Jerry Quarry

The Great John L
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4351
Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37

Post by The Great John L »

DaveV17 wrote:John wrote:"And Mathis had an even better amateur career than Tubbs and was rougly the same size. And I think Quarry beat him pretty handily. Don’t you see the difficulty of what Quarry accomplished?

Mathis turned pro at 300, lost some weight but was always blubblery with a lot of lose skin. Tubbs turned pro at about 220, got fatter at times, but never as sloppy as Buster. Buster moved well on his feet but never had the Tubbs hand speed. Mathis was a decent fighter, he came back off a near 3 year layoff with no tune ups and went 12 with Ali. Mathis was one of Quarry's best wins.


You’re right, Mathis was even bigger than Tubbs, making Quarry’s win even more impressive. And his amateur career, which you fail to acknowledge, was batter than Tubbs as well. Certainly a better win than anything on Golota’s resume.

DaveV17 wrote:Quarry was just too small, too slow, too inconsistent to compete with a Tubbs or the Golota of the Bowe fights. Of course Quarry might have been able to beat the Golota who showed up later with his mental problems and lack of confidence.
Your failure to recognize that Golota had “issues” throughout his career is a pretty good indication of your credibility on this entire subject.
DaveV17
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 398
Joined: 05 May 2006, 21:15

Post by DaveV17 »

edit
Last edited by DaveV17 on 19 May 2015, 15:34, edited 1 time in total.
Ambling Alp
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3627
Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31

Post by Ambling Alp »

dempseyfire, John L and some of you other guys are so silly.

Demspeyfire once even had the gall to say that Willard had good stamina and that he was better than Toughman competitors.
Willard is obviously the excpetion to rule about how important it is to be big and strong.

Obviously it's not just about weight, it's about body fat %.
Tony Tubbs obviously had a low %. So how could Quarry possibly compete with him?
Tony's work rate was phenomenal. Just think of all the exciting fights that he had. Who else could fight at that pace? And it doesn't matter that he couldn't break an egg with his power.

Golota? The Golota that fought Bowe would certainly beat Quarry The only chance that the "slower" Quarry would have would be Golota to beat himself, and what chance is there of that?

The "fragile" Quarry couldn't handle Tubbs and Golota's strength. Mac Foster and Buster Mathis must be wimps if Quarry could handle them. Though Quarry did beat Ron Lyle who was very strong, certainly stronger than Tubbs...

Golota and Tubbs would each be too much for the 1964 Sonny Liston. Even though Tubbs had a much higher body fat %, he would somehow elude Liston for 15 rounds and win a decision. This an exception the body fat % rule. Golota despite never winning a big fight in his life, would probably use his brains and heart to defeat Liston.

Foreman was obviously overrated. Though he gave Holyfield a tough fight, when he was in his 40's and Holyfield was in his prime doesn't mean anything. Holyfield was obviously way better.
btw Foreman was better in his 40's than he was in his 20's even though his body fat % was way higher when he was his 40's. This is another exception to the body fat % rule.

Foreman in his 20's would have obviously struggled against Schulz,Briggs, Stewart and Morrison because they were "strong".
Remember Foreman always striggled with strong fighters, like Lyle. Though he did knock Lyle out, and Foreman did lose to Jimmy Young who wasn't that strong. The guy that he lost the title to must have been strong, no wait he couldn't have been. And Foreman did knockout Norton who was strong and had very little body fat. Well anyway...

Age is just a number. That is why Evander Holyfield is just as good in his 40's as he was in his 20's. He adapted. After all he beat good opponents like Jeremy Bates, vinny Maddalone,and an old Lou Savarese. He did lose to the great Sultan Ibragimov. That doesn't mean that Holyfield was better in his 20's or that age means anything.

Btw, I suppose that you guys could actaully imagine Holyfield losing to the guy that Foreman lost the title to. Despite the fact that Holyfield would be fighting an opponet that was a little bigger, a lot faster with both hand and footspeed, a smarter fighter, a much better defensive fighter, it's just plain silly to even imagine Holyfield lose to that guy.


Strength means almost everything in boxing. It doesn't matter than Schulz had very little talent and no power, that Briggs was slow, had little heart, was dumb and that Stewart was easy to hit and had a questionable chin, and that Morrison has little stamina, little defense and a vulnerable chin. Foreman in his 20's would be life and death struggles with these guys.

