him early, but there is also the chance that Lyle would have gotten Foreman early. Two big punchers, anything could have happened. If the fight had happened between Frazier 1 and Ali, Foreman would have been fighting a younger Lyle who had not taken the damage that he had taken from Shavers. IMO, Foreman - Lyle is a fight that could go either way between about 1972-77.

Yes, and their only fight pretty much supports this.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I never said they didn't have similarities.

Just so we're clear, though, the only significant fact is what happens when two men meet in the ring, irrespective of their career points? Louis always goes down to Marciano? Dempsey, always to Tunney? What if Foreman had never been matched with Frazier until their second meeting, when Frazier was absolutely wasted? As for Frazier & Norton, those are the peak Foreman's marquee victories --- pretty sure every fighter has them on their record, but if you're implying that's the limit of Foreman's pre-retirement resume, that's a mistake.

I guess the most pertinent fact is when they actually met, after all.

[The Great John L]

I never said they didn't have similarities.

Just so we're clear, though, the only significant fact is what happens when two men meet in the ring, irrespective of their career points? Louis always goes down to Marciano? Dempsey, always to Tunney? What if Foreman had never been matched with Frazier until their second meeting, when Frazier was absolutely wasted? As for Frazier & Norton, those are the peak Foreman's marquee victories --- pretty sure every fighter has them on their record, but if you're implying that's the limit of Foreman's pre-retirement resume, that's a mistake.

I guess the most pertinent fact is when they actually met, after all.

Yep, Shannon Briggs >>> George Foreman. Yes I'm sure everyone on here recognizes the similarities of Louis-Marciano and Foreman-Lyle. I can't wait until you criticize a Tyson fan.

Besides Norton, Frazier and Lyle his pre-retirement resume is not much to write to home about. There's a reason why Frazier came in ill-prepared against Foreman. George was about as unproven as a recent Klitschko opponent.

And BTW, beating Norton, Frazier and Lyle does make you an ATG, as I have acknowledged. However, his few matches against guys who could actually avoid getting hit do count as well. At least to objective observers.

[Goodnight, Irene]

"Yep, Shannon Briggs >>> George Foreman. Yes I'm sure everyone on here recognizes the similarities of Louis-Marciano and Foreman-Lyle. I can't wait until you criticize a Tyson fan.

Besides Norton, Frazier and Lyle his pre-retirement resume is not much to write to home about. There's a reason why Frazier came in ill-prepared against Foreman. George was about as unproven as a recent Klitschko opponent.

And BTW, beating Norton, Frazier and Lyle does make you an ATG, as I have acknowledged. However, his few matches against guys who could actually avoid getting hit do count as well. At least to objective observers." - John L.

1) No one ever said his 1969-77 resume was HOF material. Any greatness he obtained at that time was more built upon how devastating he looked in the ring, as opposed to who he actually beat. See Larry Holmes as an example. He beat jack-sh!t for two-thirds of his career. Doesn't mean he didn't have an all-timers' air.

2) Frazier was certainly a big step-up in class for Foreman, but he was far from, "unpoven." That's baseless BS. Frazier believed his own press clippings, & also had an eye on Ali. The reason he came in under-estimating Foreman was not because his man was as, "unproven as a recent Klitschko opponent." That's almost as wrong as it is glib.

3) Pretty sure you'll never find anyone who'll suggest Foreman didn't have trouble with movers. It's obvious they were at a stylistic advantage against him. If you're mistakenly referring to my contention no one ever beat a prime Foreman by outboxing him (& a total of two men did for any real length of time between 69-77, btw), I stand by that claim.

Jimmy Young beats the best George Foreman? Thinking you'll be pretty isolated, if that's your take.

[The Great John L]

Jimmy Young beats the best George Foreman? Thinking you'll be pretty isolated, if that's your take.

Hardly, since that's exactly what he did.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Show me a forum where more than fifty per cent of members think Young beats any iteration of Foreman, then. You can't, because (most) people recognise Foreman was a diminished force by 1977. Five rounds to stop an obese, one-eyed Frazier? When he ate the younger, fitter, undefeated version alive in two rounds, three crucially significant years (in terms of Frazier's ageing as a fighter) earlier!? Explain that one away.

What a joke.

[The Great John L]

Show me a forum where more than fifty per cent of members think Young beats any iteration of Foreman, then. You can't, because (most) people recognise Foreman was a diminished force by 1977. Five rounds to stop an obese, one-eyed Frazier? When he ate the younger, fitter, undefeated version alive in two rounds, three crucially significant years (in terms of Frazier's ageing as a fighter) earlier!? Explain that one away.

What a joke.

The opinion of the majority of forum posters!? Yes, that is a joke.

[Goodnight, Irene]

As expected, you can't explain it away. There is no way to do it. It doesn't add up, so you're more than happy to evade my challenge.

[The Great John L]

As expected, you can't explain it away. There is no way to do it. It doesn't add up, so you're more than happy to evade my challenge.

I already did, you just chose to ignore logic.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I was talking about the Foreman-Frazier II reference.

[hhaehre]

Jimmy Young beats the best George Foreman? Thinking you'll be pretty isolated, if that's your take.

Hardly, since that's exactly what he did.

Some people value the measured style Foreman adopted post Ali as an improvement, I don't. If Foreman had fought Young the way he fought Frazier in Jamaica it would have been no contest.

[The Great John L]

Jimmy Young beats the best George Foreman? Thinking you'll be pretty isolated, if that's your take.

Hardly, since that's exactly what he did.

Some people value the measured style Foreman adopted post Ali as an improvement, I don't. If Foreman had fought Young the way he fought Frazier in Jamaica it would have been no contest.

Correct. He would have missed so many big shots George would have been exhausted by about the 5th and would have been stopped.

[Goodnight, Irene]

[hhaehre]

Some people value the measured style Foreman adopted post Ali as an improvement, I don't. If Foreman had fought Young the way he fought Frazier in Jamaica it would have been no contest.

Correct. He would have missed so many big shots George would have been exhausted by about the 5th and would have been stopped.

Sure, Ali could not avoid those wild swings but I'm sure Young could, just like he did vs Shavers and Cooney.

[The Great John L]

I guess from Irene's posts we can determine that he has such a low opinion of Foreman that he doesn't believe George was capable of learing anything in the ring and could only succeed by using his physical abilities. And that his mental makeup was so fragile that any hint of trouble meant that he was ruined for all future fights.