BoxRec

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:CBZ poster, Rick Farris, pointed out that he witnessed Jerry Quarry knockout Ken Norton in sparring before Ali-Norton I.

Thanks. Farris is a 1000% better source than that fraud Spoon.

Did he actually say 'out cold'?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:george foreman blatantley and even admitted that he ducked jerry quarry, he wanted no part of jerry quarry. foreman was a guy who quarry matched up well against. here was a guy who quarry should have gotten to prove his greatness against.....but foreman ducked quarry.

Brockton... are you not intelligent enough to realise you cant always take people at face value?

Do you not think that maybe Foreman was perhaps just being respectful to the dead?

Foreman went out and fought an undefeated Smokin Joe Frazier, fought Ali, Norton et al, but would "duck" Jerry Quarry?

Come on fella, wise up.

overhand_right wrote:Do you not think that maybe Foreman was perhaps just being respectful to the dead?

Foreman's a smart guy. He knew when he made his comeback that his best bet to make fans and more money and more endorsments etc was to play the jolly green giant act.

Foreman was a smart articulate guy in his first career it's just that in his second career he chose to hide it. Sure age may have mellowed him a bit but under the surface I bet he is pretty much the same surly, intimidating guy.

As for his remark about Quarry I'm with Overhand_right on this one. Big George was just being respectfull. He now throws praise on his old rivals and peers etc. Maybe out of respect, maybe to elevate his own career and standing in heavyweight history, maybe a bit of both.

In my opinion Foreman was not the ducking type in the 70's.

KOJOE90 wrote:

overhand_right wrote:Do you not think that maybe Foreman was perhaps just being respectful to the dead?

Foreman's a smart guy. He knew when he made his comeback that his best bet to make fans and more money and more endorsments etc was to play the jolly green giant act.

Foreman was a smart articulate guy in his first career it's just that in his second career he chose to hide it. Sure age may have mellowed him a bit but under the surface I bet he is pretty much the same surly, intimidating guy.

As for his remark about Quarry I'm with Overhand_right on this one. Big George was just being respectfull. He now throws praise on his old rivals and peers etc. Maybe out of respect, maybe to elevate his own career and standing in heavyweight history, maybe a bit of both.

In my opinion Foreman was not the ducking type in the 70's.

I think that sums it up quite nicely. After all, didn't Joe Louis at one time say that he didn't think he would have been able to beat Marciano? Should we take that comment seriously?

The Great John L wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:the fight you speak of could be considered early lessons in the game. Before he really arrived maybe? I know these days we are pretty unforgiving of any losses but in an earlier period that loss would have just been part of the "dues paying" aspect of the sport.

OIC. That one doesn’t count? Norton was 27, in his physical prime and was stopped by a so-so puncher. I know -- Norton got a late start in his career. So what? Quarry started fighting top guys at 22 and fought them in many difficult fights for a number of years. That’s part of the reason many would say he may have been on the decline against Norton. And Norton couldn’t knock Quarry down. I agree that Norton was a better fighter later in his career, but I doubt that his chin got tougher. Quarry certainly hit as hard as JL Garcia, so I think it’s pretty relevant to the discussion.

The comment I was responding to was that Norton only got stopped by the “elite” type punchers. I didn’t say this early loss severely tarnished Norton’s historical standing. Just that it showed he could be stopped by less than an elite puncher. Please explain why it wouldn’t count in reasoning that a prime Quarry may have been able to stop Norton.

BTW, I’m not the one hanging all opinions on a single fight between Norton and Quarry -- a fight that was taken on less than 10 days notice. I’m simply saying that a prime, well prepared Quarry would have had a good chance to beat Norton. It seems like everyone who disagrees with this is being to unforgiving of this single fight, taken on short notice, that took place near the end of Quarry’s competitive career.

I agree you can easily debate when a fighter’s prime is, but one indication is when a guy like Quarry, who beat a number of top ranked fighters, no longer beats top ranked fighters. By this definition, Quarry’s career was on the decline.

John L -In regards to Garcia knocking out Norton, I think Norton deserves to be cut some slack here. The Garcia fight was probably too soon for Norton. This was his first big fight (just his 17th after a brief amateur career). Garcia was a big step up from his previous opponents. Often inexperienced fighters are in trouble when hit much harder than they have been hit before. It seems that Norton learned to handle good punches as he became more experienced, and had a better idea what to do on the rare occasions when he did get hurt.

