BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote: He had not been in a huge amount of fights.

Really, 61 pro fights is not all that much to you?
How many rounds of professional boxing did he have after the Norton fight and how did he die again? To suggest that he was reasonably fresh going into the Norton fight is almost unbelievable. How many rounds do you think he fought during his career, including amateur bouts and sparring? Enough for him to die at the ripe old age of 53 but I guess he was fresh as a daisy in fight 62 out of 66?

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes I am interested in the truth. I wouldn't say it if I did not believe it.
I am going by reality, not just excuse making for a guy that you like, which is what you are doing as usual.
Yes there is plenty of doubt that Quarry was a sad shell of himself for the Norton fight.
In fact, I have mentioned several things which of course you ignore because it's not convenient.
He was not old.
He had not been in a huge amount of fights.
He was still ranked highly by Ring Magazine going into the Norton fight.
You say he was washed up by 1973; which is when the two best performances of his career were. That doesn't make any sense.
You say he was at his best in his early 20s. He lost to Ellis, and Chuvalo then. If he was so good, then, he wins those fights.

"You say he was washed up by 1973;" AA



I said he was washed up after Frazier got done with him in their second fight.

That fight was in June of 1974.

Frazier, who was diminished himself, put a real beating on JQ in that fight.

In fact, one of Frazier's hooks towards the end of that fight was one of the scarier punches I've ever seen. JQ seemed to almost go into a momentary paralyzed sleep from that punch. There might have been some brain damage right there.

That 1974 fight was truly Quarry's last stand.

hhaehre wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote: He had not been in a huge amount of fights.

Really, 61 pro fights is not all that much to you?
How many rounds of professional boxing did he have after the Norton fight and how did he die again? To suggest that he was reasonably fresh going into the Norton fight is almost unbelievable. How many rounds do you think he fought during his career, including amateur bouts and sparring? Enough for him to die at the ripe old age of 53 but I guess he was fresh as a daisy in fight 62 out of 66?

There were fighters in the old days who had well over 100 fights and were still going strong when they were just 29.

klompton wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes I am interested in the truth. I wouldn't say it if I did not believe it.
I am going by reality, not just excuse making for a guy that you like, which is what you are doing as usual.
Yes there is plenty of doubt that Quarry was a sad shell of himself for the Norton fight.
In fact, I have mentioned several things which of course you ignore because it's not convenient.
He was not old.
He had not been in a huge amount of fights.
He was still ranked highly by Ring Magazine going into the Norton fight.
You say he was washed up by 1973; which is when the two best performances of his career were. That doesn't make any sense.
You say he was at his best in his early 20s. He lost to Ellis, and Chuvalo then. If he was so good, then, he wins those fights.

I find it odd that people are so quick to point to Shavers and Lyle as Quarry's two best performances. What had either done up to that point for those wins to be so special to Quarry's resume? Quarry was Lyle's first big fight and Shavers second big fight. Shavers was never very good to begin with so you would hope that if Quarry was half as good as his biggest fans think he was he would have beaten Shavers. Lyle was almost totally unproven. His biggest win to date had been his victory over Buster Mathis who was basically coming off two one sided losses and was 20 to 40 pounds over weight, or maybe his fight with Rondon who was 25 pounds overweight. In hindsight those wins might, MIGHT, be big wins but at that point both guys had barely popped their cherrys. The point is that those wins dont necessarily point to Jerry still being in his prime.

It's not odd because it's very obvious.
Yes you can do your thing where you criticize every fighter, but Lyle and Shavers were the best wins of his career. Shavers was never very good? Come on. Yes he had his negatives, but he also had his positives.
Lyle and Shaver's careers speak for themselves. They weren't great, but they were the best Quarry beat. And he beat them convincingly. Otherwise what are you going to go with, the dubious Patterson win?

If you are going to show someone Quarry's best fights, these would be the first to show.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

hhaehre wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote: He had not been in a huge amount of fights.

Really, 61 pro fights is not all that much to you?
How many rounds of professional boxing did he have after the Norton fight and how did he die again? To suggest that he was reasonably fresh going into the Norton fight is almost unbelievable. How many rounds do you think he fought during his career, including amateur bouts and sparring? Enough for him to die at the ripe old age of 53 but I guess he was fresh as a daisy in fight 62 out of 66?

There were fighters in the old days who had well over 100 fights and were still going strong when they were just 29.

