Jerry Quarry

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 17 Mar 2008, 18:50

In my opinion Bowe is a much better in fighting skills to that of Ali's
He also was obviously bigger and stronger.

He had a solid, fast and nasty jab too.

It is a tragedy that he never stayed in shape and on top of his game.

Holyfield was easily one of the toughest and hardest guys out there.

I can see him haveing a good solid war with Frazier. I really struggle to make a call as to who wins this one.

Against Ali, I think this is equally as tough to make a call on.

Quarry was not as good as Holy, but they would have had a great fight that Holy would have won. WHat a fight to watch....

Willard is a painful to watch not a very good HW champion. I think Carnera beats him. Who cares how long a fight is scheduled for....he still gets beaten by ALOT of champs and near champs. In my opinion.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 17 Mar 2008, 19:06

DaveV17 wrote:DF wrote:"No-one bullied Evander? Bowe pretty much layed right in the inside with Evander and gave him a country whupping. "

I imagine in your fantasyland, Ali was as big as Bowe and as good or better as an infighter. By the way, do you still see Jess Willard beating Bowe and/or Lewis?.

So what if Bowe was bigger or a better in-fighter . . almost everyone Ali faced was a better in-fighter than himself. Bowe would never catch a peak Ali, and he would be gasping for air by round 8. Bowe had no defense and was too plodding to successfully press him.

I'm not talking about Jess Willard anymore, how about you tell us how Scott Frank wins the 60s HW vacant title tournament?

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 17 Mar 2008, 19:52

Tell us about how frequent Willard and Dempsey defended there title during there epic reign.

Maybe they could have fit a few Scott Franks in amongst that hectic schedule while at the top ?

Scott Frank would have been a fatality on the road for any contender during the 1960s, but most likely revered as a tough SOB if he was on the Willard list of victims.

How would Fireman Jim Flynn have done during the 1980s title unification series ?

Or a Sailor Burke or Frank Moran have done against against a Weaver or Shavers ?

Seriously...who has a 6 round HW title fight !!!???? I mean "if it was for 20 rounds Willard owns' yeah but he has 10 and 6 round scheduled fights in his only 2 defences in how many years did he hold the title I'm sorry ?

DF, Can you answer a question please good sir ?

How many HW champions, linear or not, have gone for 3 years or more without defending there title ?

Was it because there was no one worth fighting...not even say..a Scott Frank ? Or was it because they had cleaned house already and defeated the enture depths of the division during this rich period in HW history.

Thanks in advance

Kym

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 17 Mar 2008, 20:52

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 17 Mar 2008, 21:41

So Bowe does not catch Ali with his movement and size-reach ?

So say your envisoning a Liston-Ali scenario ?

As opposed to a jones-Cooper vs Ali where smaller men, less accomplished were able to glove the fleet footed champ....

But Riddick Bowe would have stood chance against Ali. Ok...cool fair enough.

Tubbs and Mathis sr while both being...well Tubby though talented boxers were differently in style.

Tubbs a clever fast jabbing and fast handed boxer stylist.

Mathis a wiley trained combination fighter who almost always boxed as
though he was 5'10 as opposed to 6'3.

As to which is better ? well thats hard to say. But both were deceivingly gifted especially when they ate themselves up to 300lbs or there abouts.

Being a coke addict as bad as being obese and diabetic ? both are social dieseases.

The case you raise about Quarry is interesting....he was atalented amateur who was destined to try the olympics but his father-manager steered him to the pro ranks so he could make money for food on the table.

How about your precious Willard how old was he when he started to box pro ?

You dont rate the 1996 Tyson very highlty...how would you rate the 1915 Johnson, 1919 Willard or 1927 Dempsey ?

So Tyson 'avoiding' Lewis is as bad or as worse as Dempsey avoiding Wills ? Willard not even fighting for two years ?

Bowe looked pretty reasonable in more than just his 1992 fight, sure he was in-consistent but he still was pretty handy and talented though flabby even in some of his worse fights...excluding his Zambrum bout.

I have no problem with older era fighters. I dont see why because one is modern he should be dismissed because you can see ALL of there bouts for better and WORSE.

