jerry quarry vs tommy morrison

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 01:55

Shavers a skilled puncher? That's some shocking news.
Lyle a more skilled puncher than Morrison? What makes you think that? Besides, how long had he been fighting when he faced Quarry?
Ali and Lyle bigger than Morrison? Taller - yes, bigger - no.
Ali had no big punch, so what's the point mentioning him at all?
Ellis and Patterson were more like natural light heavyweights than heavyweights. And Quarry lost to Ellis, and couldn't beat convinsingly an old version of Patterson, proving he was just a mediocrity with little skills in either defense or offense.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 08:17

Senya13 wrote:Shavers a skilled puncher? That's some shocking news.
Lyle a more skilled puncher than Morrison? What makes you think that? Besides, how long had he been fighting when he faced Quarry?
Ali and Lyle bigger than Morrison? Taller - yes, bigger - no.
Ali had no big punch, so what's the point mentioning him at all?
Ellis and Patterson were more like natural light heavyweights than heavyweights. And Quarry lost to Ellis, and couldn't beat convinsingly an old version of Patterson, proving he was just a mediocrity with little skills in either defense or offense.

How is having close fights with Patterson "proving he was just a mediocrity with little skills?" . . comments like that are some of the stupidest things I'v read on this forum. You have clearly never stepped into the ring and understand the naunces of boxing skill. Anyone who would say Quarry was "mediocre" skillwise is reeking of ignorance.

Morrison's body was not "bigger than Ali and Lyle." My dad at my age was 6'1, 195 in shape. I'm currently around 6'0, 175 in shape . . .now I could take steroids and supps like Tommy did and with my body type (long and lean) get to over 200 lbs of muscle. It would look good.

Would it make me bigger than my father, who was naturally 200? No.

Stronger? No . . . .

Just b/c someone weighs more doesn't mean they are bigger. Some people just don't seem to understand that simple concept.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 26 Jun 2007, 08:28

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 26 Jun 2007, 08:35

Senya13 wrote:Shavers a skilled puncher? That's some shocking news.

Not to all those people he knocked out.

Senya13 wrote:Lyle a more skilled puncher than Morrison? What makes you think that? Besides, how long had he been fighting when he faced Quarry?

Lyle came within a hair of beating Foreman and Ali, so yes I would say he was a “more skilled puncher” than Morrison. However, you do have a point about Lyle’s loss to Quarry occurring a little before Lyle reached his peak. Of course, Quarry handled him quite easily.

Senya13 wrote:Ali and Lyle bigger than Morrison? Taller - yes, bigger - no.

They were all roughly the same size.

Senya13 wrote:Ali had no big punch, so what's the point mentioning him at all?

Well he sure knocked out a lot more quality fighters than Morrison. I seem to recall him KOing a prime Foreman while Morrison had to use a scamper and cover style against an old, flabby Foreman.

Senya13 wrote:Ellis and Patterson were more like natural light heavyweights than heavyweights. And Quarry lost to Ellis, and couldn't beat convinsingly an old version of Patterson, proving he was just a mediocrity with little skills in either defense or offense.

Yes they were both smaller than Morrison. I’ll leave your other comments here to stand on their own merit.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 26 Jun 2007, 08:41

I do think Morrison get some undeserved criticism. He wasn't the greatest by any means but he could fight, always turned up to fight and gave it his all.

He put his shots together well and was an exciting figher.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 08:45

I already explained at another forum (which some people here obviously have read), that Patterson was old, and his style didn't suit it very well. Only young fighters can use that style he had effectively. It is similar to how swarmers lose their effectiveness at around 30 and then go downwards quick, it's similar with Patterson not being able to use body movement and fast hands as effectively anymore. A win over that version of Floyd means a lot less and requires a lot less skills than a win over closer to his prime Patterson. That young prime Quarry struggled with him, shows he was clearly mediocre.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 26 Jun 2007, 08:59

Senya13 wrote:I already explained at another forum (which some people here obviously have read), that Patterson was old, and his style didn't suit it very well. Only young fighters can use that style he had effectively. It is similar to how swarmers lose their effectiveness at around 30 and then go downwards quick, it's similar with Patterson not being able to use body movement and fast hands as effectively anymore. A win over that version of Floyd means a lot less and requires a lot less skills than a win over closer to his prime Patterson. That young prime Quarry struggled with him, shows he was clearly mediocre.

