Mike Quarry vs Tony Mudine at light heavyweight

[scorpio83]

Who would win this match up at light heavyweight between Mike Quarry and Australian Tony Mundine (Anthony's dad) who campaigned in that division after losing his world middleweight title challenge against Carlos Monzon? Would Mundine's power win him a fight or Quarry out-box and counter him for a decision win?

[oogiebe]

I'm a bit biased on Tony Mundine, but I think he'd wear Quarry out. Seems every time Quarry stepped up, he lost. Mundane was a grinder with some pop.

[goose 5]

This is a good match. I'd take Mundine .

[scorpio83]

Mundine would have a power to either decision or stop Mike Quarry probably in 8 rounds.

[scartissue]

There were two versions of Mike Quarry. The first version - whom my Dad hated - was the will o the wisp version. He was strictly a fast, defensive boxer. This was the Quarry who went undefeated leading up to and including the Bob Foster fight. After that bout Quarry's style changed. he came off his toes and would slug it out with anyone. At first I thought he dropped a step after the Foster KO, but in reality, he was obviously making his fights more entertaining, which they now were. The trouble with this version was that Mike had no punch, but had a good jaw. so these bouts were now going the distance, toe-to-toe, with Mike really taking a thumping because he was now taking these shots from some big bangers. I only saw a glimpse of the old Mike when he fought Mike Rossman in their first fight and against Tom Bethea. He boxed well in these bouts with positive results. Mundine on the other hand, had a great punch with a suspect jaw. Since moving up from middle where he sort of got exposed by Briscoe, He was doing well at 175, but would run into a banger every so often. Now if he and Mike were matched, which i sort of expected when Mike went down to Oz to fight Bunny Johnson, I would go with a Mundine win as Mike was fairly well-chewed by this time. If they met a bit earlier when Mike and Tony were both doing well, again, I would go with Tony if Mike was sticking with his crowd-pleasing style. That style would have been made to order for Tony, because Mike didn't have the kind of kick that would bother even a suspect chin. The only chance I would give Mike was if he got back to really good boxing, and I'm not sure if that would be enough. But, hey, Murray Sutherland seemed to do well with it (which i still feel was an off night for Tony). Anyways, sorry for being wordy.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

Tony Mundine wins Unanimous Dec or late Tko

[JohnReed]

Assuming both guys fought their best, then this is a great match-up. In my mind, Quarry's peak performance was his 1976 decision win over top contender Tom Bethea. I'm not sure what Mundine's best light-heavyweight performance was, but my guess is that he was at his peak in that division sometime between 1976 and 1978. So, we're talking about these two fighting in late 1976 or early 1977.

I think the outcome of this bout would depend on where the match was held. If they fight in Australia, Mundine wins by decision. If they fought in the US, I think it could go either way, and I'd probably lean towards Quarry on points.

This fight definitely goes the distance. That's because Quarry could take a whale of a punch, and at his best, his defense was respectable. On his best nights Mike danced away from danger when he had to. Mundine could hit pretty damn hard, but again, I think Quarry's durability and elusiveness would keep him on his feet against the Aussie for the whole stretch. As for Quarry KO'ing Mundine, forget it. Tony had a glass jaw, but Quarry couldn't break an egg with his punches.

In terms of boxing ability, Mundine was probably the quicker, more fluid, and more tricky fighter. Mundine had great hands, could punch from lots of different angles, and put his shots together pretty well. But these abilities might not have translated into a win against a peak Quarry, who -- as I already said -- would dance away from trouble when he had to, or would smother blows on the inside when necessary.

I believe it's very possible that Quarry might be able to use his slap-dash left jab/left hook -- a blow he allegedly used to great effect against Bethea -- to score lots of points against Mundine. Admittedly I didn't see this fight, but I read lots of magazine and newspaper accounts of it. Quarry was a legitimate world-class fighter that night (unlike many of his bad nights during that period).

Overall, this is a hard one to call, assuming both boxers are at their peak. Mundine is the better athlete, the greater talent, but he had a lengthy record of blowing it against world-class and (sometimes) semi-world class opponents. Quarry was a rugged guy at his best, and a pretty fair outside boxer and counterpuncher. So, I really give Mike Quarry a good chance to win this hypothetical bout.

Fascinating match to think about.

[JohnReed]

Now if he and Mike were matched, which i sort of expected when Mike went down to Oz to fight Bunny Johnson, I would go with a Mundine win as Mike was fairly well-chewed by this time.