When he became more experienced he avenged his loss to Garcia and wasn't stopped in his prime except for the Foreman fight. In the Holmes fight for example, he got hit with several good shots and still hung in there and came back with good shots of his own.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:jerry quarry knocked ken norton out cold in sparring right before norton-ali I. quarry underestimated norton when he fought ken in 75.



quarry took the norton fight on late notice and showed up soft and way out of shape at 207lb. this was clearly not the vintage quarry in there. anyone who thinks norton beat a peak quarry needs to get there eyes checked. not only was quarry battle worn slowing down and past it by 1975.......to make matters worse he showed up overweight and out of shape!


1967-73 was the prime jerry quarry

Gym stories are a dime a dozen. Even the ones that are true don't mean anything because it it Sparring, not a real fight.

There is no way in the world that Quarry would have "underestimated Norton". He wasn't that dumb.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

BTW, I’m not the one hanging all opinions on a single fight between Norton and Quarry -- a fight that was taken on less than 10 days notice. I’m simply saying that a prime, well prepared Quarry would have had a good chance to beat Norton. It seems like everyone who disagrees with this is being to unforgiving of this single fight, taken on short notice, that took place near the end of Quarry’s competitive career.

I agree you can easily debate when a fighter’s prime is, but one indication is when a guy like Quarry, who beat a number of top ranked fighters, no longer beats top ranked fighters. By this definition, Quarry’s career was on the decline.

agreed. also quarry knocked out ken norton in sparring shortly before ali-norton I.



norton was always vunerable vs good fighters with punching power. even jose luis garcia flattened ken norton

Just 3 days ago you pointed out that Norton wasn't in his prime yet when he lost to Garcia. :)

Ambling Alp wrote:John L -In regards to Garcia knocking out Norton, I think Norton deserves to be cut some slack here. The Garcia fight was probably too soon for Norton. This was his first big fight (just his 17th after a brief amateur career). Garcia was a big step up from his previous opponents. Often inexperienced fighters are in trouble when hit much harder than they have been hit before. It seems that Norton learned to handle good punches as he became more experienced, and had a better idea what to do on the rare occasions when he did get hurt.

When he became more experienced he avenged his loss to Garcia and wasn't stopped in his prime except for the Foreman fight. In the Holmes fight for example, he got hit with several good shots and still hung in there and came back with good shots of his own.

OK, he was too young at 27 in his 17th fight, but Quarry gets no quarter for taking a fight against the 2nd ranked (I think that’s where Norton was ranked at the time) HW contender on less than 10 days notice. I’m sorry that just doesn’t seem logical.

John L -In regards to Garcia knocking out Norton, I think Norton deserves to be cut some slack here.

o i see so norton gets cut some slack for the garcia fight......but quarry doesnt for the norton fight despite taking the fight on short notice and coming in noticeable overweight and out of shape??

Norton wasn't too young, he was too inexperienced. He didn't even start his pro career until he was 24. The Garcia fight was 3 years before Norton fought Ali the first time. The rest of his career shows that Norton got much better. When he was more experienced he beat Garcia and showed how good he was in many other fights as well. The Garcia fight doesn't seem to me to be much evidence that Norton couldn't take a good punch.
As you said before we will have to agree to disagree on how important the 10 day notice that Quarry had was for the Norton fight.

I would argue that the Quarry that fought Norton was much closer to his best than Norton was to his best when he fought Garcia the first time.

Ambling Alp wrote:Norton wasn't too young, he was too inexperienced. He didn't even start his pro career until he was 24. The Garcia fight was 3 years before Norton fought Ali the first time. The rest of his career shows that Norton got much better. When he was more experienced he beat Garcia and showed how good he was in many other fights as well. The Garcia fight doesn't seem to me to be much evidence that Norton couldn't take a good punch.
As you said before we will have to agree to disagree on how important the 10 day notice that Quarry had was for the Norton fight.

I would argue that the Quarry that fought Norton was much closer to his best than Norton was to his best when he fought Garcia the first time.