So what? Quarry didn't have 100 fights in him, neither did Ali or Frazier or Norton for that matter. Quarry did after all retire following the loss to Norton, do you think he should have fought on? He was done after the second Frazier fight, you're the first person I've heard suggest otherwise.

What I am saying is that if a fighter is old or has an excessive amount of fights, then you can make a good case for a guy being past it. Quarry was neither.

Do I think he should have fought on? Depends. Did he need the money? Did he still want to?

As for being the first person you know that didn't think he was past it going into the Norton fight:

Going into, the fight, Qaurry was still ranked pretty high by Ring, not just some WBS Organization. They didn't think he was past it going into the fight with Norton. That is a fact, that is not just an opinion.

The Quarry-Norton fight was in 1975. 30 years after the fight, I still had never once heard or read a word about Quarry being past it going into the fight. Not a word.

Ambling Alp II wrote:What I am saying is that if a fighter is old or has an excessive amount of fights, then you can make a good case for a guy being past it. Quarry was neither.

This is getting ridiculous. Quarry had been fighting since he was a kid and had almost 200 amateur fights under his belt. Add to that all the sparring and more than 60 pro fights, many against very tough opposition. He still didn't have many miles on the clock did he?

Ambling Alp II wrote:Going into, the fight, Qaurry was still ranked pretty high by Ring, not just some WBS Organization. They didn't think he was past it going into the fight with Norton. That is a fact, that is not just an opinion.

Here are a few facts for you: Quarry retired after Norton so I guess he (unlike you) didn't feel like he could compete anymore. Quarry died a premature death because of the damage he took in the ring so it seems that the paltry 183 amateur fights and 66 professional fights he did have was more than enough.

Amatuer fights? Really? That is what we are resorting to now? Have never heard that excuse before, but what the heck.
How much punishment do you really think he took in those amateur fights? Three round fights that get stopped quickly if a fighter gets hurt.

Sparring? Did some research on this one. Turns out other fighters spar as well. Can they use the sparring excuse as well?

Ambling Alp II wrote:Amatuer fights? Really? That is what we are resorting to now? Have never heard that excuse before, but what the heck.
How much punishment do you really think he took in those amateur fights? Three round fights that get stopped quickly if a fighter gets hurt.

Sparring? Did some research on this one. Turns out other fighters spar as well. Can they use the sparring excuse as well?

Why are you even arguing this point? The man was in need of around the clock care before he turned 50 and died at 53 as a direct result of his years in the ring. You think he had enough fights? Do you think there is a slight possibility that he wasn't perfectly ok in the second to last top level fight he ever had?

hhaehre wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote: He had not been in a huge amount of fights.

Really, 61 pro fights is not all that much to you?
How many rounds of professional boxing did he have after the Norton fight and how did he die again? To suggest that he was reasonably fresh going into the Norton fight is almost unbelievable. How many rounds do you think he fought during his career, including amateur bouts and sparring? Enough for him to die at the ripe old age of 53 but I guess he was fresh as a daisy in fight 62 out of 66?

Didnt Jerry Quarry start boxing at about 5 yrs age?
Ken Norton didnt start boxing until he was a grown man enlisted in the Marines in 1963.

hhaehre wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Amatuer fights? Really? That is what we are resorting to now? Have never heard that excuse before, but what the heck.
How much punishment do you really think he took in those amateur fights? Three round fights that get stopped quickly if a fighter gets hurt.

Sparring? Did some research on this one. Turns out other fighters spar as well. Can they use the sparring excuse as well?

Why are you even arguing this point? The man was in need of around the clock care before he turned 50 and died at 53 as a direct result of his years in the ring. You think he had enough fights? Do you think there is a slight possibility that he wasn't perfectly ok in the second to last top level fight he ever had?

Why? Because it this happened when he was 50. You don't know how this affected his fighting when he was just 29. This kind of thing happened with other fighters and nobody goes back to their twenties and say he was already washed up by then.

If it was affecting his performance why was he still ranked highly going into the fight?
If he was washed up by them how come we did not hear this in 1980 ? 1985? 1995? 2000? I saw and read plenty of this fight and never heard that Quarry was considered washed up by anybody going into the fight.

It wasn't until 2005 and I started hearing about it on BOTP.

How desperate are you, bringing up his amateur career? Do we do that with any other fighter? I have never heard about anyone else , his career as a pro was cut short because he had a lot of amateur fights?
Sparring? Seriously? Literally everybody spars.