Keep in mind that after losing to Mike Rossman in 1977, Quarry was just a shadow of his former self. By 1980 or 1981, when he was fighting in Australia against Bunny Johnson, Quarry was burned out. Awful. That version of Quarry would stand no chance against Tony Mundine. See my post above for elaboration.

Quarry's last prime performance, ironically, was his TKO loss to Rossman in 1977 at Madison Square Garden. Rossman was the better fighter that night because of physical and stylistic advantages, but the match should have gone the full 11 rounds. The only reason Quarry got TKO'd is because he made the senseless, inexplicable mistake of trying to stand toe-to-toe to slug with the heavy-handed Rossman. That's not normally how Quarry fought. I wonder why Mike tried to slug with Rossman on that night...maybe because of his brother Jerry's influence?

Just for the record, if Quarry tried to slug with Mundine, then the Aussie would TKO or KO Quarry. But I don't believe a prime, clear-headed Mike Quarry would have made that kind of dumb mistake against a bomber like Mundine.

[klompton]

Mundine. He was the better boxer and athlete than Quarry. He didnt have much heart but Quarry didnt have enough firepower to discourage him. This fight is an easy pick for me.

[JohnReed]

Mundine. He was the better boxer and athlete than Quarry. He didnt have much heart but Quarry didnt have enough firepower to discourage him. This fight is an easy pick for me.

I can see where you're coming from, but don't forget that Quarry floored Pierre Fourie. Many believe that Quarry actually won that fight (the decision went in favor of the South African). Fourie was just as quick and athletic as Mundine, so that raises the possibility that Quarry might indeed have outboxed Mundine. Just maybe. On top of that, Quarry might even have been able to hurt or stun Tony from time to time given that the Aussie had a glass jaw.

I remember reading about Mundine in Ring Magazine back in the 1970s, in the Australian column that magazine featured. The Australian journalist commented (at least once) that Mundine only looked great when he was "on top" of the action. In other words, the journo said Mundine was a front runner. It could be that, anytime Mundine became frustrated tactically, his brilliant boxing, tactical acumen, and flashy hand movement would start to fade. You know the kind of fighter I'm describing here. Therefore, I think that Quarry -- who was a very competent boxer -- might have deflated Mundine's ego in there. No?

[klompton]

I disagree entirely. Fourie wasnt as fast as Mundine, didnt hit as hard, and wasnt as good a boxer. They also fought different styles with Mundine using much more footwork. Fourie had more heart and better whiskers but again, I dont think that comes into play because Mike wasnt a puncher by any stretch.

[JohnReed]

I disagree entirely. Fourie wasnt as fast as Mundine, didnt hit as hard, and wasnt as good a boxer. They also fought different styles with Mundine using much more footwork. Fourie had more heart and better whiskers but again, I dont think that comes into play because Mike wasnt a puncher by any stretch.

I'll bet that Fourie would have rated as the favorite against Mundine had they ever fought. I'm pretty certain that Fourie would have handled Tony too. Mundine was quicker and more fluid than Fourie, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was a better boxer. That's because the South African was a canny ring technician. As for Fourie's footwork, well, we know it was damned good, because that's how he lasted 15 rounds aginst Galindez twice. Fourie survived Galindez's bombs by bouncing away from punches as needed. I doubt that Mundine could have used his legs that efficiently against Galindez.

So, Quarry's performance against Fourie is a valid indicator of how Mike might have fared against Mundine.

As for Mundine's unquestioned power advantage over Quarry (a big advantage, given that Tony could crack a safe with his punches), I'm not so sure that would be a factor in their fight. That's because -- as I said before -- Mike had the defensive ability to negate Mundine's power.

[klompton]

I think you are overrating both Mike and Fourie. Fourie might have been made a favorite over Mundine, although thats debateable but if he was it would have had more to do with the fact that he would have forced Mundine to come to South Africa to fight where the judges would have protected Fourie. Regardless, they fought nothing alike so its a bad indicator. Stylistically its just a bad matchup for Mike. You are painting him as this talented boxer who didnt get hit and could punch and he wasnt. He was an average fighter who traded on the name recognition of his big brother. He was tough and brave and had spirit but he wasnt particularly fast, wasnt a particularly talented boxer, didnt hit hard at all and like his older brother could be drawn into shootouts very easily. The only thing Quarry did better than Mundine was eat punches. Thats it. And given the fact that Quarry couldnt punch a lick he wouldnt have stopped or intimidated Mundine. Its as simple as that.