Size and strength is almost everything that you need. That is why Carnera was one of the best heavyweight champions of all time. That is why the best heavyweight in the world is always the biggest and/or strongest.
Last edited by Ambling Alp on 19 Mar 2008, 12:46, edited 1 time in total.
The Great John L
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4351
Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37

Post by The Great John L »

DaveV17 wrote:Golota fouled out against Bowe twice after both fighters had taken inhuman amounts of punishment. Show me two more brutal fights.


Yes, that's very hard to do...

Now I know why I pretty much quit posting in this forum. Good luck everybody.
Ambling Alp
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3627
Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31

Post by Ambling Alp »

John L- Not everyone is this stupid. There are a lot of people who think more like you. Your boxing knowledge and logic isn't always appreciated by some people, but many people have respect for you, myself included.
There have been a lot of idiotic statements on the forum lately, but I hope we don't lose someone as good as you because of it.
DaveV17
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 398
Joined: 05 May 2006, 21:15

Post by DaveV17 »

edit
Last edited by DaveV17 on 19 May 2015, 15:33, edited 1 time in total.
The Great John L
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4351
Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37

Post by The Great John L »

DaveV17 wrote:Once again none of you ever say anything, never give an opinion, just try to hide your ignorance about boxing with sarcasm. When one knows nothing about athleticism, and boxing fundamentals, and has only read the Ali bios, sarcasm is your only weapon. You don't know enough to respond rationally when someone gives opinions that are not found in a Mailer or Hauser book.
Skip the whining, if you don't want to post go elsewhere.
Hmmm, let’s see where to begin.

Better fights than the Bowe/Golota foul fests? Try any number fights with Limon, Chacon, S. Muhammed, M. Johnson. Of course, you’ve probably never seen these guys fight, or maybe even heard of them because they were fighting before you were even born. Of course with your logic that means they aren’t any good, right?

Never say anything or give an opinion?? Plenty of them were posted, you just don’t seem to be able to understand or acknowledge them, so I see no reason to dumb them down and repost them. Try re-reading the earlier posts.

Boxing fundamentals. Perhaps you could start this discussion off with a brief description of your extensive background in boxing. Oh heck, I’ll start.

While I never had an actual fight, I started boxing in gym class in public school in the late 60’s. Yes, boxing used to be taught in many public schools in the distant past. You probably didn’t know that.

I then started going to the local YMCA, where there were actually two boxing trainers and a significant number of amateurs training on a daily basis. I used to spar a lot when I was younger, and got my ass kicked a few times before I realized there had to be an easier way to make a living. Hardly a boxing career, but I spent quite a lot of time at the gym and in the ring and learned quite a bit from not only the trainers, but the fighters as well. It also provided with some pretty interesting stories about local boxing characters. Your turn.

Athleticism. Please enlighten us about this topic. Perhaps you’d like to discuss the great athleticism of the current group of “evolved” “modern” HWs? How about the Klitchkos? I keep reading many posts that refer to them as “athletic” big men, but all I see are two stiff, often times clumsy guys with decent basic skills. Is it because of their video of them water skiing that they are so athletic? Let’s see, there’s also the highly athletic Valuev, Rachman, Chagaev, Brewster, etc. Care to add any?

Oh I guess that was sarcasm. Sorry if that offended you. But please do supply something to the discussion besides simple disagreement. Opinions are great, but how about some facts? And please do try something a bit more meaningful than height and weight, if you have anything else.

And no, I’m not going anywhere, nor was I whining - merely stating an opinion. Maybe you missed that opinion?
dempseyfire
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5534
Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56

Post by dempseyfire »

Ambling Alp wrote:dempseyfire, John L and some of you other guys are so silly.

Demspeyfire once even had the gall to say that Willard had good stamina and that he was better than Toughman competitors.
Willard is obviously the excpetion to rule about how important it is to be big and strong.

Obviously it's not just about weight, it's about body fat %.
Tony Tubbs obviously had a low %. So how could Quarry possibly compete with him?
Tony's work rate was phenomenal. Just think of all the exciting fights that he had. Who else could fight at that pace? And it doesn't matter that he couldn't break an egg with his power.

Golota? The Golota that fought Bowe would certainly beat Quarry The only chance that the "slower" Quarry would have would be Golota to beat himself, and what chance is there of that?

The "fragile" Quarry couldn't handle Tubbs and Golota's strength. Mac Foster and Buster Mathis must be wimps if Quarry could handle them. Though Quarry did beat Ron Lyle who was very strong, certainly stronger than Tubbs...