Yet opinions on older fighters are almost faith based...one sees a HL reel or some key fights yet never gets to see the rest of the fights that made up ones great career.

How many fights of say Holyfield have you seen... me personally All.
Easier to nit pick when you have an entire career to go over.

How many fights of say Willard have you seen... for me most of Johnson, all of Dempsey, Moran and some of Firpo....what I have seen was not great.
But I concede its hard to make an opinion without an entire picture...which we just do not have.

YET people who advocate the good old days say with absolute authority and opinion that fighter A is superior to fighter B without having seen nearly any of eithers fights...or worse....

Seeing nearly all of the modern guys fights........ oh he sucked here and there....

And seeing only those choice bouts that are available of the old time legend....

Worse still is to cite the reports and opinions of romantic contemporary writers as they describe the fighters or fights....I mean do we hold much in the loving words of a say Jack London who seemed more interested in writing about the ethnicity of a fighter and his moral virtues as opposed to his in ring talents ?

In the last 40 or so years all you read about is how the sport was better in yester year....how boxers in this era (insert nearly any decade here) are inferior to the days of past....how a Corbett would out box so and so...or how a Jefferies would KO he and how a Willard would out box for 20 rounds any modern pretender.

The history is something we usually advance on, and progress from. Granted in our sport there are exceptions, distractions and recessions...BUT it is hard to truely formulate an opinion without the whole picture.

I will however concede that compared to say even a decade ago the modern giants of the division are a poor lot. But this does happen in history too. Though however I am sure like most of you, I am more interested in the past, as I am in the present at this current time...you never know however...this may change and we may re-enter a golden era of the division....as it has done and shall do...only time will tell.

Forgive my lengthy ramblings

My points make any sense ?? If not sorrry...am at work and am trying to type as quick as I can :P

Thanks again

kym

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 17 Mar 2008, 22:58

I think robinson has been reading too many of granberry's posts. If you want to start bringing Cooper and Jones into it when Ali was 21 years old I could just as easily bring up Holyfield's war with fat former Light Heavyweight Qawi. Compare Ali's performance against Liston to Holyfield's against Bowe, or Ali's performance against prime Foreman to Holyfield's against 43 year old George, or Ali's performance against Patterson to Holyfield's against Moorer, or Ali's performances against Frazier versus Holyfield's against Mercer...

Ali is better than Holyfield in nearly every facet of the game. Toughness, speed, outside boxing skills, movement, jab, heart... even their difference in punching power isn't as big as it was for Ali against a lot of his other big opponents. Frazier would be in Holyfield's chest and Holyfield is not going to bully Joe like he did Tyson. If they fought in a series, Frazier wins.

If Holyfield can win a decision boxing Bowe on the outside, I think Ali will be just fine there.

I agree with dempsey that Qarry-Holyfield would be an extrmely tough fight, if you look at Holyfield's career he got into some real scraps with guys who weren't as good as Quarry. Still, though, I would favor Holyfield to win by a SD/MD.

As for the frequency of Willard and Dempsey's defenses... c'mon, it was a different era. Winning the title meant you were set, it didn't mean you now had to bust your ass to defend your title every few months... title defenses were more about making money than they were about "building up your resume." Not many of the pre-Louis HW champions did that. This is just another example of people on this forum taking their pre-determined views about boxing and imposing it on the past, as if Dempsey knew that boxing nerds would judge his legacy badly if he didn't defend his title three times a year. And, in fact, Dempsey wanted to defend his title more, but his manager wanted him to focus more on exhibitions so that's what Dempsey did.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 17 Mar 2008, 23:12

Robinson -You made a lot of comments and I will comment on a few:
As far as the fighter who defeated Patterson,Liston,Frazier and Foreman, he should be judged like anyone else. ie-Why is he constantly ripped for winning the Fight of the Year when he hadn't even reached his prime? How about talking about his first title reign once in a while.

As for people that think that fighters from long ago were so much better than more modern fighters and vice vera- I have never bought into either idea. There are great, good, average, below average, and bad fighters in every era. Some eras happened to have better heavyweights, but worse featherweights, and so on. It all pretty much balances out.