[JohnReed]

Fourie might have been made a favorite over Mundine, although thats debateable but if he was it would have had more to do with the fact that he would have forced Mundine to come to South Africa to fight where the judges would have protected Fourie.

Knowing that Fourie fought well for 30 rounds against Bob Foster, and held his own against Victor Galindez for another 30, I have no doubt that he would have beaten Mundine. Fourie would even have beaten Mundine in Australia. Fourie was simply a better performer than Mundine against world class foes in the 175 lbs. division. I believe that most sophisticated fans of the '70s boxing scene would agree with me here.

Regardless, they (Fourie and Mundine) fought nothing alike so its a bad indicator.

It's easy to argue otherwise. Consider the following.

Both Fourie and Mundine fought from medium-to-long distance from their foes, probing for openings with their lead punches. Both relied on foot speed (mobility) to jump away from punches, and to step in and capitalize on punch openings. Essentially, each guy had a tactical, technical, "boxing" approach to squarring off with their foes. Hand speed was a strong area for both guys.

They differed in that Fourie was all about scoring repeatedly with his rapier-like jab, and with his quick, sweeping, but light left-hooks. He also exhibited more upper-body defensive manuevering than Tony. As for Mundine, he had a greater variety of lead punches (he often used sneaky right uppercuts as leads), and if he could connect with his lead punch, he tried to follow up with big bombs that would score the KO. Mundine also swung hard to the body. But until openings appeared, Mundine -- like Fourie -- stayed on the outside and boxed.

According to newspaper reports, Quarry fought Fourie from the outside, dancing on his toes, and slapping the crap out of him with his peppery left. If Quarry could box that effectively on the outside against a defensive fighter like Fourie, then it stands to reason that Quarry could have handled Mundine similarly. Note also that Quarry had no problem puncturing Fourie's normally tight defense. That tells us that Quarry could definitely find Mundine's chin too.

Stylistically its just a bad matchup for Mike. You are painting him as this talented boxer who didnt get hit and could punch and he wasnt.

That's not quite what I said.

I wrote that Quarry was a notoriously light hitter. A feather fisted puncher. And, I admitted that Quarry had lots of crappy nights where he hung on the ropes, got banged around, or recklessly traded with opponents. However, I correctly pointed out that Quarry was capable of fighting differently; that he could actually dance in circles and rapidly pop opponents with his efficient, persistent left jab and quick, slapping left-hook. That version of Quarry -- the way he fought on his better nights -- was a competent defensive boxer by any measure.

He was an average fighter who traded on the name recognition of his big brother. He was tough and brave and had spirit but he wasnt particularly fast, wasnt a particularly talented boxer, didnt hit hard at all and like his older brother could be drawn into shootouts very easily.

I'm very aware of Quarry's limitations. He passed much of his career in that twilight zone between being an authentic, world-class contender versus being just an advanced clubfighter. Mike was a marginal contender at best. However, when he fought his best, he could sometimes beat world-class foes. And Mundine, at light-heavyweight, may not really have amounted to a world-class fighter.

Quarry was quick, but not super-fast. Still, his hand and foot speed were good enough to trouble or even defeat a 175 pounder of Mundine's caliber. If Steve Aczel, Ernie Barr, and Ronnie Wilson could extend Mundine, then Quarry could do that much better.

The only thing Quarry did better than Mundine was eat punches.

I think I already admitted that Quarry could not fight this way against Mundine. If he did, he'd be beaten. But Quarry didn't always fight stupidly, allowing himself to get drawn into shooting wars. Sometimes he fought better than that. Much better, at times.

And given the fact that Quarry couldnt punch a lick he wouldnt have stopped or intimidated Mundine. Its as simple as that.

Quarry wouldn't have needed to hurt Mundine. That's because Quarry, on his best night, might have boxed circles around the Aussie, moving away from punches and staying on top of the scorecards with lots of peppery, light shots to the head. Look at how technical boxing Mate Parlov beat Mundine by fighting this way. Mike Quarry might have accomplished the same.

Why would a moderate talent like Quarry have beaten Mundine this way? Because, as I've said before, the lightheavyweight version of Tony Mundine simply wasn't that good. Tony was past his prime at 175 lbs. He was beatable. Dangerous as hell, but beatable.