Golota and Tubbs would each be too much for the 1964 Sonny Liston. Even though Tubbs had a much higher body fat %, he would somehow elude Liston for 15 rounds and win a decision. This an exception the body fat % rule. Golota despite never winning a big fight in his life, would probably use his brains and heart to defeat Liston.

Foreman was obviously overrated. Though he gave Holyfield a tough fight, when he was in his 40's and Holyfield was in his prime doesn't mean anything. Holyfield was obviously way better.
btw Foreman was better in his 40's than he was in his 20's even though his body fat % was way higher when he was his 40's. This is another exception to the body fat % rule.

Foreman in his 20's would have obviously struggled against Schulz,Briggs, Stewart and Morrison because they were "strong".
Remember Foreman always striggled with strong fighters, like Lyle. Though he did knock Lyle out, and Foreman did lose to Jimmy Young who wasn't that strong. The guy that he lost the title to must have been strong, no wait he couldn't have been. And Foreman did knockout Norton who was strong and had very little body fat. Well anyway...

Age is just a number. That is why Evander Holyfield is just as good in his 40's as he was in his 20's. He adapted. After all he beat good opponents like Jeremy Bates, vinny Maddalone,and an old Lou Savarese. He did lose to the great Sultan Ibragimov. That doesn't mean that Holyfield was better in his 20's or that age means anything.

Btw, I suppose that you guys could actaully imagine Holyfield losing to the guy that Foreman lost the title to. Despite the fact that Holyfield would be fighting an opponet that was a little bigger, a lot faster with both hand and footspeed, a smarter fighter, a much better defensive fighter, it's just plain silly to even imagine Holyfield lose to that guy.


Strength means almost everything in boxing. It doesn't matter than Schulz had very little talent and no power, that Briggs was slow, had little heart, was dumb and that Stewart was easy to hit and had a questionable chin, and that Morrison has little stamina, little defense and a vulnerable chin. Foreman in his 20's would be life and death struggles with these guys.

Size and strength is almost everything that you need. That is why Carnera was one of the best heavyweight champions of all time. That is why the best heavyweight in the world is always the biggest and/or strongest.
:TU:
DaveV17
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 398
Joined: 05 May 2006, 21:15

Post by DaveV17 »

edit
Last edited by DaveV17 on 19 May 2015, 15:30, edited 1 time in total.
The Great John L
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4351
Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37

Post by The Great John L »

DaveV17 wrote:John wrote: "Athleticism. Please enlighten us about this topic. Perhaps you’d like to discuss the great athleticism of the current group of “evolved” “modern” HWs? How about the Klitchkos? I keep reading many posts that refer to them as “athletic” big men, but all I see are two stiff, often times clumsy guys with decent basic skills."

This post summarizes your ideas about heavyweight boxing.


Hardly, but that is the simple way to look at it.

DaveV17 wrote:Both of the Klitschkos were Olympic Gold Medal caliber fighters. I don't know if that means much to you, but I can assure you as someone who attends amateur tournaments as a coach on a regular basis that there are no cream puffs at the Olympic level.


You are missing the entire point of the discussion. Please describe their “athleticism”. I didn’t say they weren’t good fighters. They are decent fighters with great size.

The fact that you are a “coach” of amateur boxers is another good example of how boxing has declined. Please describe why you are qualified to “coach” amateur boxers. I gave a brief history of my boxing experience, perhaps you can share yours.

DaveV17 wrote:In fact, check out the amateur boxing at the state, regional, and national level and you might be surprised at the quality of boxing you will find.


What a stupid comment. I’ve been attending boxing matches for about 40 years now, from local amateur cards in small school gyms all the way to HW title fights in large arenas. What you fail to acknowledge is the great decline in amateur boxing in the US, but that’s because you are probably very young and have no knowledge of boxing prior to about 1990.

Please explain how a sport can “evolve” in a positive way when the participation in the sport is a tiny fraction of what it used to be.

DaveV17 wrote:Since you have some boxing experience, do you not see the problems fighting men the size, strength and skill level of the Klitschkos? Do you really believe that fighters from earlier eras would walk right through them.