As for Jess Willard, he was one of the worst heavyweight champions of all time,aand deserves to be criticized for not putting his title on the title on the line more. (Btw, I have never seen a record book that considers the 6 round fight with Sailor Burke as a title fight.)
So if you are comparing Willard to other heavyweight champions, than no he doesn't seem that good. However, it's ridiculaus to compare him to Toughman contestants as someone did. Just the fact he won the title over 26 rounds in the hot sun should tell anyone that he wasn't a stiff.

Jack Dempsey shouldn't have gone 3 years between title defenses and should criticized for it. However, he also had 5 successful title defenses of the undisputed heavyweight title before that. How long will it be before we ever see that again?
Not to mention the fact that he had one of the most impressive record of pre title wins of any heavyweight champion.

Tyson should be given credit for some impressive perfromances and criticized for subpar performances. He should be criticized for not fighting Lewis earlier. Look at who Tyson fought in the years between his fights Holyfield and the fight with Lewis. The best fighter he fought was Frans Botha. The worst fighter that Lewis fought during that time? Frans Botha.
They finally do fight, and Tyson gets the past his prime excuse. Nevertheless, Tyson was a great fighter and was better than the majority of heavyweight champions.

People often pick and choose select moments of a fighters career to make him look better or worse than he really was. What should be done is that the positives and the negatives of a particular fighter should be weighed when rating him.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 17 Mar 2008, 23:30

Robinson, take a deep breath, don't go down the path of Dave. I wasn't outright dismissing Evander vs the older fighters (I conceded Holy could beat Quarry although I still picked Quarry in a tough close fight). I never suggested Willard beats Holyfield, or Tyson. I was simply saying, given him a long distance fight, and vs other giants who never went more than 12 rounds (a major reason IMO why they succeeded so much in their era), they could find problems.

I don't think picking a prime Ali over Bowe is a very controversial opinion.

Also, to compare the # of title defenses to people in the last 40 years to the early 1900s is not fair, you have to look at the historical context. It was accepted for champs to do vaudeville and travel for extended periods of time. Dempsey did movies which remember had basically been JUST invented, it was an extremely new and exciting medium and given that opportunity only a fool wouldn't have taken it. Should they have fought more, sure. I'm not arguing that point and you are yelling in an empty room b/c I didn't even bring that up. Chill out!

Why do I generally favor the older fighters? As brough up before, boxing used to be a much more popular sport. With that popularity, came more gyms, from more gyms came more fighters. The field of depth was much stronger. Since the 1960s boxing has slowly but steadily declined in the United States (for various reasons). The popularity Ali gave a minor resurgence which saw a surge in talent in the late 80s/early 90s, but from the 1990s to the present, from middleweight through heavyweight, you have seen a steady, fairly steep decline in overall talent. The HW division especially is in utter decay, it's been pretty much in the can for the past 10 years (the much hyped "next generation" of the late 90s . . Tua, Rahman, Johnson, Golota, Whitaker, Grant . .turned out to be over-eating busts) It's not a 'phase', it's the sad general direction of upper weight class boxing.

The lighter weight classes have remained pretty strong since they draw from immigrant/3rd World populations which are a perfect breeding ground for fighters.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 18 Mar 2008, 00:21

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Mar 2008, 00:40

Bowe would be bigger than most of Ali's best opponents, but he would hardly be Ali's toughest opponent, and conversely he never fought anyone as good as Ali. I know its easy for some of you to love Holyfield, he' my second or third favorite Heavyweight too, but he was not a better outside fighter than Ali. Neither was Golota, for that matter.

I know its become fashionable for some to suggest that George in his 40's was better than George in his 20's, but I think we need to come back to reality a bit. George in his 40's had improved in certain ways and had developed some better qualities that might have served him in his prime, but he was not in the 80's and 90's a more dangerous fighter than he was in the 70's. Foreman in his 20's would be a lot more difficult for Holyfield to deal with. An older George isn't going to have enough physically to out box the Ali who beat him in Zaire, this is, after all, the George who was out boxed by Tommy Morrison and Michael Moorer, before Moorer's china chin caught up with him. I know some of you have tried to morph Ali into some sort of dumb fighter with no real skill outside of his physical gifts, but I think that's clearly a bit of an exagerration; I think he was clearly a bit better of a boxer than Morrison.

