BoxRec

Ezzard wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I rate all kinds of fighters from that era, and earlier. I just don't find Dempsey to be some sort of indestructible force of nature that many on this forum and elsewhere do. I think it's one of those situations where you're just supposed to acknowledge a level of greatness and any dissenting opinion is considered bias or ignorance.

I've seen Jack as the greatest Heavyweight of all time and a top 10 all time fighter. If that isn't overrated, I don't know what is. I rate Dempsey with Tyson and neither of their fans like it. But it isn't that I have hate for someone I never saw fight live or a disdain for the era. I've said many times that Jack was the most important fighter in history. I just don't think he was as great as the consensus does and I absolutely never will.

I reckon about as many on this forum dismiss him as revere him.

He was obviously well promoted during his time. This will have had an impact on his rating. But all those guys who saw him are dead. The internet is awash with people who think he was rubbish.

I think he has troubles with guys like Tunney, Charles, Walcott, Young etc... (he'd win some, lose some) And would have difficulty in walking onto power punchers who owned iron chins (Foreman, Liston)... He'd have been one of the top (or THE top) HWs in any era. Beyond that though who can ever really tell...

yancey wrote:We never discuss these things, but I wonder what difference the gloves of the different eras could make.

raylawpc wrote:

yancey wrote:We never discuss these things, but I wonder what difference the gloves of the different eras could make.

That's exactly why these head-to-head comparisons between guys who fought 50 or 60 years apart is, in a word, asinine. These differences - differences in gloves and other equipment (for example, Dempsey never wore a mouthpiece) rules, styles, etc. - have to be part of the equation.

When do they fight? Under 1919 rules, equipment, training methods, styles, etc.? Or under 1970 rules, equipment, training methods, styles, etc.?

And even then, how do you even if you take that into account? We've never seen Dempsey fight under 1970s conditions, just as we've never seen Quarry fight under 1919 conditions. So how do we know how they would have done under those conditions. We don't know and have no way to know.

Like I said, asinine . . .

raylawpc wrote:

yancey wrote:We never discuss these things, but I wonder what difference the gloves of the different eras could make.

That's exactly why these head-to-head comparisons between guys who fought 50 or 60 years apart is, in a word, asinine. These differences - differences in gloves and other equipment (for example, Dempsey never wore a mouthpiece) rules, styles, etc. - have to be part of the equation.

When do they fight? Under 1919 rules, equipment, training methods, styles, etc.? Or under 1970 rules, equipment, training methods, styles, etc.?

And even then, how do you even if you take that into account? We've never seen Dempsey fight under 1970s conditions, just as we've never seen Quarry fight under 1919 conditions. So how do we know how they would have done under those conditions. We don't know and have no way to know.

Like I said, asinine . . .

theone wrote:

Based on the fact he had many more one-punch KOs, and dropped many more guys with one punch than Frazier, who had a great left hook but generally wore guys down rather than stop them early, which Dempsey did often.

The level of competition Dempsey faced is the reason he seems more the ko artist than Frazier. If Frazier had to face the collection of white hope stiffs, pass their prime lightheavys and one of the worse champions in the history of boxing to win the title he would have been considered the greatest knockout artist of all time. Imagine too if Frazier could stand over his opponents and hit them while they were trying to get back up? He would have had a knockout over Ali!
In his 11th fight, Frazier was already fighting the likes of Bonavena...you would have to be some super Dempsey fanboy to think he fought better comp.

The worse crime is stating Quarry beats Dempsey. Jesus. There is so much bullsh!t in this thread (Quarry's competition was way better than Dempsey's, Quarry's chin was much better, Quarry was more proficient technically, Frazier hit harder than Dempsey, Quarry would counter-punch Dempsey stupid), I wouldn't know where to begin shaking my stick.

Its only a crime to your superman fantasy of Dempsey. Quarry's competition was better. Except for maybe Tunney, nobody Dempsey fought would have been able to sniff the top ten during Quarry's era. Quarry took bombs from much harder punchers than Dempsey. Dempsey was staggered by fighters that probably would have made Quarry flinch a bit. And just watch Dempseys fights; he was a sucker for right hand counters, and Quarry excelled at that. Its the reason George Foreman states he avoided fighting Quarry.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It was better than any current competition without a doubt. Not that I said otherwise. I'm quite sure he would be champion today for as long as he felt like fighting making 30 million a fight. But I wouldn't bother with any current day Heavyweight comparisons. It's the worst the division has ever been. Though no champion will ever be as poor as Carnera.

BoxBuzz wrote:Yancey, I stated that I truly believe that Quarry is chronically under rated here.

With that said I have some observations....some of which you brought up.

The differences between glove padding and mouth pieces in these different eras has caught my imagination.


Dempsey remained one of the most articulate and "non affected" boxers of all time in an era of low padding and no moutpieces.

Quarry just the opposite with greater padding and mouthpieces.

Seems so counter intuitive. Except I can say with authority that quick KO's are absolutely easier on the constitution than having someone with padded gloves beating on your head for 15 rounds. But neither man was susceptible to KO's. And both were hit quite often.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Yancey, I stated that I truly believe that Quarry is chronically under rated here.

With that said I have some observations....some of which you brought up.

The differences between glove padding and mouth pieces in these different eras has caught my imagination.


Dempsey remained one of the most articulate and "non affected" boxers of all time in an era of low padding and no moutpieces.

Quarry just the opposite with greater padding and mouthpieces.