OK, so Morrison was KO’d by a slow one dimensional Ray Mercer, a total novice in Bentt, and barely survived against fat journeyman Joe Hipp. I think these fights showed that Morrison was “clearly mediocre”.

OK, back to reality. I actually think that Morrison was a pretty good fighter, but you’re ill-informed, illogical reasoning about Quarry has led me, and I’m sure others as well, to post equally illogical statements about Morrison. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to call Quarry mediocre is not only ill-informed but insulting.

Perhaps you should define exactly what you mean by mediocre, because I think that there are VERY few who would call someone who beat Lyle, Shavers, Foster, Mathis, Patterson, London, Middleton and Spencer (and a host of other competent fighters as well) mediocre.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 26 Jun 2007, 09:03

Patterson was old? Well he was a little past his prime. Still he had a lot left. He beat Bonavena 5 years after he lost to Quarry. That is a pretty nice win for Quarry.

I will ask again, who is the best opponent that Morrison ever beat?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 26 Jun 2007, 09:15

Ambling Alp wrote:Patterson was old? Well he was a little past his prime. Still he had a lot left. He beat Bonavena 5 years after he lost to Quarry. That is a pretty nice win for Quarry.

I will ask again, who is the best opponent that Morrison ever beat?

Alp, I know your question was for Senya, but IMO Morrison’s best win was probably Ruddock. Williams and Thomas’ career’s were both clearly headed south, and while many have these grand images of the middle aged Foreman being better than the 25 yo Foreman, the fact is that his foot and hand speed were both severely diminished in his second career. So I’ll go with Ruddock, who was still serviceable when Morrison came from the brink of extinction to stop him. The Foreman win was also a very good win despite Foreman’s age and waist line.

For comparison, I listed some of Quarry’s better wins in my last post.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 09:38

Skillwise and in ring cleverness Quarry was a mediocre fighter. His defense and offense weren't anything special. Neither did he achieve much in his career. You listed some wins for him, but overall, that's not very impresive to stand out as more than a short-timed contender near the end of the list, who can beat inferior or equal fighters, but always falls short when he takes a step up. I don't find reasons to put him in All-Time Top 50 at heavyweight like some people do, for example.

Patterson was old. What's the big deal he beat Bonavena, another mediocre fighter, who's worse than Quarry. Patterson's style changed as he got older, to a more conventional style, because he could no longer fight like before.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 09:49

DaveV17 wrote:DF wrote:
"How is Morrison suddenly becoming some giant fighters? He was an average sized HW, 6'2 who started his career at 210 and then later added some lbs that did him absolutely no good except make him look more "Stallone-like" for Rocky 5. His stamina was atrocious for a world class prizefighter.

Morrison and Mac Foster were the same size. The likes of Mathis, Ali, and Lyle were BIGGER than Morrison. Quarry faced better, more skilled punchers (Shavers, Lyle) and quicker boxers who also packed a fair wallop (Mathis, Ellis, Patterson)"

Where to start on this one?

Morrison did start his career at about 210 - he was 19 years old at the time. When Ali was 19 years old he weighed from about 188 to 193, Sonny Liston weighed as little as 204 at 26 years old. Mac Foster was 25 years old before he ever weighed 210. I guess that Ali and Liston and Foster were extremely small heavyweights in DF's opinion?

Mac Foster was never as big, muscular or as good a puncher as Morrison. Foster was a protected fighter who had only fought 4 fighters who had won their last fight before meeting Quarry. None of those fighters were well known or world class. Foster's management took Quary because they thought he would be an easy win for their prospect. Quarry was a big step up for Foster and Foster wasn't ready for it. That Foster was highly rated considering who he had fought at the time should tell you that that era was not as deep as some of you want to believe it was.

Mathis was bigger than Morrison, and he was grossly fat. He was fatter than any top level boxer who fights today and he at times only weighed in the 230s. Mathis started his career at about 300 and he carried a lot of lose skin whenever he lost weight. One of the most out of shape looking fighters in history.

Shavers and Lyle were more skilled punchers than Morrison? No need to comment on that, just let it stand on its own.

Mathis at his best did not look nearly as bad as Rahman did in his last fight, or many other guys. Anyway, your comment about "out of shape looking" says it all right there. Mathis at 230-240 could go a HARD 10-12 rounds, as evidenced in the Frazier fight. He also had extremely quick hands and very good skills on both the outside and inside. Show me Morrison ever sustaining NEAR that pace . . .