Yes, you could argue that, but it wouldn’t be a very good argument. If you would take a moment to look at his career, you’ll notice that the Norton fight was essentially his last real fight before a 2+ year “retirement”. And prior to Norton he hadn’t beaten a world class fighter for some time, and would never beat another one. He did come back a few YEARS after the Norton fight, but needed a big punch to KO the limited Lorenzo Zanon after losing essentially every minute of every round on a nationally televised fight. It was pretty sad. Yes, he was only 29 when he fought Norton, but since Norton’s 27 was an “inexperienced” 27, why is it so hard to envision that Quarry, who was fighting world class competition at age 21 could have been worn out by the age of 29?

Prior to your posts, I was more understanding of the Norton loss more due to the short notice of the fight. But now that you’ve made re-examine his career, it seems very logical that he was on the decline at the time of the fight as well.

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Norton wasn't too young, he was too inexperienced. He didn't even start his pro career until he was 24. The Garcia fight was 3 years before Norton fought Ali the first time. The rest of his career shows that Norton got much better. When he was more experienced he beat Garcia and showed how good he was in many other fights as well. The Garcia fight doesn't seem to me to be much evidence that Norton couldn't take a good punch.
As you said before we will have to agree to disagree on how important the 10 day notice that Quarry had was for the Norton fight.

I would argue that the Quarry that fought Norton was much closer to his best than Norton was to his best when he fought Garcia the first time.

Yes, you could argue that, but it wouldn’t be a very good argument. If you would take a moment to look at his career, you’ll notice that the Norton fight was essentially his last real fight before a 2+ year “retirement”. And prior to Norton he hadn’t beaten a world class fighter for some time, and would never beat another one. He did come back a few YEARS after the Norton fight, but needed a big punch to KO the limited Lorenzo Zanon after losing essentially every minute of every round on a nationally televised fight. It was pretty sad. Yes, he was only 29 when he fought Norton, but since Norton’s 27 was an “inexperienced” 27, why is it so hard to envision that Quarry, who was fighting world class competition at age 21 could have been worn out by the age of 29?

Prior to your posts, I was more understanding of the Norton loss more due to the short notice of the fight. But now that you’ve made re-examine his career, it seems very logical that he was on the decline at the time of the fight as well.

That is very debatable. Quarry beat Shavers only 15 months prior with only three fights in the interim. Shavers not count as a world class fighter? It was probably the best legitmate win over his career.

there is no reason to believe quarry was in his prime against norton.

evndrbsn wrote:That is very debatable. Quarry beat Shavers only 15 months prior with only three fights in the interim. Shavers not count as a world class fighter? It was probably the best legitmate win over his career.

Of course Shavers is world class, where did I say that he wasn’t. I would say that everything is debatable. However, are you debating that the Shavers win wasn’t his last win over a world class opponent? If you could find a good win over a world class opponent sometime after the Shavers fight, then you could make a good case that Quarry wasn’t on the decline. But when the quality of the fighters that you beat declines, you’re career is on the decline. This seems pretty logical. Quarry’s semi-retirement after the Norton fight shows that he was not just near the en, but AT the end of a very good career.

And what do you mean by “Shavers was probably the best legitimate win in his career”? I would say it was either that fight, or the Lyle fight. Was there something not legitimate about the Lyle win?

if u watch quarry vs frazier I and then quarry vs frazier II, u will see quarry along with frazier both look slower and worse than in there first fight. in the first fight, both were faster, more sharp, fresher, etc.

The Great John L wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:That is very debatable. Quarry beat Shavers only 15 months prior with only three fights in the interim. Shavers not count as a world class fighter? It was probably the best legitmate win over his career.

Of course Shavers is world class, where did I say that he wasn’t. I would say that everything is debatable. However, are you debating that the Shavers win wasn’t his last win over a world class opponent? If you could find a good win over a world class opponent sometime after the Shavers fight, then you could make a good case that Quarry wasn’t on the decline. But when the quality of the fighters that you beat declines, you’re career is on the decline. This seems pretty logical. Quarry’s semi-retirement after the Norton fight shows that he was not just near the en, but AT the end of a very good career.

And what do you mean by “Shavers was probably the best legitimate win in his career”? I would say it was either that fight, or the Lyle fight. Was there something not legitimate about the Lyle win?

No, I was not talking about the legitimacy of Quarry's win over Lyle, but the legitimacy of his win over Floyd Patterson.

