jerry quarry vs tommy morrison

[generic screen name]

Its fustrating to think that people in my (the younger) generation, think that being quick bigger and powerful can take you far. The thing is that the guys back then didn't have training problems, brainfarts, lack of effort questions.I mean a guy like Jermain Taylor should've stormed through guys like Spinks and Ouma.
Another thing that boxing had was 15 round fighters. Ray Mancini said it himself, Guys like Alexis Arguello, his rounds were 13,14,15. Mancini said if the fight was 12 rounds he would've been Lightweight Champion.

[DaveV17]

edit

[generic screen name]

Might = coulda,woulda,shoulda, DIDN'T

[The Great John L]

Was it that he couldn't cut it or didn't make the effort? I understand that Merritt had substance abuse problems that interferred with his boxing. I don't know a lot about Merritt, but have been told he didn't train much. Merritt did have a chin problem, even early in his career he was knocked out by club fighter, Johnny Gause.

It would be interesting to see how a well trained, motivated Merritt would have done in the 70s against Foreman, Lyle, Shavers, Frazier, Ali, Norton, and others. His chin might let him down in some of them, but he might have pulled some upsets that would have changed boxing history.

Yes, there were rumors that he had substance abuse problems during his career, and he did have them after his career. I guess that’s another possible similarity with Morrison, as well as the duly noted chin issue for both of them. I was a HUGE Merritt fan and was absolutely shocked when he was starched by Clark and Ward, both of whom were very good fighters, but not nearly as quick or athletic as Merritt. However they were both quite durable and had decent power, so it was probably more a matter of Merritt getting caught before he could impose his superior skills on them, although it’s possible that his lifestyle played some part as well.

I never got to see how Merritt would have fared against the elite HWs of the 70’s because during that time there were so many good journeymen like Ward and Clark that many big, quick and athletic guys with notable flaws (chin) usually got stomped on the way up. And most likely that’s exactly what would have happened to Morrison if he had fought during the 70’s. Either his somewhat weak chin, or his poor stamina, or both would have kept him from ever making the big time.

[Cojimar 1945]

Foreman claimed that the hardest punches he took in his career were delivered by Ron Lyle and Gerry Cooney. Since Foreman fought Morrison this would suggest he feels Lyle hit harder and Lyle was beaten by Quarry.

[DaveV17]

edit

[granberry]

Foreman claimed that the hardest punches he took in his career were delivered by Ron Lyle and Gerry Cooney. Since Foreman fought Morrison this would suggest he feels Lyle hit harder and Lyle was beaten by Quarry.

In his fight with Quarry,

Lyle had stage fright fighting in Madison Square Garden for the first time.

Lyle fought like he was frozen.

All his earlier fights had been on the other side of the US.

Meanwhile, when Lyle fought Foreman a totally different Lyle psychologically showed up, where he was not intimidated in any way by fellow black Foreman and was focused to use everything he had to win.

Much like Buster Douglas against Tyson. That was the one fight where Douglas, who was a mess psychologically, was focused completely and obviously thought strongly (as he showed) that he could beat Tyson.


Jimmy Young beat Lyle much more easily than others such as Foreman, Ali, etc. did.

And Young did that twice, by an even more lopsided margin the second time around.

Before the Ali-Young fight Lyle (who had just lost to Young) made a comment that Young was by far the most talented heavyweight to come along in years and that Ali better be wary of him.

[The Great John L]

There are few similarities between Morrion and Merritt except that both had power and both could be stopped. Morrison was a top flight, active heavy, with good skills, and good management, while Merritt was just a dangerous heavyweight who could pull an upset if he landed early.

Morrison was not losing to guys like Johnny Gause or a guy with 5 fights like Ward. If Ward could be an effective gate keeper in the 70s with 5 fights, that again indicates the 70s heavyweights were overrated. But then again, in the 70s an Olympic light heavy with 7 wins in 8 fights could go all the way...and he could "earn" a title shot by getting a draw with Scott LeDoux. The 70s heavyweights are way overrated today. When I read that last paragraph I'm not sure that overrated is a strong enough word.