And if it had been Frazier or Norton in Zaire with George; George wins. If Ali had fought him in Austin, Texas; Ali still would have won. Styles make fights, yadda yadda. And I do love how excuses are so easily embraced when it comes to George, or Holyfield for that matter.

There's five or six other threads where you can try to downgrade and tarnish Ali's achievments. This is a Quarry thread, not an Ali thread, or a Foreman or Holyfield thread. Thanks.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 18 Mar 2008, 01:34

Ok

I think Ali does beat Bowe. But not easily. Ali however never fought anyone near Bowes skill...and I guess vice versa.

Ok so his 10 round title fight against Moran is ok for Willard ?

How about Tommy Burns ? That lil terror seemed pretty active for a HW champion pre Louis ?

How is that an excuse to make the opinion credible that old time guys are better beciase once they won the title and sat on it, that is ok...
yet DempseyFire is happy to invoke the name Scott Frank as criticism of Holmes poor title challengers.

The amount of challenges that Dempsey had is not in question, the point is that the man sat on the title for 3 years. Three years is for some fighters the best years of a career. Yet its ok he didn't do anything aside from movies and travel ?

I think the whole which Foreman is better debate is hard to make.

young Foreman was a menacing, aggressive power machine who was faster and more intense on the offense.

Older Foreman was a modified, patient defensive power fighter who utilised his ability to absorb shots as a way of countering with power bombs.

Both have strength and weaknesses. One thing for certain is that old man George has better late round power and stamina.

Back to Ali...I was saying that Ali would struggle agaisnt the big and fast Bowe especially in light of his matches against Jones and cooper.

I am aware that Ali at this time is pre prime as such, but one could argue that so is Bowe in say the Tubbs fight.

I never said Ali would lose to Bowe, I do see a Holy fight going either way however as cool as it would be to see. Frazier who is one fo my favourite heavies would also make for an exciting Holyfield fight.

I dont think that GHolyfield has anything to be ashamed of in the Qawi fight, he showed that he out worked a more experienced and top shelf champion. In a fast paced buzzsaw of a fight. How many men over 175lb past or present have been in fights that saw so many punches thrown over 15 runds. Not a great deal.

I agree that the sport has deterioated talent wise of late, but this may be no different to other eras.

I have to go to training now....respond to more later.

Take care guys until then...

Kym

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Mar 2008, 01:45

Ali definitely faced fighters who were more skilled than Bowe, just not as many who were as big. I didn't say that Ali would win easily, per se, though its certainly very possible that he would.

As I said, most champions pre-Louis didn't defend their titles often, I didn't say none did. Burns was an exception.

Scott Frank sucked. Most of Holmes' title challengers did. The difference between Holmes and Dempsey was that in Holmes' era title defenses were more prized than they were in Dempsey's. In Dempsey's era, winning the title was everything, in Holmes' era it was only half the job. But, as I said, if Dempsey had had it his way, he would have defended his title more, it was his manager who wanted to go another way.

Younger George beat Frazier and Norton. Older George lost to Morrison and barely got by Moorer. Not sure what else there is to say. An older George doesn't beat Frazier, certainly not by knock out. A younger George would not lose to Morrison and wouldn't need that many rounds to get to Moorer. An older George gave Evander a tough fight, but so did Holmes, that doesn't mean Holmes was better in the 90's than he was in the 70's and the 80's. Evander wasn't that hard to hit, and if George can hit you you're going to have problems. Holyfield still won almost every round.

