Jerry Quarry Vastly Underated

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 19 Aug 2006, 14:55

silkov wrote:... yes he wasnt 100% by any means but I think even a peak Quarry would have had trouble with Norton

I agree 100%. A prime Norton would be a tough opponent for just about anyone.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 19 Aug 2006, 14:58

silkov wrote:... also Norton fought Ali (3times) young, Foreman, Shavers, Holmes, ...so how you can say his record is thin of names is beyond me!....

Yes, you are correct, those are all top opponents, and I probably mis-stated when I said his resume was "thin". His wins over top ranked HWs is a bit thin however. One solid win over Ali and a VERY close win over Young. Not much else there.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 19 Aug 2006, 15:01

silkov wrote:... I wouldnt say there was that much difference between the Quarry who beat LYLE and the Quarry who lost to Norton aside from his conditioning...

Exactly the point. Thanks for backing me up on that. His conditioning was very poor due to taking the fight on short notice. Anyone who thinks that the outcome could have been different had Quarry been properly prepared for this fight are probably using sound judgement.

Notice I did say the outcome COULD have been different...

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 19 Aug 2006, 15:01

silkov wrote:... I wouldnt say there was that much difference between the Quarry who beat LYLE and the Quarry who lost to Norton aside from his conditioning...

Exactly the point. Thanks for backing me up on that. His conditioning was very poor due to taking the fight on short notice. Anyone who thinks that the outcome could have been different had Quarry been properly prepared for this fight are probably using sound judgement.

Notice I did say the outcome COULD have been different...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 19 Aug 2006, 15:43

The Great John L wrote:
silkov wrote:... also Norton fought Ali (3times) young, Foreman, Shavers, Holmes, ...so how you can say his record is thin of names is beyond me!....
Yes, you are correct, those are all top opponents, and I probably mis-stated when I said his resume was "thin". His wins over top ranked HWs is a bit thin however. One solid win over Ali and a VERY close win over Young. Not much else there.

Well his losses to Ali were far closer than Quarrys losses to him.... and he gave Holmes one of the toughest fights of his career...

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 19 Aug 2006, 15:48

There are a couple of problems with the "Quarry was out shape" theory against Norton.
First, he just went 10 rounds a month previously. He shouldn't have gotten that out of shape in the the time between his previous fight and the time that signed on to took on Norton.

It's not like Quarry was a "last minute" substitution.

Secondly, Norton himself just had a fight (a one round ko win) 20 days before he fought Quarry. He couldn't have had much more time than Quarry did to prepare.

Also, Quarry was only 29 years old when he fought Norton. There is no excuse for a fighter that young to be "past his prime" unless he has had well more than 100 fights;especially a heavyweight.

You can make allowances for a fighter getting old, but in this fight this isn't the case.

Quarry was a good fighter, (probably Top 40 of All-Time). and underrated by some people. However, he simply wasn't as good as Norton, or even close to Ali, Frazier, or Foreman.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 20 Aug 2006, 07:41

Decagon wrote:
The Great John L wrote:I agree 100%. A prime Norton would be a tough opponent for just about anyone.
Tyson would be an obvious exception.

Yes, and Foreman, Dempsey, Shavers and probably Liston as well. Pretty much any skilled really big hitting HW would be a tough match for Norton.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 20 Aug 2006, 07:47

Ambling Alp wrote:There are a couple of problems with the "Quarry was out shape" theory against Norton.
First, he just went 10 rounds a month previously. He shouldn't have gotten that out of shape in the the time between his previous fight and the time that signed on to took on Norton.

It's not like Quarry was a "last minute" substitution.

Not last minute substitution, but as I recall it was no more than about 7 days. And you are correct that he fought about 30 days prior, but who's to say he was even in the gym prior to getting the call for the Norton fight. Any objective observer would probably say that his performance in the fight (i.e., total exhaustion after 3 rounds) is a pretty good indication that he wasn't properly prepared.

Preparing for an important fight usually requires a well planned training camp. To imply that he would be in similar shape taking the fight on 7-10 days notice is probably over-simplifying it a bit, but you are stating your opinion. I simply don't agree.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 20 Aug 2006, 16:36

anyone who thinks quarry was in his prime when he fought norton is either blind or bias. thats the truth.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 20 Aug 2006, 21:24

No, that is just your uninformed opinion.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 21 Aug 2006, 01:02

Ambling Alp wrote:No, that is just your uninformed opinion.

so are u implying norton beat a prime quarry? this is a yes or no answer.

if u answer yes, than u my friend have the uninformed opinion.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 21 Aug 2006, 08:09

Yes, I am saying that Norton beat a "prime" Quarry. It isn't an uniformed decison. Quarry was just 29 years old. That is ridiculaus to use the "past his prime" excuse for a guy in his 20's, especially a heavyweight.