Wow, that’s quite a change from your earlier post about a hypothetical Merritt-Morrison matchup. It seems that when presented with a logical comparison you seem to have become quite closed minded and hostile.

Just out of curiosity, did you ever see Merritt fight? You seem to speak like you have seen him fight, yet you also seem to be totally unaware of his natural speed, power and athletic ability, the very same traits you attribute to The Duke.

You also seem very critical of Stan Ward’s inexperience at the time of his stoppage of Merritt, but you probably got no further than a simple boxrec search. You might want to do a little research before you simplify the argument.

While Ward had very few fights (7 not 5 as you stated) at the time, he had already fought a number of pretty good HWs. In fact, a quick check of boxrec shows that Ward's previous 5 opponents had a combined record of 84-15-2 and included a few very well known opponents. At least they are well known by people who know something about boxing. In fact, you might want to compare the fighters that Ward fought to those that Michael Bentt fought. You remember Bentt? He’s the guy with all of 10 fights against pretty much nobody prior to his KO of Morrison.

[dempseyfire]

There are few similarities between Morrion and Merritt except that both had power and both could be stopped. Morrison was a top flight, active heavy, with good skills, and good management, while Merritt was just a dangerous heavyweight who could pull an upset if he landed early.

Morrison was not losing to guys like Johnny Gause or a guy with 5 fights like Ward. If Ward could be an effective gate keeper in the 70s with 5 fights, that again indicates the 70s heavyweights were overrated. But then again, in the 70s an Olympic light heavy with 7 wins in 8 fights could go all the way...and he could "earn" a title shot by getting a draw with Scott LeDoux. The 70s heavyweights are way overrated today. When I read that last paragraph I'm not sure that overrated is a strong enough word.

Wow, that’s quite a change from your earlier post about a hypothetical Merritt-Morrison matchup. It seems that when presented with a logical comparison you seem to have become quite closed minded and hostile.

Just out of curiosity, did you ever see Merritt fight? You seem to speak like you have seen him fight, yet you also seem to be totally unaware of his natural speed, power and athletic ability, the very same traits you attribute to The Duke.

You also seem very critical of Stan Ward’s inexperience at the time of his stoppage of Merritt, but you probably got no further than a simple boxrec search. You might want to do a little research before you simplify the argument.

While Ward had very few fights (7 not 5 as you stated) at the time, he had already fought a number of pretty good HWs. In fact, a quick check of boxrec shows that Ward's previous 5 opponents had a combined record of 84-15-2 and included a few very well known opponents. At least they are well known by people who know something about boxing. In fact, you might want to compare the fighters that Ward fought to those that Michael Bentt fought. You remember Bentt? He’s the guy with all of 10 fights against pretty much nobody prior to his KO of Morrison.

John L, this is a lost cause. I love how he complains about Ali defending against Spinks, compared to now, where the guys fighting for titles always deserve their title shots . . you know, guys like Peter Okhello, Ray Austin, Kali Meehan . . .and our champs only fight 2-3 times a year!! That means the guys they do fight MUST be deserving!!

[DaveV17]

edit

[The Great John L]

John L.,
I never said that Morrison and Merritt were similar fighters, you did.

I didn’t say anything about you agreeing with me that they were similar fighters, I simply noted how hostile you seemed to become after I pointed out the many obvious similarities between the two fighters.

Morrison was much stronger physically than Merritt.

And how exactly do you know that?

Ward showed what a solid 6-2 230 pounder could do in the 70s, imagine what Morrison could have done, about the same size but with quick hands and power.

Ward was much bigger and stronger than the weak chinned Morrison. At least using your logic. Besides, Ward was a tough nut with a solid chin, and his style bore no resemblance to The Duke, so your comment makes absolutely no sense.