I never said any such thing. Again, please explain why you think they, along with other “modern” HWs exhibit great athleticism? Is that because they can fight 12 rounds without tripping over their own feet? Is that your standard? Please provide some FACTS. And are there other “athletic” HWs today that make earlier HWs look clumsy? Perhaps Sam Peter, Jameel McCline or the 235 pound MW/HW James Toney? Please enlighten us Dave.

And since you are a boxing “coach”, perhaps you can discuss “modern” conditioning and how it has contributed to the great stamina and work rate of “modern” HWs. Please we all want to learn from a real boxing “coach”.

DaveV17 wrote:John, this is a serious question. Why do you suppose that there are no Jerry Quarry size heavyweights today? Why hasn't a guy Quarry's size been champion since about 1960?


You must have missed Ellis, Frazier, Jones and the Spinks brothers, huh? I think that is another indication of your credibility.
dempseyfire
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5534
Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56

Post by dempseyfire »

The Great John L wrote:
DaveV17 wrote:John wrote: "Athleticism. Please enlighten us about this topic. Perhaps you’d like to discuss the great athleticism of the current group of “evolved” “modern” HWs? How about the Klitchkos? I keep reading many posts that refer to them as “athletic” big men, but all I see are two stiff, often times clumsy guys with decent basic skills."

This post summarizes your ideas about heavyweight boxing.


Hardly, but that is the simple way to look at it.

DaveV17 wrote:Both of the Klitschkos were Olympic Gold Medal caliber fighters. I don't know if that means much to you, but I can assure you as someone who attends amateur tournaments as a coach on a regular basis that there are no cream puffs at the Olympic level.


You are missing the entire point of the discussion. Please describe their “athleticism”. I didn’t say they weren’t good fighters. They are decent fighters with great size.

The fact that you are a “coach” of amateur boxers is another good example of how boxing has declined. Please describe why you are qualified to “coach” amateur boxers. I gave a brief history of my boxing experience, perhaps you can share yours.

DaveV17 wrote:In fact, check out the amateur boxing at the state, regional, and national level and you might be surprised at the quality of boxing you will find.


What a stupid comment. I’ve been attending boxing matches for about 40 years now, from local amateur cards in small school gyms all the way to HW title fights in large arenas. What you fail to acknowledge is the great decline in amateur boxing in the US, but that’s because you are probably very young and have no knowledge of boxing prior to about 1990.

Please explain how a sport can “evolve” in a positive way when the participation in the sport is a tiny fraction of what it used to be.

DaveV17 wrote:Since you have some boxing experience, do you not see the problems fighting men the size, strength and skill level of the Klitschkos? Do you really believe that fighters from earlier eras would walk right through them.


I never said any such thing. Again, please explain why you think they, along with other “modern” HWs exhibit great athleticism? Is that because they can fight 12 rounds without tripping over their own feet? Is that your standard? Please provide some FACTS. And are there other “athletic” HWs today that make earlier HWs look clumsy? Perhaps Sam Peter, Jameel McCline or the 235 pound MW/HW James Toney? Please enlighten us Dave.

And since you are a boxing “coach”, perhaps you can discuss “modern” conditioning and how it has contributed to the great stamina and work rate of “modern” HWs. Please we all want to learn from a real boxing “coach”.

DaveV17 wrote:John, this is a serious question. Why do you suppose that there are no Jerry Quarry size heavyweights today? Why hasn't a guy Quarry's size been champion since about 1960?


You must have missed Ellis, Frazier, Jones and the Spinks brothers, huh? I think that is another indication of your credibility.


The likes of Povetkin, Moorer, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Byrd, Toney etc. are more or less the same size as Quarry (Moorer, Toney, and Byrd are even smaller), who in top shape was about 195 at 6 ft. If the 6'1 Chagaev, Ibragimov, and Povetkin lost the flab they'd weigh about 200. David Tua a more stocky 215ish but shorter than Jerry.

Most HWs today are just not in shape and way too heavy for their size ( the likes of Rahman, K Johnson, Peter etc, who are naturally bigger than Quarry but have still fought the wide majority of their careers practically obese . . none of them were naturally bigger (or better) than Lyle who was a lean and ripped 220) Being solid and sporting a 6 pack does not mean you are in top condition in boxing. The stamina of HWs the past decade has been just horrendously pathetic.

In fact, glass-jawed Klitschko is one of the only Heavyweights who actually fights at the weight he should (and only a fighter 6'5 or above should be fighting above 230), one reason he has had his recent successes.