Anyone who judges Ali's career on the basis of his fights with Doug Jones and Henry Cooper is losing perspective and is being swayed by Ali's critics. You go on to say that Holyfield has nothing to be ashamed of for his Qawi fight. You say he out worked a more experienced fighter in a fast paced fight. What the hell was Clay-Jones? It was the same situation. No one thinks that an older Holyfield would have had any problems with Qawi; wait a minute, he didn't, he grew as a fighter and knocked Qawi out in four rounds in the rematch... just like Ali easily handled Cooper in their rematch without getting hit. Ali would have beaten Jones quite handedly in a rematch, problem was Jones lost to Terrell, so Ali schooled Terrell instead. You guys are taking one early year in Ali's career (oddly, a year where he was named Fighter of the Year) and are basing his career on that; its foolishness, you're drinking the granberry coolaid. Young fighters sometimes hit a bump on their way up. Do you judge De La Hoya's career based on his early career knock downs against Campanella and the other guy? If Oscar couldn't avoid Campanella's left hook, imagine what Chavez or Quartey or Trinidad or Vargas might do to him... they'd knock Oscar out in four rounds... right? Wrong. Oscar was a young fighter, and young fighters have to learn and develop.

What does any of this have to do with Quarry? I love how some of you always complain about threads that involve Ali, and yet at every turn one of you manages to make a thread into an Ali thread. I suppose I was asking for it by making a thread about another 70's Heavyweight, but lets focus on Quarry instead.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 18 Mar 2008, 02:06

Robinson wrote:Ok

I think Ali does beat Bowe. But not easily. Ali however never fought anyone near Bowes skill...and I guess vice versa.

Ok so his 10 round title fight against Moran is ok for Willard ?

How about Tommy Burns ? That lil terror seemed pretty active for a HW champion pre Louis ?

How is that an excuse to make the opinion credible that old time guys are better beciase once they won the title and sat on it, that is ok...
yet DempseyFire is happy to invoke the name Scott Frank as criticism of Holmes poor title challengers.

The amount of challenges that Dempsey had is not in question, the point is that the man sat on the title for 3 years. Three years is for some fighters the best years of a career. Yet its ok he didn't do anything aside from movies and travel ?

I think the whole which Foreman is better debate is hard to make.

young Foreman was a menacing, aggressive power machine who was faster and more intense on the offense.

Older Foreman was a modified, patient defensive power fighter who utilised his ability to absorb shots as a way of countering with power bombs.

Both have strength and weaknesses. One thing for certain is that old man George has better late round power and stamina.

Back to Ali...I was saying that Ali would struggle agaisnt the big and fast Bowe especially in light of his matches against Jones and cooper.

I am aware that Ali at this time is pre prime as such, but one could argue that so is Bowe in say the Tubbs fight.

I never said Ali would lose to Bowe, I do see a Holy fight going either way however as cool as it would be to see. Frazier who is one fo my favourite heavies would also make for an exciting Holyfield fight.

I dont think that GHolyfield has anything to be ashamed of in the Qawi fight, he showed that he out worked a more experienced and top shelf champion. In a fast paced buzzsaw of a fight. How many men over 175lb past or present have been in fights that saw so many punches thrown over 15 runds. Not a great deal.

I agree that the sport has deterioated talent wise of late, but this may be no different to other eras.

I have to go to training now....respond to more later.

Take care guys until then...

Kym

Rob the Scott Frank reference is to an argument Dave and I had a while back. The name isn't brought up to disparage Holmes, I rank Holmes very highly.

Re-read my post. I said Dempsey shouldn't get a pass for not defending his title more, but yes, as with anything you have to judge it in the proper historical context.

Ali never fought anyone as skilled as Bowe? Bowe's boxing skill is getting vastly over-rated here. I'd rank Norton, Folley, Liston, Terrell etc. as being equal or superior boxers to Bowe. Bowe never developed a proper straight right hand, his defense was poor, and he had slow feet. I'm not saying he "sucked" . . Bowe was very good, but not great.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 18 Mar 2008, 04:37

I didnt mean for the thread to get of track. I did not lead it away from Quarry.

I think that had Dempsey wanted to he could have defended the title more.

A champion's meddle is tested by his challengers. I think that an active champion, that puts himself at risk against a varying level of challengers is alot better than a man who occasionally or rarely fights a top fighter...even if they are light heavyweights.

I like Jerry Quarry. I am looking forward to watching a few more of his fights this long weekend. I have the lap top ready with the speakers, my GF has her dentistry home work....peace and quiet with some Jerry Quarry and Doug Jones action :)

Kym

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 18 Mar 2008, 04:44

IFF

I do concede your point in regards to Jones-Ali...Holy-Qawi.