Quarry certainly didn't look any worse than he did against Frazier and Ali. Sometimes a guy doesn't look good because he is fighting a much better opponent who he can't be effective against. This result isn't suprising at all. Norton was a better fighter who Quarry couldn't handle.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 21 Aug 2006, 08:20

Ambling Alp wrote:Quarry certainly didn't look any worse than he did against Frazier and Ali.

Have you seen the entire first Frazier-Quarry fight?

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 21 Aug 2006, 09:36

I think Ambling Alp makes a fair point when he says Quarry was only 29 and should have been in good enough shape for this fight. Their are obvious instances where a fighter is shot and should not have been in the ring as was the case with Young, Lyle, and Norton when they fought Cooney. Also Joe Louis and Muhamed Ali should not have fought their last coulple of fights. Also you can make an argument for fighters losing becase they were to green such as Pipino Cuevous or Wilfred Benitez who learned on the job as teenagers, probably didn't have much money and saw boxing as a way out. So at times the argument of wheather a fighter was in his prime is a valid one. But what ends up happening much of the time is the discusion gets deflected to wheather or not a fighter was in his prime for certain fights and strays from the original topic. You could find a way to make the prime issue an argument for every fight if you wanted. If you took all of the fights where one or both men were not in their primes and did away with them you wouldn't have much left. Part of what makes a fighter great is his ability to endure in a sport and his body of work over many years. Alot of guys have good three year runs and fade. So if Quarry faded in his twenties perhaps that is the reason his memory has been diminished and had little to do with being underated.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 21 Aug 2006, 10:15

kick asner wrote:I think Ambling Alp makes a fair point when he says Quarry was only 29 and should have been in good enough shape for this fight. Their are obvious instances where a fighter is shot and should not have been in the ring as was the case with Young, Lyle, and Norton when they fought Cooney. Also Joe Louis and Muhamed Ali should not have fought their last coulple of fights. Also you can make an argument for fighters losing becase they were to green such as Pipino Cuevous or Wilfred Benitez who learned on the job as teenagers, probably didn't have much money and saw boxing as a way out. So at times the argument of wheather a fighter was in his prime is a valid one. But what ends up happening much of the time is the discusion gets deflected to wheather or not a fighter was in his prime for certain fights and strays from the original topic. You could find a way to make the prime issue an argument for every fight if you wanted. If you took all of the fights where one or both men were not in their primes and did away with them you wouldn't have much left. Part of what makes a fighter great is his ability to endure in a sport and his body of work over many years. Alot of guys have good three year runs and fade. So if Quarry faded in his twenties perhaps that is the reason his memory has been diminished and had little to do with being underated.

Of course I was saying more that Quarry was not in shape because he took the fight on about 10 days notice. If you have seen the fight, it’s obvious that Quarry wasn’t in shape as he was heavy, very soft and completely out of gas after 3 rounds. While he did fight about 30 days prior to this fight it’s possible that he didn’t resume training at all after that fight and only had the week or so prior to the Norton fight to prepare. Anyone who works out on a regular basis knows that if you skip a few weeks of a routine it takes a while to get back into the rhythm. I’m pretty confident that this is especially true for a professional athlete.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 21 Aug 2006, 10:25

My post really wasn't aimed at you as I noticed you took other factors into account and seemed to be pretty objective. Just in general the discussions in this forum seem to steer in the direction of whether fighters were in their prime or not and like I said sometimes it is valid but other times it gets a bit carried away.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 21 Aug 2006, 11:21

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 21 Aug 2006, 17:21

DaveV17 wrote:I liked Jerry Quarry and got excited for each of his "comebacks", but looking back, I think that Jerry is overrated today. Arguably, his three biggest wins were upsets of Thad Spencer, Mac Foster, and Ron Lyle.

Spencer, for whatever reason, never won another fight after the Quarry fight. Mac Foster was one of the most protected fighters in history when he met Quarry. I read on another board that of Foster's first 24 opponents, only 6 had won their previous fight, and only 4 had a winning record for their last 6 fights. Lyle did have a few good wins prior to fighting Quarry and the fight was probably Jerry's biggest win.

Quarry was a good fighter but not a great one. Some people like to say that Jerry would have been champion in any other era. Doubtful, he was inconsistent and except for the Lyle fight, he lost most of his big fights.