Ward could compete with Lyle, Merritt, etc, with less than 10 fights. Maybe that can be attributed to his 80s-90s type size and athleticism?

You seem to be ignoring the quality of his opposition and the experience he gained during those fights, but I guess I shouldn’t expect much more than your comparison of simple statistics.

And what of Bentt, the conqueror of the big, strong, athletic, prime Morrison who had only 11 fights, not a single one against a fighter with more than 14 wins. And one of those fights was a 1 round KO loss. Maybe that win over The Duke “can be attributed to his 80s-90s type size and athleticism”?

And BTW, there aren’t too many who would call Ward particularly athletic.

[DaveV17]

edit

[The Great John L]

Ward was about Morrion's size, he didn't have Morrion's power or polish.
If you are talking about Ward beating Mac Foster before he beat Merritt, big deal, Foster had lost 3 in a row, 4 of his last 6 and he had never beaten a prime contender. Foster was a prospect who lost to Quarry and never really improved.

The 6-3, 226 pound Bentt caught Morrion early, it happens. Just a freaky result.

Of course Foster would be the only name that you recognized. And Morrison getting KO’d in one by the sub-novice Bentt is nothing but a freaky result.

Thank you. I think this well thought out post of yours provides an excellent opportunity to end this rather one-sided debate.

[dempseyfire]

You still haven't explained how this "80s, 90s athleticism" would come about . . since I completely disproved your Frazier-Ali financial argument . . in fact, given the huge rise of professional basketball and football in the 1970s and 80s, attracting more of the top young talent, there would be a "decrease" in top athletes in boxing in the upper weight divisions, which is in fact EXACTLY what happened, leading up to what you have now (or are you going to again argue Ray Austin beats all of the 1970s HWs )

[DaveV17]

edit

[dempseyfire]

John L. wrote, "Of course Foster would be the only name that you recognized."

Nope I rocognized a few of them but Foster was the biggest name. Ward was a big, athletic guy in a time of 190-95 pound heavyweights. It proves my point that as a novice, he could compete with a 195 pound guy like Duncan who had 40 fights. Goes to show that when a guy like Duncan could go 32-8 and could only fight a draw with a bigger, more athletic man who is 3-1 that size and athleticism go a long way in boxing.
Bonds was a good amateur. Ward started fast because he was physically superior to his opponents. I guess you agree with me now since you have pointed out Ward's success? Thanks, I'm glad I have won you over.

DF wrote:"You still haven't explained how this "80s, 90s athleticism" would come about . . since I completely disproved your Frazier-Ali financial argument "

When did you disprove anything? You claimed Dempsey made a lot of money, I mentioned that he must have because he didn't fight much. Then I poiinted out that maybe Dempsey's purses inspired Joe Louis and some other to become boxers. You have never disproved anything.

You guys are losing it, you are trying to take my argument that big athletic guys can beat small guys. That is what I have been telling you. It is good that you now agree. I always thought that Ward was a good example of a bigger, stronger fighter who could handle smaller but more experienced boxers.

I'll let your response be my response . . . . .

[Ambling Alp]

DF mentioned Ron Stander, Boone Kirkman, Jerry Quarry, Jose Luis Garcia and Duane Bobick as being big punchers. I won't even bother to comment on most of them but...watch what happened to Norton when he fought Garcia - when Garcia was still a decent fighter. Sure Norton got revenge on Garcia - when Garcia was a shot, shell of himself. Who did Bobick ever beat? Who did he ever knock out? DF, you are too much, comparing Stander and Kirkman to Morrison...LOL

Of course Norton was floored by Aaron Eastling and Vic Brown so maybe they were bigger punchers than Morrison too?

Morrison would knock Norton out just like Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney did. It would be early and brutal.

As usual you are leaving some key facts out.
-Norton was on his way up and was not the fighter that he would later become when he fought Garcia who was a ranked contender.
-Yes in his 13th fight Norton was floored by Eastling, however he got up and won by knockout in the 2nd round.
-Yes Norton was knocked down by Brown. He got up and knocked Brown out in the 5th round.
These were all fights while Norton was on his way up.
-You didn't mention that after the Brown fight, Foreman was the only guy to knock Norton down in the next 8 years.