How about George Chuvalo? When he beat Quarry (who was supposedly at his best in 1969), Chuvalo was already three years older than Quarry was when he fought Norton. Chuvalo had more fights than Quarry did. Chuvalo took a lot more punishment in his career.Don't see anyone crying for George.

Ambling Alp II wrote: Why? Because it this happened when he was 50. You don't know how this affected his fighting when he was just 29. This kind of thing happened with other fighters and nobody goes back to their twenties and say he was already washed up by then.

He didn't wake up at 50 suddenly realizing he couldn't tie his own shoes, he was diagnosed with brain damage in 83. And yes people do go back in fighters careers to examine turning points in their careers. You are fixated on quarry being 29 but he was at the end of his career for effs sake, he retired following the fight.

Ambling Alp II wrote:If it was affecting his performance why was he still ranked highly going into the fight?
If he was washed up by them how come we did not hear this in 1980 ? 1985? 1995? 2000? I saw and read plenty of this fight and never heard that Quarry was considered washed up by anybody going into the fight.

"You never heard" being the operative words here.

Ambling Alp II wrote:It wasn't until 2005 and I started hearing about it on BOTP.

Yeah, I'm sure you picked up the first time this was ever mentioned and it was in 2005.

Ambling Alp II wrote:How desperate are you, bringing up his amateur career? Do we do that with any other fighter? I have never heard about anyone else , his career as a pro was cut short because he had a lot of amateur fights?

Are you seriously saying amateur fights have no effect on a fighter, never mind 1960's amateur fights with no head gear and plenty of knockouts? You have got to be kidding! You have never heard it said that a fighter had too many amateur fights and that it effected his longevity as a pro?

Ambling Alp II wrote:Sparring? Seriously? Literally everybody spars.

Yeah, and they all spar exactly the same don't they? I mention sparring because it was widely recorded that Quarry sparred a lot and very hard, often with no head gear.

Ambling Alp II wrote:How about George Chuvalo?

Yes, how about him? Is he the rule or the exception?

Quarry died punch drunk at 53. You say he didn't have many fights and that neither his long amateur career nor the years of sparring affected him so what was it then?

According to you he was close to peak in 75, having his best years from 73 to 75. Can you watch the first round of his first fight with Frazier and honestly say he looked just as good against Norton, same speed, same reflexes, same snap in his punches?

No, I have never heard of someone saying that a fighter took so much punishment in the amateurs that it shortened his pro career.
It was widely reported that Quarry sparred a lot? You are completely fixated with Quarry. You are interested in his story. Do you really know how much Norton sparred? Frazier? Ali? Chuvalo?Ron Lyle? You are just obsessed with Quarry and assume that he had all of these things go against him and it doesn't dawn on you that other people did.

Ali had a hernia operation. He had a broken jaw. He had a three year and half year layoff. He had hand problems thoughout his career. He had a ton of personal problems. Guess what? For the most part, nobody cares.

Do people say, well he had Parkinsons so he must have been affected early on. That means the Norton loss doesn't count. Should the Frazier loss count?

Was Chuvalo the exception? Well, his career was unique in some ways. However, he did gradually start to slow down as he got older and after he had taken so much punishment. In that respect, he was pretty typical.
He was not shot when he fought Quarry, but he was past his best. Yet he beat Quarry who was supposed to be his best at this time. Still have not heard from you or any other Quarry back how this happened.

Was he more impressive in the first round against Frazier than the first round against Norton? Is that we are down to, cherry picking individual rounds?

Did he look better in the first round against Shavers or against Chuvalo or Ellis?

How about a better question? Did he look as good in the Norton fight as the Frazier fight? I would say about the same. The Frazier fights, Ali fights, and Norton fights were all variations of the same. He starts out aggressive. Then sooner or later he goes into punching bag mode and the other guy tees off on him and the fight is stopped.

Yes Quarry retired after the Norton loss. Is that the rule? If a fighter retires after a fight, his last fight doesn't count? So Joe Louis' win over Schmeling doesn't count? After all, Schmeling quit for a while after the Louis loss.

You are really interested in Quarry story. Fine. Doesn't mean other people other fighters didn't have problems too.

And I will once again bring up a key question. Why was he ranked fairly high before the Norton. If he was so obvious from the frazier fight, his ranking would have gone way down.