I would ad Quarry's first round stoppage of Earnie Shavers as a good win. I pretty much agree here except I think Quarry could win a title in todays heavyweight division. Back then you had Ali, Fraizier, and Foreman standing between Quarry and the title. Today their would be no such obstacle.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 21 Aug 2006, 18:08

DaveV17 wrote:I liked Jerry Quarry and got excited for each of his "comebacks", but looking back, I think that Jerry is overrated today. Arguably, his three biggest wins were upsets of Thad Spencer, Mac Foster, and Ron Lyle.

Spencer, for whatever reason, never won another fight after the Quarry fight. Mac Foster was one of the most protected fighters in history when he met Quarry. I read on another board that of Foster's first 24 opponents, only 6 had won their previous fight, and only 4 had a winning record for their last 6 fights. Lyle did have a few good wins prior to fighting Quarry and the fight was probably Jerry's biggest win.

Quarry was a good fighter but not a great one. Some people like to say that Jerry would have been champion in any other era. Doubtful, he was inconsistent and except for the Lyle fight, he lost most of his big fights.

Thanks for an excellent post. I was almost beginning to think he might be over rated, and then I read this post and the absence of some significant wins from your post made me think again about Quarry's resumeand I now realize that he probably is under rated.

Wins over top 10 ranked Patterson, Lyle, Shavers, Mathis, Foster, Spencer, as well as wins over fringe contenders like Middleton, London, Bodell, Newman and Zanon, plus a number of other tough veterans and club fighters. An extremely good resume. You might want to check it out.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 21 Aug 2006, 20:17

just because quarry was 29 doesnt mean shit. all fighters age differently. quarry was very battle worn, out of shape, late sub when he fought norton. quarry on film looked nothing compared to the late 60s- very early 1970s jerry quarry.

watch the first quarry-frazier fight and then the 2nd quarry-frazier fight. quarry looked alot faster, sharper in the first frazier fight. quarry was ruined by frazier in that 2nd fight and was now almost washed up by the norton fight. saying norton beat a prime quarry makes u sound ridiculous no offense.

prime quarry KO 7 norton

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 21 Aug 2006, 21:25

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:just because quarry was 29 doesnt mean shit. all fighters age differently. quarry was very battle worn, out of shape, late sub when he fought norton. quarry on film looked nothing compared to the late 60s- very early 1970s jerry quarry.

watch the first quarry-frazier fight and then the 2nd quarry-frazier fight. quarry looked alot faster, sharper in the first frazier fight. quarry was ruined by frazier in that 2nd fight and was now almost washed up by the norton fight. saying norton beat a prime quarry makes u sound ridiculous no offense.

prime quarry KO 7 norton

Now in you're original post you said Quarry had an excellent chin, great heart, stamina, and defense. To me this does not sound like the type of fighter who should be ruined by a single fight and be shot beyond the point of recovery.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 21 Aug 2006, 21:45

why do u think quarry retired after the norton fight? he was done. watch films, u will see the quarry who fought norton was slower, softer, much less sharper reflexes....basically he was nothing compared to the vintage jerry quarry. quarry even was a last minute replacement and showed up a soft 207lbs. god this norton nuthugging is getting ridiculous. i know boxrec has always been a pro norton forum but to talk nortons victory over quarry up like he beat a prime jerry........that just sounds ridiculous.

quarry was about as much in his prime vs norton as eddie machen was vs joe frazier.

* i rate norton # 21 heavyweight of all time......but i dont give him much credit for the quarry victory. quarry was no longer one of the best heavyweights in the world, not even top 10 anymore IMO at that point. norton beat a shell of jerry quarry

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 21 Aug 2006, 21:58

PFP Quarry is clearly better than Norton, but head to head on there best day, Norton's seize and strength would be too much for Quarry.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 21 Aug 2006, 22:05

Seamus wrote:PFP Quarry is clearly better than Norton, but head to head on there best day, Norton's seize and strength would be too much for Quarry.

lyles size and strength certainly werent too much for quarry. jerry quarry absolutley feasted on the bigger men....size and strength are not issues. quarry was incredibly strong.

dont forget norton lost to 195lb jose luis garcia and 6' 205lb shavers

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 21 Aug 2006, 22:21

Quarry beat Lyle fairly early in his career, and Garcia did the same to Norton. Lyle got better, and Norton destroyed Garcia in the rematch. The 73 Quarry was a formidable opponent, but the Norton who beat Ali and took Holmes to a split decision would be too strong in my opinion.