It's laughable for you to state the talent in the amateur ranks has improved. The Heavyweights especially, oh my God, I don't know any trainer today who isn't just embarassed by the calibre of fighter at HW in the Golden Gloves right now, it's pretty much become a common joke.
Last edited by dempseyfire on 19 Mar 2008, 16:13, edited 1 time in total.
The Great John L
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4351
Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37

Post by The Great John L »

dempseyfire wrote:It's laughable for you to state the talent in the amateur ranks has improved. The Heavyweights especially, oh my God, I don't know any trainer today who isn't just embarassed by the calibre of fighter at HW in the Golden Gloves right now, it's pretty much become a common joke.
I assume you meant this comment for DV? I am obviously of an entirely different opinion.

And please do keep in mind that DV is an amateur "coach", so I'm sure he feels he's contributing to the continual "evolution" of modern fighters.
dempseyfire
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5534
Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56

Post by dempseyfire »

The Great John L wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:It's laughable for you to state the talent in the amateur ranks has improved. The Heavyweights especially, oh my God, I don't know any trainer today who isn't just embarassed by the calibre of fighter at HW in the Golden Gloves right now, it's pretty much become a common joke.
I assume you meant this comment for DV? I am obviously of an entirely different opinion.

And please do keep in mind that DV is an amateur "coach", so I'm sure he feels he's contributing to the continual "evolution" of modern fighters.
Yes, meant to add on to your response.
DaveV17
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 398
Joined: 05 May 2006, 21:15

Post by DaveV17 »

edit
Last edited by DaveV17 on 19 May 2015, 13:41, edited 1 time in total.
DaveV17
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 398
Joined: 05 May 2006, 21:15

Post by DaveV17 »

edit
Last edited by DaveV17 on 19 May 2015, 13:42, edited 1 time in total.
Ambling Alp
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3627
Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31

Post by Ambling Alp »

demspeyfire, John L, you guys need to listen to the "coach".

If the current fighters say they are good, they must be.
It's wrong for you guys to rip these guys from outside the ring.
However it's perfect fine for someone to constantly rip the guy who beat Patterson,Liston,Frazier, and Foreman ...


Remember everyone - Golota and Wladimir Klitschko would be a tough fight for anyone... well except for maybe the Lennox Lewis, or the greats like Corrie Sanders or Lamon Brewster.

And why hasn't there been a heavyweight champion around Quarry's size since around 1960?
Well besides Jimmy Ellis, I mean. Oh and Joe somebody or other (Frazier was it?)
Well there was also Leon Spinks. Oh and and also Michael Spinks. But that's it. Oh wait a minute, there was also Roy Jones.

Chris Byrd would obviously used his extra few pounds to outmuscle Quarry and hurt him with his phenomenal power punches that comes from those extra pounds.

Stiill, it is strange that Byrd would be as successful as he was against most of the much bigger heavyweight that he fought...

You know what else is strang- No lightheavyweight champion had ever moved up to win heavyweight champion through 1984.
However since then no less than 3 times in this era of the "super heavyweights" a lightheavyweight has moved up to win the heavyweight title, how odd...
dempseyfire
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5534
Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56

Post by dempseyfire »

Ambling Alp wrote:demspeyfire, John L, you guys need to listen to the "coach".

If the current fighters say they are good, they must be.
It's wrong for you guys to rip these guys from outside the ring.
However it's perfect fine for someone to constantly rip the guy who beat Patterson,Liston,Frazier, and Foreman ...


Remember everyone - Golota and Wladimir Klitschko would be a tough fight for anyone... well except for maybe the Lennox Lewis, or the greats like Corrie Sanders or Lamon Brewster.

And why hasn't there been a heavyweight champion around Quarry's size since around 1960?
Well besides Jimmy Ellis, I mean. Oh and Joe somebody or other (Frazier was it?)
Well there was also Leon Spinks. Oh and and also Michael Spinks. But that's it. Oh wait a minute, there was also Roy Jones.

Chris Byrd would obviously used his extra few pounds to outmuscle Quarry and hurt him with his phenomenal power punches that comes from those extra pounds.

Stiill, it is strange that Byrd would be as successful as he was against most of the much bigger heavyweight that he fought...

You know what else is strang- No lightheavyweight champion had ever moved up to win heavyweight champion through 1984.
However since then no less than 3 times in this era of the "super heavyweights" a lightheavyweight has moved up to win the heavyweight title, how odd...
Alp, your first paragraph hits it right on the head. Blasphemy to critique current amateurs, but hell the guys who worked hard enough and had the unbelievable talent/dedication be be among the best in the world in the 60s and 70s, they can be degraded all you like.