Finally, given that Mundine had a potato chip for a chin, it's possible that even light-hitting Mike Quarry could have gotten lucky and hurt or floored him. You can't deny that.

[klompton]

We arent talking about Fourie-Mundine we are talking about Quarry-Mundine. Just because YOU think Fighter A beats Fighter B so he beats Fighter C in two mythical matchups doesnt make it so. Quarry lost to Fourie, Mundine fought nothing like Fourie.

It is not easy to argue that Fourie is a good indicator of how Quarry would do against Mundine. They fought two totally different styles AND Quarry lost to Fourie. Mundine was a different animal stylistically than Fourie and would have posed a different set of problems. He was a bad match for Mike.

I think the real issue here is exactly what fights of any of these guys you are basing your opinion on? Because you said "After watching Fourie box 30 rounds with Foster" Im calling bullshit on that one because only about a minute of film exists of their first fight and only 11 rounds of their second. Foster dominated both fights, toying with Fourie to punish him. Only the first Galindez-Fourie fight exists. So Im calling bullshit on your supposedly expert opinion. Ive seen Mike fight in several bouts from his first amateur bout all the way up to about 1978 when he was no better than a ham and egger. Ive seen most of Mundines fights from the time he got knocked out by Kahu Mahanga all the way to his second to last fight in France against Angulo. Two points: 1. When you talk about Parlov beating Mundine you are talking about a Mundine who was past his peak and fighting a cruiserweight. If you want to compare Mike Quarry in 1979 to Mundine in 1979 we can do that all day long because in 1979 Quarry was fighting nobodies and Mundine was still able to compete against world class fighters. Secondly, using Parlov as an example is silly not just because that fight was well past Mundines best and fought at cruiserweight or because Parlov had a 10 pound weight advantage in that fight but because it was fought right across the border from Parlov's hometown and I thought Mundine won that fight, regardless it was only a one round swing on the cards so its not like Parlov dominated and easily beat Mundine. If you are going to pretend that Mike Quarry got robbed against Fourie after missing a million punches in that fight then it works both ways. You keep wanting to compare Mundines late career run with Quarry's prime. Mundine moved up to light heavyweight because he was having trouble making 160. Had a prime Mundine fought the best version of Mike Quarry and come in at 165 he would have boxed Quarry's ears off. There is zero doubt in my mind. And thats from someone who has seen enough of both guys to know. Again, I would have to ask what fights of all of these guys youve seen that youve formulated this opinion you are so confident of because I can tell you categorically that there is only one commonly available fight that Quarry won on film (I have several more in addition to several of his losses, but Im the only person who has them) so my bet is you are basing much of these opinions on losing efforts of these guys and not seeing any of them at their best. If its your contention that you were at these fights then I can fire them up here and watch them right now and we can compare what Im watching in real time with your memory from 40+ years ago. Your call.

[JohnReed]

We arent talking about Fourie-Mundine we are talking about Quarry-Mundine. Just because YOU think Fighter A beats Fighter B so he beats Fighter C in two mythical matchups doesnt make it so. Quarry lost to Fourie, Mundine fought nothing like Fourie.

It is not easy to argue that Fourie is a good indicator of how Quarry would do against Mundine. They fought two totally different styles AND Quarry lost to Fourie. Mundine was a different animal stylistically than Fourie and would have posed a different set of problems. He was a bad match for Mike.