Holydfield atleast gave Qawi a rematch and removed any doubt...if any should have existed.

But the point is taken on board.

I think Holmes title challengers sucked no more than Joe Louis's some of Ali's or even Tommy Burns. When you have that many defences the quality is always questioned.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 18 Mar 2008, 10:13

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 18 Mar 2008, 12:55

I Feel Fine said"What does any of this have to do with Quarry? I love how some of you always complain about threads that involve Ali, and yet at every turn one of you manages to make a thread into an Ali thread. I suppose I was asking for it by making a thread about another 70's Heavyweight, but lets focus on Quarry instead".

The haters try to twist every thread into ripping him, and don't judge him the same way that they judge other fighters. Then we hear that he is given too much attention.

Getting back to the original premise about Quarry, was he best heavyweight not to win the title?
I have said that he was in the last 80 years. There are a few other serious contenders that you could make a case for?

Eddie Machen -Beat Doug Jones, Jerry Quarry, had a draw with Zora Folley and beatseveral good but not great fighters.

Zora Folley- Beat Doug Jones, George Chuvalo and had a win and a draw with Machen.

Jimmy Young -Obviously had a fight that has been talked about way too much, also beat Foreman and Lyle. Lost a close decision to Norton in a very good fight.

Ernie Schaaf - Beat Max Baer, Jimmy Braddock, Tommy Loughran, Paulino Uzcudun, and Johnny Risko.

Of course all of these guys had setbacks as well. I would still lean towards Quarry, but you could make an arguement for these guys as well as for a few others.

Can we get off the rehashing on this thread of the same old BS against the fighter that beat Patterson,Liston,Frazier, and Foreman?

Does anyone think that Machen,Folley,Young ,Schaaf or someone (who didn't win the heavyweight) was better than Quarry?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 18 Mar 2008, 15:17

Alp, nice to see you mention Schaaf, as he was a very good fighter who gets little credit today, much like just about every fighter from >70 years ago.

It's better to stay out of threads like this, but some of the comments are so funny they are hard to ignore. The older Foreman was better defensively!!??!! Reflexes have as much to do with defense as holding your hands up and George took some frightful poundings in his second career from pretty average journeymen. Doesn't anyone recall what Alex Stewart did to him? Alex was a pretty good offensive fighter with poor defense and a so-so chin, yet Foreman couldn't stop him and was pounded into hamburger. Does anyone really believe that the 24 yo Foreman would have had any problems with Stewart? Or Morrison, or Schulz, or Briggs, or...

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 18 Mar 2008, 15:58

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 18 Mar 2008, 16:51

DaveV17 wrote:John wrote:"Does anyone really believe that the 24 yo Foreman would have had any problems with Stewart? Or Morrison, or Schulz, or Briggs, or..."

Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. Because these were boxers who were big and strong, like Ron Lyle.

You've topped some of your past moronic posts with that nugget right there.

Ha, I almost get upset, but then I don't when I picture your world of a prime Foreman struggling with Axel Schultz

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 18 Mar 2008, 17:58

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Mar 2008, 18:14

Robinson wrote:IFF

I do concede your point in regards to Jones-Ali...Holy-Qawi.

Holydfield atleast gave Qawi a rematch and removed any doubt...if any should have existed.

But the point is taken on board.

I think Holmes title challengers sucked no more than Joe Louis's some of Ali's or even Tommy Burns. When you have that many defences the quality is always questioned.

Fine. But you should understand that the reason why there was no Ali-Jones rematch was that, besides having already beaten Jones in a close fight, Jones went on to lose to Chuvalo by knockout a year later (which led to Chuvalo's great fight with Patterson), and then Jones lost to Terrell in a fight for Terrell's WBA belt. If he had beaten one of those guys, maybe Ali does give him a rematch.