I believe I had read somewhere tht Jerry Quarry had wanted to retire after the second fight with Ali in 1972.
Probably that last time his body sort of looked chisiled I think.
BTW Did you see the footage of Quarry vrs Billy Daniels?
Those body shots were great.
IMOP His body shots didnt look so nearly as sharp and powerful
when he fought Frazier the first time in 1969.
Probably on account of his back vertabrae.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes Quarry retired after the Norton loss. Is that the rule? If a fighter retires after a fight, his last fight doesn't count? So Joe Louis' win over Schmeling doesn't count? After all, Schmeling quit for a while after the Louis loss.

This is the type of argument you'll hear from someone who just wants to argue for the sake of arguing. I think I'm done, you can take your straw man arguments elsewhere.

hhaehre wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes Quarry retired after the Norton loss. Is that the rule? If a fighter retires after a fight, his last fight doesn't count? So Joe Louis' win over Schmeling doesn't count? After all, Schmeling quit for a while after the Louis loss.

This is the type of argument you'll hear from someone who just wants to argue for the sake of arguing. I think I'm done, you can take your straw man arguments elsewhere.

Good move.

No use dealing with the uninformed and argumentative.

Anyone that knows anything about '70s boxing would know that Quarry was completely washed up after the Frazier fight in '74.

hhaehre wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes Quarry retired after the Norton loss. Is that the rule? If a fighter retires after a fight, his last fight doesn't count? So Joe Louis' win over Schmeling doesn't count? After all, Schmeling quit for a while after the Louis loss.

This is the type of argument you'll hear from someone who just wants to argue for the sake of arguing. I think I'm done, you can take your straw man arguments elsewhere.

No, I was just showing you that you are using faulty reasoning. If you are going to use the argument that Quarry was washed before the the Norton fight because he retired after the loss, then you have to use that argument in all cases in which that happens. I just used Louis-Schmeling as one example. It would not be that hard to come up with others.
As I said before, all you can't use examples for your argument for Quarry that you would not use for other fighters.

No reason to get all bent out of shape. I'm sure we have agreed on other things and will in the future.

Ambling Alp II wrote: No, I was just showing you that you are using faulty reasoning. If you are going to use the argument that Quarry was washed before the the Norton fight because he retired after the loss, then you have to use that argument in all cases in which that happens. I just used Louis-Schmeling as one example. It would not be that hard to come up with others.

Quarry's career was effectivly over after Norton while Louis went on to become the longest reigning heavyweight champion in history after Schmeling 1. See the difference? Quarry: career over as evident by what actually happened.. Louis: career not over as evident by what actually happened. You see if a fighter loses badly, looks like crap in the process and never comes back I can safely argue that said fighter was washed up even if Joe Louis came back.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was talking about Schmeling and comparing him to Quarry; not Louis to Quarry. Schmeling got out of the sport for a while after he lost to Louis. Like Quarry he looked bad against Louis. Like Quarry, Schmeling got out of the sport for a while. Like Quarry he fought sporadically after that.
Louis often gets a lot of credit for the performance. People don't often say that Louis beat a washed up Schmeling.

I will give you another another example. Armstrong beat Barney Ross, one of Armstrong's best wins. Ross never fought again after the fight. You don't see people saying that the Armstrong win doesn't mean much because Ross retired and thus must have been washed up.

Again, why did Ring Magazine (not some WBS organization) have Quarry rated as highly as they did if he was washed up? There was a ton of depth in the heavyweight division at the time. If he was washed up, he would not have been in the top 10.

I'm going to put this in terms Yang-Tze will understand.

Quarry stood up and gave Frazier a good accounting of himself. He came up short, but Joe knew he was in a fight. One that he admittedly enjoyed. Creating one of the best rounds of boxing ever seen along the way.

Norton on the other hand, chose WISELY to cling with every fiber of his being to the safe harbor of his friendship with Joe. Ruling out the short brutal beating that would be inevitable.

He knew he would last about 2 rounds against Joe......Round 1 would highlight Joe warming up, Round 2 Joe would come out smokin', leaving Norton iced, and left to chill on the canvas.

If he happened to get up, Round 3 would be nothing but a mop up affair.

End of story.

Quarry out hustles/muscles Norton in a prime vs prime affair.

Ambling Alp II wrote:You misunderstood what I was saying. I was talking about Schmeling and comparing him to Quarry; not Louis to Quarry.