Seems so counter intuitive. Except I can say with authority that quick KO's are absolutely easier on the constitution than having someone with padded gloves beating on your head for 15 rounds. But neither man was susceptible to KO's. And both were hit quite often.

Part of it is owed to the fact Dempsey ended so many fights early, & had other bouts where he took minimalised damage, because his opponents clammed up offensively, for fear of Dempsey's not-inconsiderable countenance (after he'd made his name on Willard's head), two things Quarry didn't have going for him.

yancey wrote:btw.....

Joe Frazier had a 100% knockout percentage against sub-200 pound opponents.

Maybe Jack could have loaded up with some iron bolts or something to get over 200 lbs.

BoxBuzz wrote:Yancey, I stated that I truly believe that Quarry is chronically under rated here.

With that said I have some observations....some of which you brought up.

The differences between glove padding and mouth pieces in these different eras has caught my imagination.


Dempsey remained one of the most articulate and "non affected" boxers of all time in an era of low padding and no moutpieces.

Quarry just the opposite with greater padding and mouthpieces.

Seems so counter intuitive. Except I can say with authority that quick KO's are absolutely easier on the constitution than having someone with padded gloves beating on your head for 15 rounds. But neither man was susceptible to KO's. And both were hit quite often.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Yancey, I stated that I truly believe that Quarry is chronically under rated here.

With that said I have some observations....some of which you brought up.

The differences between glove padding and mouth pieces in these different eras has caught my imagination.


Dempsey remained one of the most articulate and "non affected" boxers of all time in an era of low padding and no moutpieces.

Quarry just the opposite with greater padding and mouthpieces.

Seems so counter intuitive. Except I can say with authority that quick KO's are absolutely easier on the constitution than having someone with padded gloves beating on your head for 15 rounds. But neither man was susceptible to KO's. And both were hit quite often.

Part of it is owed to the fact Dempsey ended so many fights early, & had other bouts where he took minimalised damage, because his opponents clammed up offensively, for fear of Dempsey's not-inconsiderable countenance (after he'd made his name on Willard's head), two things Quarry didn't have going for him.

yancey wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Yancey, I stated that I truly believe that Quarry is chronically under rated here.

With that said I have some observations....some of which you brought up.

The differences between glove padding and mouth pieces in these different eras has caught my imagination.


Dempsey remained one of the most articulate and "non affected" boxers of all time in an era of low padding and no moutpieces.

Quarry just the opposite with greater padding and mouthpieces.

Seems so counter intuitive. Except I can say with authority that quick KO's are absolutely easier on the constitution than having someone with padded gloves beating on your head for 15 rounds. But neither man was susceptible to KO's. And both were hit quite often.

Part of it is owed to the fact Dempsey ended so many fights early, & had other bouts where he took minimalised damage, because his opponents clammed up offensively, for fear of Dempsey's not-inconsiderable countenance (after he'd made his name on Willard's head), two things Quarry didn't have going for him.

Makes sense to me.

btw, sorry for interjecting Frazier into a thread meant to be about Dempsey and Quarry. Couldn't help myself, I reckon.

yancey wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Yancey, I stated that I truly believe that Quarry is chronically under rated here.

With that said I have some observations....some of which you brought up.

The differences between glove padding and mouth pieces in these different eras has caught my imagination.


Dempsey remained one of the most articulate and "non affected" boxers of all time in an era of low padding and no moutpieces.

Quarry just the opposite with greater padding and mouthpieces.

Seems so counter intuitive. Except I can say with authority that quick KO's are absolutely easier on the constitution than having someone with padded gloves beating on your head for 15 rounds. But neither man was susceptible to KO's. And both were hit quite often.

You are so right about the quick KO's being less harmful than being beat up by an accumulation puncher.

Both Ali and Quarry took some fearsome punishment from Frazier in their fights with him.

I suspect that played at least somewhat of a role in what happened to those two fellows after boxing.

Jerry should have quit the ring immediately after that second Frazier fight.

p.s. Always thought that the Earnie Shavers fight did Ali some real damage, too.

hhaehre wrote:

yancey wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Yancey, I stated that I truly believe that Quarry is chronically under rated here.

With that said I have some observations....some of which you brought up.

The differences between glove padding and mouth pieces in these different eras has caught my imagination.


Dempsey remained one of the most articulate and "non affected" boxers of all time in an era of low padding and no moutpieces.

Quarry just the opposite with greater padding and mouthpieces.

Seems so counter intuitive. Except I can say with authority that quick KO's are absolutely easier on the constitution than having someone with padded gloves beating on your head for 15 rounds. But neither man was susceptible to KO's. And both were hit quite often.

You are so right about the quick KO's being less harmful than being beat up by an accumulation puncher.

Both Ali and Quarry took some fearsome punishment from Frazier in their fights with him.

I suspect that played at least somewhat of a role in what happened to those two fellows after boxing.

Jerry should have quit the ring immediately after that second Frazier fight.

p.s. Always thought that the Earnie Shavers fight did Ali some real damage, too.

When we are talking about fighters with the number of fights that Quarry and Ali had I believe the damage comes down to genetics and physical attributes more than how many punches they took in particular fights. If you add up all the rounds, including amateur fights and sparring it does not matter how good defensively you are, the punches will add up. Some guys (most) will suffer some permanent damage from a long career in the ring but some will be unaffected. I'm sure a guy like Chuvalo took as much if not more that Jerry (not to mention brother Mike) but remain as lucid and articulate as ever. It must be something other than how many punches they took.