I see some current amateur HWs put forth a great effort, they usually try the best they can, and some are pretty tough hombres. But on the talent/skill scale, they unfortunately just don't have it. I sure as hell didn't have it (nor ever thought I did), and I never came close to pursuing a career in professional boxing.
Robinson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4415
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 22:34

Post by Robinson »

One thing that I always found interesting about Quarry are his awesome veloure (isc) trunks....just awesome.

And his and his corners often rocker hair.

One thing that most impressed me about Quarry was in his fight against Spencer, when ever he ewas agaisnt the ropes, he would maneuvre and use a duck under to get Spencers back.

Such good motions during that fight.

One thing he did do is end the careers of two overly touted next big things in Mac Foster and Thad Spenser.

Kym
DaveV17
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 398
Joined: 05 May 2006, 21:15

Post by DaveV17 »

edit
Last edited by DaveV17 on 19 May 2015, 13:43, edited 1 time in total.
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

I'm not really going to get involved with this, for reasons already stated. That said, I pretty much agree with everyone here who isn't named dave. One thing that I will add is that Ali could have knocked Mathis out, but spared him in the 11th and 12th because Mathis was in such bad shape. The ref should have stopped it. And the other thing that should be said is that, as low as Willard ranks in the pantheon of all time Heavyweight champions, he could be champion in today's weak division.

And I particularly agree with dempsey about how boxing in general has declined in every weight class. I've said this a couple of times, but some are in the habit of saying that its only the Heavyweight division that has declined, but if you compare the champions of each weight of today to those 10, 20, 30 years ago;the decline is general, and in every division. Its at its worst at Heavyweight, but its also in the lower weight classes.
Robinson wrote:One thing he did do is end the careers of two overly touted next big things in Mac Foster and Thad Spenser.
Yep, add those to Shavers and Lyle. It really is impressive what Jerry did to those guys. Quarry handled them easier than Ali did, he stopped Foster in six while Ali hit Foster at will for 15 rounds (which I think was the first ever big Heavyweight fight in Japan) and couldn't stop him. A still decent Ali was able to stop Lyle, but Lyle had been ahead at the time of the stoppage, while Quarry handled Lyle and had him hurt a couple of times. Jimmy Young couldn't beat Shavers in two fights, and we all know what Shavers did to Ellis and Norton, and yet Quarry ran right over him. Ali was 35, so his fight with Shavers was tougher for that reason, but even a prime Ali wouldn't stop Shavers the way Quarry did. Holmes couldn't either, and he beat the hell out of Shavers in two fights without putting him down once.

That's what makes his losses to Ellis and Chuvalo seem strange, not that those guys weren't good, but there were times where Quarry seemed to be at a higher level, and yet he couldn't get passed those two. Its perplexing. But, its like they say, styles make fights. Quarry beat Shavers in one, Shavers beat Ellis and Norton in one, but they beat Quarry. Jerry wasn't able to dominate Patterson either, and Patterson wasn't in his prime but was able to get a controversial draw with Quarry in their first fight. Patterson, of course, also could have gotten a decision over Ellis at around that time; goes to show how great Floyd was, and yet some in this thread have called him a "weak" opponent. He even went on to beat Bonavena.

Another thing about Joe Frazier, while we're on that note, is that some have gotten into the habit of saying that Joe was shot after Foreman, but Joe arguably beat Quarry easier in their '74 rematch than Norton was able to a year later in '75. And when Joe won that rematch, Quarry was coming off that big year in '73 where he beat Lyle and Shavers. Frazier was still a wrecking ball, he reduced Quarry to helplessness in their rematch. Interestingly, Joe Louis, of course, was referee in that fight. Maybe I'm just getting carried away because it was Louis, but I thought Louis did a decent job in that fight, though he might have let it go on a bit too long; at the very least, he was a better referee than Walcott.
The Great John L
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4351
Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37

Post by The Great John L »

DaveV17 wrote:It does look easy from ringside.
That does seem to be about the only credible opinion you can offer about boxing.
The Great John L
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4351
Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37

Post by The Great John L »

IFF, a very nice post. Thanks for returning this thread back to the original topic.