You said, "And prior to Norton he hadn’t beaten a world class fighter for some time." I was pointing out that Quarry's win over Shavers was only 15 months before his fight with Norton. It was not THAT long of a while.

quarry looked awful during rematch frazier. he looked to me on the slide in the 74 fight...... the beating he took in that fight effectivly ruined jerry.

quarry physically and mentally was nowhere near his best when he fought ken

Ok, well we have talked a lot about Quarry. The original thread was " Jerry Quarry Vastly Underated"

Well, where should he be rated? (Brocton has him at #26)

I don't think you can make much of a case that he was not as good as the following:

Ali, Louis, Foreman , Johnson ,Frazier, Tunney , Holmes, Marciano, Dempsey, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, Tyson, Liston, Jeffries, Langford, Wills, Jeanette, McVey, Charles, Walcott, Patterson, Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey and Norton.

That is 28 guys right there.

There are several other guys that I (but certainly not everyone) would say were atleast a little better than Quarry. That would include Johannson, Burns, Moorer, Mercer, Sullivan, Jackson,
Michael Spinks, Terrell, Machen, Folley, and Ellis.

That makes him # 40 on my list.

I have him slightly ahead of the "alphabet soup" Champions of the 1980's such as Witherspoon, Tubbs, Berbick etc. (atleast a dozen guys) as well as slightly higher than other guys such as Tom Sharkey,Young, Williams, Ray among many others.

I could see where people would have Quarry behind these guys and could have him as low as the high 50's.

I was wondering how high everyones thinks Quarry should be rated?
Maybe we aren't all that far apart.

John L,evndrbsn,Ko Joe 90,overhand right, Collins 2000, Seamus, Kick Asner, boxbuzz,and silkov seemed to have particular interest in this but it would be interesting to hear from anyone else as well.

I'm not interested in whether you think Quarry was better than a particular guy (ie -Quarry was better or worse than Johannson or Witherspoon or whoever)

Just want to know about what number Quarry should be rated at? Do you think he is around # 25, #40, # 80 or where?

edit

Decagon wrote:Damnit, Alp! Put some spaces in that shit! You stretched out the thread!

Alp.

I did it for you. Hope you don't mind?

wayyy off topic......ive been coming here for over a year and know one knows what i look like.......and i dont know what anyone looks like but i feel like i know u all so well. i thought id share a pic.



http://photos-518.ak.facebook.com/ip005 ... 8_5898.jpg
im on the left






http://photos-515.ak.facebook.com/ip005 ... 5_4544.jpg

Ambling Alp wrote:Ok, well we have talked a lot about Quarry. The original thread was " Jerry Quarry Vastly Underated"

Well, where should he be rated? (Brocton has him at #26)

Yeah, good idea, let’s get back to the thread.

Ambling Alp wrote:That makes him # 40 on my list.

That seems pretty reasonable. I’ve got him at #31 on my list, and I think just about anywhere in the 25-50 or so range is pretty reasonable.

I'm not sure EXACTLY where I have Quarry, but there are at least 25 heavyweights that accomplished more and were in the very least just as talented. If anyone wants to argue with that, tell me you disagree and I will create a list. If not, thank goodness.

I truly like Jerry Quarry and consider him to be an underrated fighter, but what I find to be sad here, is that a thread about Quarry being vastly underrated could go 6 pages, while another about Pete Sanstol got 4 responses !

What's the difference, Pete Sanstol won 45 more fights than Jerry Quarry, while losing 3 fewer. Quarry was stopped 6 times in 66 fights, Sanstol was never stopped in 112. Quarry could never win the big fight. Sanstol fought the Muhammad Ali of his time and division, and BEAT him.

Seamus wrote:I truly like Jerry Quarry and consider him to be an underrated fighter, but what I find to be sad here, is that a thread about Quarry being vastly underrated could go 6 pages, while another about Pete Sanstol got 4 responses !

What's the difference, Pete Sanstol won 45 more fights than Jerry Quarry, while losing 3 fewer. Quarry was stopped 6 times in 66 fights, Sanstol was never stopped in 112. Quarry could never win the big fight. Sanstol fought the Muhammad Ali of his time and division, and BEAT him.

If he was a heavyweight, more people would care.