-Norton's fight with Holmes was a war. Holmes wasn't a brutal puncher but he could hit. Norton never went down and barely lost a decison. Holmes then stopped his next 8 opponents.

-Once again, Norton was 35 when he fought Shavers (who hit a lot harder than Morrison) and was 37 when he fought Cooney.

-Norton's prime was from around 1972-1978. Stop talking about fights that irrelevant.

Who did Bobick ever beat? Well, who did Morrison ever beat that was remotely close to their prime?

As I have asked before the odds of Morrison landing a bomb early is slim. Norton had a good defense and Morrison telegraphed his wild punches.
Morrison had a bad defense and a vulnerable chin.
Journeyman Ross Purrity decked Morrison twice.
The mediocre Bentt knocked Morrison out in one round.

I do agree that a Norton-Morrison fight could be early and it could be brutal. Only it would be Norton knocking out Morrison.

[Senya13]

-Norton was on his way up and was not the fighter that he would later become when he fought Garcia who was a ranked contender.

Garcia was not a ranked contender when he fought Norton the first time. He only entered the ratings later that year. Plus Garcia had just raised up from middleweight not long before he faced Norton.

[DaveV17]

edit

[Ambling Alp]

senya -According to the Boxing Register, Garcia was ranked in the Top 10 by Ring Magazine at the time he fought Norton.

Regardless, why are you guys making such a big deal about this fight?
Norton obviously wasn't the fighter that he would later become. He may have been almost 27, but you have to remember that he didn't become a professional until he was 24. He wouldn't be a contender for a couple of years.
Norton developed into a much better fighter. He destroyed Garcia in the rematch few years later.

Just because Norton was favored against Shavers doesn't mean that he was still in his prime. He was almost 35 when he had the 15 round war against Holmes. Obviously that took a lot out of him, as it would anyone.

Jack Johnson was favorite when he lost to Jess Willard. Does that mean that he was in his prime when he lost to Willard? Of course not.
Holmes was the favorite when he lost to Spinks. Does that mean that he was in his prime? Of course not.

Sorry that you don't remember Morrison telegraphed punches.
I sure don't remember all of this speed and polish that Morrison supposedly had.
Norton did quite well with fighters who had more speed than Morrison.
Again, who did Morrison ever beat that was remotely close to the level of a prime Ken Norton?
Who did Morrison ever knockout that had any kind of chin at all?

I love that Morrison loss to Bentt (which was never avenged) was a freakish result. Why is that? When did Morrison ever proved that he had any chin at all?
Was the 10 round draw (and being knocked down twice) with journeyman Ross Purrity also a freakish result?
Was the life and death struggle he had with Joe Hipp (who was a complete stiff) also a freakish result?

Morrison never had a big win in his entire career.
In his prime, Morrison had some embarrassing perforances against mediocre opposition.
In the only two big fights of his entire career, he got destroyed.

Morrison with his awesome power took 8 rounds to stop a fading glass- jawed Carl Williams. (Morrison got decked once in this fight as well).
Yet Norton would surely get blown out early?

Norton was only knocked out in his prime only by Foreman and not even knocked down by anyone else during his prime.
Yet we are supposed to believe that "Speedy Morrison" with his polish would blow out Norton. Somehow glass jaw and defensively challenged Morrison wouldn't get nailed himself, would penetrate Norton excellent defense and nail Norton with a haymaker, and knock out Norton early with his alleged power.
I suppose anything is possible.
However, it's much, much, more likely that the far superior Norton gives Morrison a one sided beating.

[DaveV17]

edit

[KOJOE90]

Ward showed what a solid 6-2 230 pounder could do in the 70s, imagine what Morrison could have done, about the same size but with quick hands and power.