I think the real issue here is exactly what fights of any of these guys you are basing your opinion on? Because you said "After watching Fourie box 30 rounds with Foster" Im calling bullshit on that one because only about a minute of film exists of their first fight and only 11 rounds of their second. Foster dominated both fights, toying with Fourie to punish him. Only the first Galindez-Fourie fight exists. So Im calling bullshit on your supposedly expert opinion. Ive seen Mike fight in several bouts from his first amateur bout all the way up to about 1978 when he was no better than a ham and egger. Ive seen most of Mundines fights from the time he got knocked out by Kahu Mahanga all the way to his second to last fight in France against Angulo. Two points: 1. When you talk about Parlov beating Mundine you are talking about a Mundine who was past his peak and fighting a cruiserweight. If you want to compare Mike Quarry in 1979 to Mundine in 1979 we can do that all day long because in 1979 Quarry was fighting nobodies and Mundine was still able to compete against world class fighters. Secondly, using Parlov as an example is silly not just because that fight was well past Mundines best and fought at cruiserweight or because Parlov had a 10 pound weight advantage in that fight but because it was fought right across the border from Parlov's hometown and I thought Mundine won that fight, regardless it was only a one round swing on the cards so its not like Parlov dominated and easily beat Mundine. If you are going to pretend that Mike Quarry got robbed against Fourie after missing a million punches in that fight then it works both ways. You keep wanting to compare Mundines late career run with Quarry's prime. Mundine moved up to light heavyweight because he was having trouble making 160. Had a prime Mundine fought the best version of Mike Quarry and come in at 165 he would have boxed Quarry's ears off. There is zero doubt in my mind. And thats from someone who has seen enough of both guys to know. Again, I would have to ask what fights of all of these guys youve seen that youve formulated this opinion you are so confident of because I can tell you categorically that there is only one commonly available fight that Quarry won on film (I have several more in addition to several of his losses, but Im the only person who has them) so my bet is you are basing much of these opinions on losing efforts of these guys and not seeing any of them at their best. If its your contention that you were at these fights then I can fire them up here and watch them right now and we can compare what Im watching in real time with your memory from 40+ years ago. Your call.

Several points.

1) I meant to say that "knowing that Fourie fought 30 rounds against...etc." Based on what I saw of Fourie on those youtube.com fights, he's a better light-heavyweight than Mundine. I'm sticking to my guns here.

2) You say that Foster "toyed" with and "punished" Fourie. But from what I saw, Fourie put on a very skilled, tough and world-class losing effort to Foster, who may have been the greatest lightheavyweight of all time. Losing efforts of that calibre say something impressive about the defeated fighter.

3) How Fourie compared to Mundine is relevant to the chief question of a hypothetical Quarry-Mundine match-up.

4) My opinion is based mostly on reading many boxing and newspaper articles about Quarry and Mundine. That includes a South African newspaper account of Quarry-Fourie. That account described the action in detail, and said that the decision could legitimately have gone to Quarry.

5) According to the South African newspaper, Quarry landed a shitload of punches on Fourie. He even cut Fourie. Based on my 44 years experience as a boxing fan, I believe this is evidence that Quarry could have punctured Mundine's guard all night long. I have no doubt about this.

6) Sorry, but the light-heavyweight version of Mundine was not the ball of fire that was the 1972 to 1974 version of Mundine. Let's face it: Mundine completely fell apart against Jesse Burnett. He got starched in one round by David Lee Royster. He got knocked cold by Gary Summerhayes. Mundine was taken the distance by some very ordinary fighters. As far as I'm concerned, this is all evidence that Mundine might very well have lost to Quarry if the fight takes place in the US.

7) It's a big advantage that you have films of these guys that other people don't have. But that doesn't mean you have the one and only data source that enables a fan to make educated decisions about who beats who. So, I'm sticking to my guns on the Quarry-Mundine issue, even though I haven't seen the films you have.

7) The Parlov fight is relevant to this discussion because it yields clues as to how Mundine, instinctively at least, handles himself against skilled, mobile orthodox boxers who don't stand in one place and allow him to get his KO shots off. Again, Quarry could fight competently at long range.

8) Again, I emphasize that we're talking about a very prime Quarry here, and even then, we're assuming he puts on one of his better fights. That's 1975 and 1976 vintage Quarry, not the post-1977 palooka who was a shadow of his former self.

9) Quarry was never really a 165 lbs fighter. At his best, he came in close to 175 lbs. We're talking that physical version against the light-heavyweight version of Mundine.

10) In my judgment, it's okay to estimate a fighter's ability -- and his potentiality -- from watching his losing efforts. Remember: some fighters made their names by putting on great losing efforts. Case in point: Chris Finnegan losing to Bob Foster.

11) No, I wasn't at these fights 40 years ago. But I'm sticking to my guns at a boxing fan, making judgments based on my intuition. That's worked in the past for me, and I'm confident of my analysis of Quarry vs. Mundine.

12) Concerning Mundine's true value as a fighter at 175 lbs., it's got to be the case that even the Australian boxing industry people lacked confidence in him at that stage of his career. Otherwise they would have invested money to move him up the ranks and into a title shot, just as they had done when he was a middleweight.

13) Final thought: concerning your monopoly on these films, you should devise a way to make them available to other boxing fans and fight game scribes, even if on a fee basis under carefully controlled circumstances. Be an egalitarian, spread the wealth, enrich the world of historical boxing analysis.