Oooh you got me . . yes Morrison was 19. And by 25 was still coming in about 223 lbs. You mean those 10 lbs Tommy put on through steroids and eating chicken wings at strip joints suddenly make him "bigger" than Foster? . . . well now you make tons of sense. I never said Morrison was tiny . . . .but he doesn't have a notable size advantage over Quarry or most of his contemps. This case of a 10-20 lb advantage in HW boxing I shouldn't even be arguing with you b/c it means jack.

According to your logic, the adonis 6'6, 245 lb Wlad never loses to the 225 lb, soft Sanders . . that;s a 20 lb advantage right there.

But if a 200 lb guy fights someone at 220 . . .ooh man, not a fair fight.

I won't even waste my time putting down literally the thousands of examples of the lighter man prevailing. Go find them yourself.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 09:51

Senya13 wrote:Skillwise and in ring cleverness Quarry was a mediocre fighter. His defense and offense weren't anything special. Neither did he achieve much in his career. You listed some wins for him, but overall, that's not very impresive to stand out as more than a short-timed contender near the end of the list, who can beat inferior or equal fighters, but always falls short when he takes a step up. I don't find reasons to put him in All-Time Top 50 at heavyweight like some people do, for example.

Patterson was old. What's the big deal he beat Bonavena, another mediocre fighter, who's worse than Quarry. Patterson's style changed as he got older, to a more conventional style, because he could no longer fight like before.

Yuur knowledge of fighting is pretty poor if you see Quarry as mediocre skill-wise.

As for career accomplishments . . .if you think Quarry is short . . .where the hell is Morrison?

This is becoming laughable . . .

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 26 Jun 2007, 09:58

Senya13 wrote:Skillwise and in ring cleverness Quarry was a mediocre fighter. His defense and offense weren't anything special. Neither did he achieve much in his career. You listed some wins for him, but overall, that's not very impresive to stand out as more than a short-timed contender near the end of the list, who can beat inferior or equal fighters, but always falls short when he takes a step up. I don't find reasons to put him in All-Time Top 50 at heavyweight like some people do, for example.

Patterson was old. What's the big deal he beat Bonavena, another mediocre fighter, who's worse than Quarry. Patterson's style changed as he got older, to a more conventional style, because he could no longer fight like before.

I will leave these comments to stand on their own merit.

Have a nice day.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 10:00

I never praised Morrison, obviously he's not in Top 50 either. But head-to-head he destroys Quarry if both are in their prime.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 26 Jun 2007, 10:22

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 11:02

DaveV17 wrote:DF,
guys like you think there was something in the air or water that made all heavyweights in the 70s superior to others. In truth there was nothing special about the 70s fighters. Quarry was too small then to compete with Ali or Norton, he did beat the grossly fat Mathis, the inexperienced Lyle, and the protected Foster. Quarry was just an inconsistent boxer who was too small to beat the best of his day, even on a good day.

One look at Morrison and it is obvious that he had nothing in common with Foster, Mathis, or any of the other 70s boxers you keep bringing up. You can say it was steroids, or whatever that made Morrison so big and fast, but in truth, there were no boxers like him in the 70s. Morrison weighed 225 and was quicker handed than anybody I have seen in the 70s. If not for his suspect chin and stamina he would be a great fighter.

If Morrison went after Quarry the way he went after Mercer, Quarry was probably too small and too fragile to weather the storm. Morrison was just too big and too quick for most fighters who came before him.

Oh. and about Wlad and Sanders...ask someone who has been in the ring how "easy" it is to fight a southpaw who is 6-4, 225, and has a huge knockout punch. You might be surprised when you hear the answer. By the way, go back through history and name all of the southpaws that Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Muhammad Ali, etc. beat. You might get a lbetter understanding about boxing and why people did not want to fight southpaws. You might learn that most southpaws were turned around to conventional stances because other boxers did want to fight them. Losing to the huge punching Sanders - a southpaw could happen to anyone. In a rematch, I would bet on Wlad.

Now Tommy Morrison had quicker hands than any of the 70s HWs? Lyle inexperienced . . he'd faced Mathis, Ellis, and Bonavena!

You are saying I'm having a bias towards 70s fighters . . .can you not see your attitude about fighters in the 1990s is MUCH more skewered and ridiculous? People don't suddenly get stronger, faster and more athletic over 20 years. No scientist or anyone will agree with that statement. I have a brother who is 15 years older than me. By your rational, I should be much stronger and faster than him b/c I'm 15 years his junior!