The thing about Louis, in contrast to Holmes, is he beat a few great fighters before he became champion, and while he fought a lot of stiffs he also beat five Hall of Famers in his title fights, while Holmes beat one. And when Louis won a controversial fight as champion, late in his reign, he had a rematch, while Holmes never looked back after any of his close/controversial wins. But, I do wonder if Louis should have fought more black title challengers. Burns is a given. None of Ali's bad title challengers, however, were meant to be serious opponents, they were tune ups. I've said this before, but almost no one in Ali's era with a big name didn't get a shot at Ali, which isn't something you can't say for Holmes.

----
As for some of dave's points... this is just my opinion, but I don't worry as much about Foreman-Lyle as others do. George had taken a year off, and Lyle caught him cold. I don't know that Lyle gives an active Foreman that kind of tough fight. Not saying that Lyle wouldn't always give George a tough fight, but I'm not sure that he would always do to Foreman what he did to him in that comeback fight '76. And, that said, Lyle was better than any of the opponents you named, and Morrison, Schulz and Biggs would not be able to compete with a prime Foreman.

What can I say; Bowe was a good fighter, but not great, and a couple of fighters showed he could be beaten in an outside fight. And while Folley was clearly a bit old, he was more skilled than Bowe... old fighters can be more skilled t han younger fighters. That doesn't mean that that version of Folley would beat Bowe, of course. And while you'll have to recognize that a minimal percentage of the world's population believes that Norton beat Ali in all three fights, regardless, Norton was more skilled than Bowe.

People who talk about Ali's championship fights with London, Cooper and Mildenberger show their ignorance of Ali's career. Ali did not fight those guys because he wanted to; he had to fight those guys. He was being boycotted in America, and was forced to make a tour of Europe. Sort of puts a damper on the claim that Ali was the "establishment fighter", doesn't it? That said, Mildenberger was pretty decent, and it was probably a good idea to give Cooper a rematch in light of the first fight. Ali's first title reign is no more open to criticism than Marciano's, Tyson's, Holmes', Louis' in terms of some of the stiffs in there. Those guys are admired for their domination of weak title challengers; why should that be any less the case for Ali? Especially considering the champion Ali had to beat to win the title. But just look at it; the three weakest challengers were forced on him, but aside from them he beat two hall of famers, he beat one paper belt holder who had scored some nice wins on the way to their unification match (other fighters are praised to high heaven for taking unification matches, but when its Ali no one takes notice of his willingness to do so, as oppossed to some later champions like Holmes), and we've already talked about why Chuvalo was no bad opponent. Williams was deteriorated, but at least he could still punch. And Ali's reign was cut short, yet he still managed nine defenses in three years.

If Ali never met anyone like Riddick Bowe, Bowe never met anyone in the same league as Ali. Who was better than Ali... Tony Tubbs? Andruw Golota?

And good points alp, obviously some of those guys are really good choices. Has anyone seen Machen's fight with Quarry? Quarry must have been green there, he was 21, but still a decent win for the older Machen.

And yes, lets try to keep this about Quarry. If dave wants to respond to anything I said in this post, just post it in the defamation picture thread and I'll reply there.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 18 Mar 2008, 18:38

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 18 Mar 2008, 18:39

I like Jerry Quarry.

He is one of my more favourite guys to watch.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Mar 2008, 18:59

Chuvalo is one of these guys who is loved as a fighter; until he fights Ali. Then he becomes a bum. Chuvalo had a lot of losses, but he was a talented, tough guy and fought great fights with some top fighters. A lot of title challengers have been coming off losses going into title fights, and Chuvalo was another fighter Ali was forced to fight; he was originally going to fight Terrell in '65 but he made his Viet Cong statement and was forced to fight Chuvalo as a replacement in Canada. Chuvalo was also allowed to low blow at will, the ref admitted that he had no problems with letting Chuvallo low blow as much as he wanted.

Look at some of Bowe's 43 wins... Holyfield was his only great opponent. Holyfield isn't as good as Ali, what can I say. Golota kicked his ass. He struggled with Tubbs. Bowe wouldn't give Holmes the fight Norton did. Norton couldn't back up, fine... Bowe had a lot of his own faults. Bowe wasn't exactly a great mobile fighter, either.

Again, if you want to talk about these things, post a reply in the defamation picture thread.

Robinson... I recently re-watched his fight with Frazier. I think it might have been the best fight of the 60's.