If Morrison fought in the 1970's he would have weighed around 205lbs as he would not have used the same hi-tech steriods I imagine.

[Senya13]

senya -According to the Boxing Register, Garcia was ranked in the Top 10 by Ring Magazine at the time he fought Norton.

I'm aware of that (they not only have the (10) mark next to his name in the record, but mention it in the article about Norton too, in both the 3rd and the 4th editions), but as I was corrected by El Intocable on one Russian forum where I started a thread about Norton, he was not ranked until November 1970 (the rating for which was printed in February 1971 issue of the Ring magazine).

[Ambling Alp]

Alp wrote:"senya -According to the Boxing Register, Garcia was ranked in the Top 10 by Ring Magazine at the time he fought Norton."

If that is true, that must have been the weakest group of heavyweights in history. Garcia was 12-2-1. Garcia's biggest and ONLY heavyweight win was over Bill Drover of Canada who went the distance with Garcia, something Norton couldn't do.

And you say that Norton avenged that loss - yep, by beating a shell of Garcia. A man who had gained 25 pounds of fat since the first fight, who had lost 5 of his last 10 including knockout losses to Joe Alexander and the rapidly declining Ernie Terrell.

It is always interesting when you 70s fanatics make me go back and take another look at 70s heavyweights. I never thought there was anything special about them, but a closer look always reveal new warts.

Who did Norton ever beat who was close to Morrison's size, punched similar to Morrison, and had Morrison's speed? Nobody that I see on his record. Norton's impressive performances were against guys who had nice jabs and did not have big power. Styles do make fights. Norton was effective against certain fighters. IMO, Norton won all 3 fights against Ali, the first and third by wide margins, I thought he beat Young, but I thought Holmes beat him by more than the judges did. Norton's other win over a big name was over a flabby Jerry Quarry who at 207, was not in shape to fight. Norton also won over fringe contenders Larry Middleton, Lorenzo Zanon, Henry Clark, and Duane Bobick.

Norton's losses were to guys who made him back up and who could punch with power. Guys like - Tommy Morrison. Norton was good at nullifying the jab of a superior boxer, he just couldn't handle backing up and getting hit. Morrison is all wrong for Norton and Norton would go out quickly and brutally in the first or second round.

That's nice how you ignore almost my points why Morrison wouldn't beat Norton and just keep repeating yourself over and over.

I don't consider Norton's win over Garcia a big deal. I have no idea why you consider it a big deal that Norton lost to him early in his career.

Why do you keep bringing up a fight of pre-prime Norton's career over and over and ignoring several bad fights of Morrison's (Bentt,Purrity,Hipp,Williams,Lewis,Mercer) during Morrison's prime?


Norton "only" beat Ali,Young,Quarry and 4 fringe contenders. And Morrison beat who?
Norton couldn't handle backing up and getting hit. Just who besides Morrison was successful at doing this to Norton in his prime?
I like how Quarry was flabby at 207 but the middle aged Foreman who weighed 257 was in better shape than the prime Foreman.

Ron Stander (A fringe contender that was missed) weighed more than Morrison and had a much better chin. Norton stopped him in 5 rounds.
Bobick was a harder puncher than Morrison and Norton knocked him out.
Where is the proof that Morrison was even as hard of a puncher as Holmes?

Norton fought several fighters (Ali,Holmes,Young) who had better speed than Speedy Morrison.

Norton beat fighters who punched harder,were bigger,had much better chins,much better stamina, and much better defensively than Tommy Morrison.

As far as us "70's fanatics" are concerned, how do you explain 42 year old Larry Holmes easily beating Ray Mercer? (The same Mercer who destroyed Morrison) and giving a prime Holyfield trouble?
Is this a case like Foreman, where you actually claimed that Foreman was better in his 40's than he was in his 20's? Was Holmes better in his 40's than he was when he barely Norton in 1978?

It's just so hard to find "warts" on heavyweights since this decade.

[DaveV17]

edit