Did someone "put something in the water" in 1985 to make all the HW fighters better than 10 years before? Your rational about this makes no sense. Quarry was a strong, quick, athletic man at 6 ft, 195 lbs, had very good skills-upper body movement, shot placement, timing, great stamina, great chin. This is a fantasy fight pitting him against a guy who was also strong, quick and athletic but who had awful stamina, showed a much lesser chin, and skill-wise was a league below. I'm picking the first. Quarry would not be in with a superman. He'd be in with a late starter to boxing who'd be thinking "what the hell . . he's timing everything I throw" and by round 5 be gasping for air.

There are tons of fights in which Quarry looks great. It says it all when Morrison's prime top win-over Foreman-was over a fighter in his mid 40s who's prime HAD BEEN THE 1970s-and who he ran from and stuck the joint out vs an old man having one of his worst nights of his comeback (George just hardly did anything except chase Tommy around). It was pathetic. Axel Shutlz looked much better in beating George. But I guess he beats Jerry Quarry too . . .

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 26 Jun 2007, 11:23

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 26 Jun 2007, 11:29

DaveV17 wrote:Oh. and about Wlad and Sanders...ask someone who has been in the ring how "easy" it is to fight a southpaw who is 6-4, 225, and has a huge knockout punch.

Huge knockout punch!??! Please list all of the world class HWs that Sanders beat to establish the fact that he had a “huge knockout punch”? In fact, if Sanders had never fought Wlad, you probably wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between him and Corey Sanders.

Yes, he had a lot of KO’s, but so did Lamar Clark.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 11:56

dempseyfire wrote:People don't suddenly get stronger, faster and more athletic over 20 years. No scientist or anyone will agree with that statement.

How about you come up with a formula and we will ask the owner of boxrec run it on current version of database? If you think I made up the averages I posted before. The fact is heavyweights of 1980's and on *have* become considerably taller and heavier on average than the 1960's or 1970's or any previous times. This is a fact, that's proved by statistics, with very good data sample. You may deny it as much as you want, but reality is such as I said.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 12:07

Senya13 wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:People don't suddenly get stronger, faster and more athletic over 20 years. No scientist or anyone will agree with that statement.
How about you come up with a formula and we will ask the owner of boxrec run it on current version of database? If you think I made up the averages I posted before. The fact is heavyweights of 1980's and on *have* become considerably taller and heavier on average than the 1960's or 1970's or any previous times. This is a fact, that's proved by statistics, with very good data sample. You may deny it as much as you want, but reality is such as I said.

They HAVE become heavier b/c they are generally overweight, but not taller. Look at our current top 10.

Ibragimov-6'0
Chagaev-6'1
Brewster-6'1
Peter-6'1
We did have the 5'9 Toney but we can even exclude him if you wish. There are also a few super-sized guys: Wlad at 6'6 and Valuev the freak

How is this different again from 1915, when you had 6'5 Morris, 6'6 Williard, 6'3 Willis, 6'6 Tate etc.

Or 1938 when you have 6'7 Baer, 6'4 Simon, and 6'4 Godfrey?

Actually the top 20 of 1915 was TALLER than our top 20 today. You are just dead wrong on this one.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 26 Jun 2007, 12:10

Some people think the 1970's heavyweights were the best because they have seen them fight and see how obvious it is that that was a great decade for heavyweights.

Some people know that there is a lot more to a fighter than his weight. There are other factors such as punching power, punching accuracy, chin,stamina,work rate, speed, determination, smarts and of course boxing skills.
Most importantly using the strengths that have effectively and dealing with your opponent's various strengths and weaknesses.

I wanted to make a comment about Sanders-Klitschko before talking Quarry/Morrison. True, the 37 year old Sanders was a southpaw and had a good left. That's about it. He was about as one dimensional as they come. No defense, no jab, no hook, no uppercuts, no body punching, no combinations. Just a roundhouse punch that anyone could see coming a mile away.
Why are we even supposed to believe that Sanders big left was even that hard? Who else did Sanders ever knockout?
A very good fighter would be very unlikley to be hit with this. Even if he did, most fighters would do a much better job of coping when hurt. Klitschko, just got up and walked right into Sanders. He couldn't have made it any easier.

Jerry Quarry was no legend but he was a very good fighter. No he wasn't on the level of Ali, Frazier, Foreman, but he did well against some very good fighters. The comment about Quarry being fragile is simply an ignorant comment.

Patterson was old (32) when Quarry beat him? (Patterson's win over Bonavena 5 years later is dismissed as as a win over a "mediocre fighter".