Interesting comments, especially about the Frazier-Quarry rematch, because you are right that it was a MUCH easier fight for Frazier than their first fight. While I think that Frazier wasn’t at his best after the first Ali fight, I would disagree with anyone who said he was shot. It’s possible that Quarry simply had an off night, as he was inconsistent throughout his career, although I think it’s more likely that he had lost a step since their first fight and it was simply more noticeable against Frazier than the more plodding Lyle and Shavers. Don’t get me wrong, I liked both Lyle and Shavers, but neither was particularly noted for their foot movement.
dempseyfire
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5534
Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56

Post by dempseyfire »

The Great John L wrote:IFF, a very nice post. Thanks for returning this thread back to the original topic.

Interesting comments, especially about the Frazier-Quarry rematch, because you are right that it was a MUCH easier fight for Frazier than their first fight. While I think that Frazier wasn’t at his best after the first Ali fight, I would disagree with anyone who said he was shot. It’s possible that Quarry simply had an off night, as he was inconsistent throughout his career, although I think it’s more likely that he had lost a step since their first fight and it was simply more noticeable against Frazier than the more plodding Lyle and Shavers. Don’t get me wrong, I liked both Lyle and Shavers, but neither was particularly noted for their foot movement.
Quarry had a decent 1st round using counterpunches and then moving off the ropes, but you're right by the end of the 2nd Frazier's pressure was just too much. That left hook Frazier lands flush to Quarry's face I believe in the 4th round, is one of the hardest punches I've ever seen. Frazier is so sure Quarry will fall he drops his hands and steps back but by some miracle Quarry stayed on his feet (but was dropped by a body shot at the end of the round)
One interesting thing, looking at an old Louis (who refereed the bout) next to Frazier and Quarry, is how much bigger Louis is than both of them. Before Foreman-Norton, you can also see an old Louis walk up to Foreman to wish him good luck and Louis's frame is not dwarfed like you'd imagine it'd be.
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

Well I think part of that is the fact that Louis was older and so he had more weight on him. But, yes, he was taller than Frazier and Quarry, and in his prime he weighed about as much as they did when they had been in their primes. Louis wouldn't be small in the 60's and 70's, if anything he'd be taller than a lot of them.

John L, I agree. Frazier was neither shot, nor at his best, he was somewhere in between, like Ali was around that time. And I agree that Lyle and Shavers' cumbersome styles hurt them against Quarry, Jerry had faster hands than they did. When you fight Ali and Patterson and Ellis you're not going to look particularly fast, but when you're in with Shavers and Lyle your handspeed will look a little better. Lyle in particular looked incredibly slow in that fight.
dempseyfire
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5534
Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56

Post by dempseyfire »

I Feel Fine wrote:Well I think part of that is the fact that Louis was older and so he had more weight on him. But, yes, he was taller than Frazier and Quarry, and in his prime he weighed about as much as they did when they had been in their primes. Louis wouldn't be small in the 60's and 70's, if anything he'd be taller than a lot of them.

John L, I agree. Frazier was neither shot, nor at his best, he was somewhere in between, like Ali was around that time. And I agree that Lyle and Shavers' cumbersome styles hurt them against Quarry, Jerry had faster hands than they did. When you fight Ali and Patterson and Ellis you're not going to look particularly fast, but when you're in with Shavers and Lyle your handspeed will look a little better. Lyle in particular looked incredibly slow in that fight.
I wouldn't say Lyle looked incredibly slow; some of his inside combinations were pretty fast for a big man, and he showed a good snapping jab in spots.

I think the main thing was that Lyle's fight plan was to let Quarry do most of the work, Lyle would pick his spots here and there to land his inside combos, and by the middle rounds Quarry would be stopped if not earlier. Well Quarry not only took Lyle's Sunday punch, but he maintained his pace and even increased his output late. Lyle became befuddled and fatigued, as often happens to punchers when they first encounter a skilled opponent who can take their best punches and keep coming.

Lyle was a pretty good boxer; fine jab, good arsenal of punches, and a fair counter-puncher. His main drawback was his under-developed defense (he often stuck out his arms to toy with an opponent a la Ali, without having the reflexes of the latter) and his late start to the pro game (he was already in his mid 30s facing the likes of Foreman, Bugner etc.) He also blew the Ali fight (a very winnable fight for him IMO at that time) b/c he was psyched out about being rope-a-doped and punching himself like Foreman, so he hardly did anything of significance the whole night.
Post Reply