Yes, my bad but Quarry did retire after Norton and when he later tried to come back he had nothing left. It's fair to assume that Quarry retired after Norton because he didn't think he could get back into contention. He said exactly that after the Frazier fight and history proved him correct.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Again, why did Ring Magazine (not some WBS organization) have Quarry rated as highly as they did if he was washed up?

How would I know but I think they were wrong to have him that high after the second Frazier fight. In any event I go by what I saw in the Norton fight and I saw a washed up Quarry. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this because we are going in circles here.

At the time of Frazier-Quarry II, Frazier's performance was praised far more than Quarry's was panned; that's why Quarry's rating didn't drop much after the Frazier fight. Unfortunately the Frazier loss took a lot of wind out of Quarry's sails after a stellar 1973. Too bad Jerry didn't stay retired after Norton. He had a good gig doing commentary for CBS, which he apparently blew after signing to fight Zanon on ABC, and could have enjoyed a nice retirement.We can only speculate how much less his health would have been affected had he stayed retired after 1975.

BoxBuzz wrote:I'm going to put this in terms Yang-Tze will understand.

Quarry stood up and gave Frazier a good accounting of himself. He came up short, but Joe knew he was in a fight. One that he admittedly enjoyed. Creating one of the best rounds of boxing ever seen along the way.

Norton on the other hand, chose WISELY to cling with every fiber of his being to the safe harbor of his friendship with Joe. Ruling out the short brutal beating that would be inevitable.

He knew he would last about 2 rounds against Joe......Round 1 would highlight Joe warming up, Round 2 Joe would come out smokin', leaving Norton iced, and left to chill on the canvas.

If he happened to get up, Round 3 would be nothing but a mop up affair.

End of story.

I don't think you are being fair to Norton at all Buzz. I seriously doubt that Norton ducked Frazier. Also think he would have much more competitive with Frazier than this. The Quarry-Norton thing has been beaten to death but suffice it to say I strongly disagree with it.
Quarry out hustles/muscles Norton in a prime vs prime affair.

I don't think you are being fair to Norton at all Buzz. I seriously doubt that Norton ducked Frazier. Norton was always willing to take on anybody. Also think he would have much more competitive with Frazier than this. The Quarry-Norton thing has been beaten to death but suffice it to say I strongly disagree with it.

hhaehre wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:You misunderstood what I was saying. I was talking about Schmeling and comparing him to Quarry; not Louis to Quarry.

Yes, my bad but Quarry did retire after Norton and when he later tried to come back he had nothing left. It's fair to assume that Quarry retired after Norton because he didn't think he could get back into contention. He said exactly that after the Frazier fight and history proved him correct.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Again, why did Ring Magazine (not some WBS organization) have Quarry rated as highly as they did if he was washed up?

How would I know but I think they were wrong to have him that high after the second Frazier fight. In any event I go by what I saw in the Norton fight and I saw a washed up Quarry. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this because we are going in circles here.

I think he realized that it was very unlikely that he would ever be the world champion. He had 5 huge matches against Ali, Frazier, and Norton and never came close. With these guys (and Foreman) there was too much talent. In a weak era, maybe he does win the title, but that's another story.

I think Ring rated where they did because he was what he was. He wasn't as good as Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton. He deserved to be rated higher than others because of the wins over Shavers, Lyle etc. so they ranked him higher than them.

To me watching the Norton fight was like watching the same movie. Pop in the that fight, watch either of the Frazier or Ali fights, and you see basically the same thing. He starts out aggressive and is competitive. Then he gets tired, stops throwing many punches and just eats punch after punch. Norton proved in his fights with Ali and Holmes that he could compete with truly great fighters. Quarry simply could not do that.

I do agree that we are basically going around in circles. There are many other topics that we can discuss on other threads that are currently going and I'm sure there will be some new ones soon. I'm sure we will agree on some things and disagree on others.

It seems that Jerry Quarry is very revered and respected in boxing forums. He was a TOUGH
HOMBRE. Too bad that this WARRIOR never won the heavyweight world title, or at least a piece of the heavyweight crown.

It gets me to cringe that guys like John Ruiz and Leon Spinks became heavyweight champs and Quarry didn't. Quarry was in a deep and talented era. In another era, he would've at least won a piece of the heavyweight crown.

















































































































































It seems that Jerry Quarry is very revered in boxing forums. He was a TOUGH HOMBRE. A WARRIOR. Too bad he never became world champion or at least had a piece of the heavyweight crown.

I hate to think that guys like John Ruiz and Leon Spinks became world champions and Quarry didn't.