) The legendary Razor Ruddock was 32 when Morrison was lucky to beat him. Ruddock had only 1 fight in almost 3 years and was rusty. This considered by some people as Morrison's biggest win. The sad truth is that it probably was.

I wanted to make a point about his win over Ron Lyle. Lyle had already beaten Mathis and knocked out Middleton. True, he only had 19 fights, but he wasn't some green kid. Thats a nice win for Quarry.
Compare that to Morrison's fight with Michael Bentt. Bentt had 11 fights against absolute tomato cans before he fought Morrison. He knocked out Morrison in the first round. That is pretty embarrrassing. In Bentt's next fight, he got beaten badly by Herbie Hide.

As someone already mentioned, Morrison got knocked down twice and was lucky to get a draw with Ross Purrity. Purrity had a grand total of 16 fights was only 8-8, lost to mostly tomato cans and had beaten no one worth mentioning.

I agree with the the comment about Mac Foster being a protected fighter before he fought Quarry. He was 24-0 against mostly tomato cans and former big names that were now past it.
Doesn't that sound familiar? What was Tommy Morrison's career? His biggest win was over Ruddock or an ancient George Foreman. How impressive. He had two fights in his entire career (Lewis and Mercer)against big time opponents who were close to their best and he got crushed both times.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 12:15

DaveV17 wrote:DF wrote:
"Quarry would not be in with a superman. He'd be in with a late starter to boxing who'd be thinking "what the hell . . he's timing everything I throw" and by round 5 be gasping for air."

Morrison was a fighting pro at age 19, Quarry had his first pro fight a week before he turned 20 so Quarry was a little later starter than Morrison. They were both actually early starters.

I have never claimed that fighters evolved and suddenly got bigger and stronger during a 10-20 year period. Heavyweight boxers of the 80s and 90s were undeniably bigger than heavyweights of the 70s but it was not because of evolution. It was because Ali, Frazier, Foreman, etc. started making such big money in the 70s that a lot of big, athletic men went into boxing in the late 70s, 80s etc.

Guys like Pinklon Thomas who was an all around athlete, Michael Dokes who was a world class high school sprinter, Greg Page, etc. Big, mobile men had been rare in boxing before the 80s, but in the 80s it was not unusual to see a 6-2,3, or more, 215 pounds of more, boxer with good movement and quickness.

As I have posted in earlier threads, I believe that Foreman was a better fighter in his second career than he was in his first. He learned to relax and he could fight the distance. I have no doubt that if Old Foreman could fight Young Foreman, Old would win by a TKO sometime after the fifth round. Plus, Old Foreman would have Young Foreman psychologically beaten before the first punch.

Learning to relax in the ring is one of the most important skills. That was Young Foreman's problem and that was Tommy Morrsion's problem. They both fought "tight" and they both tired if their opponent survived the first 3-5 rounds.

You do know that Dempsey for his time made as much if not more than Ali and Frazier? Going by your logic the 1930s would've seen a huge influx of talent, evenmorso than in the 1980s b/c football and basketball had not yet even developed into national sports and baseball and boxing were tops.

Quarry did turn pro at 20. But you do know about something called the amateur ranks, don't you?

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 12:15

dempseyfire wrote:They HAVE become heavier b/c they are generally overweight, but not taller.

I have said it and repeated it again, that on average heavyweights of today are taller, according to large data sample from boxrec database. Like I said, we can ask the owner of boxrec calculate average height of fighters from different time-spans, but I'm certain that won't change from the numbers I posted before. If the calculations confirm this, you will apologize for being in denial, if they prove me wrong, I will do the same, no big deal, do you agree?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 12:18

Senya13 wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:They HAVE become heavier b/c they are generally overweight, but not taller.
I have said it and repeated it again, that on average heavyweights of today are taller, according to large data sample from boxrec database. Like I said, we can ask the owner of boxrec calculate average height of fighters from different time-spans, but I'm certain that won't change from the numbers I posted before. If the calculations confirm this, you will apologize for being in denial, if they prove me wrong, I will do the same, no big deal, do you agree?

Why not just take the top 20 of each year? Your whole scheme couldn't work b/c I'm sure boxrec has more physical data/records for modern fighters than they do for 1940s fighters, naturally . . .boxrec is not NEAR or close to complete, so even if someone were to indulge you in your "large data sample", it would not be close to accurate.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 26 Jun 2007, 12:39