jerry quarry vs tommy morrison

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 12:48

I'm certain there are at least several hundreds of heavyweights with a known height for 1950's (I think most rated guys have the height), for example, and they are spread normally, not like somebody entered only shorter heavyweights and didn't enter taller guys. There's no reason to believe the sample would be totally off the mark. For weight it will be even more accurate.
While taking just 20 guys from the end of the year may prove to result in distorted results, as the sample is too small. 20, where there is over 1000 active heavyweights listed in boxrec database right now, that has very high chance of big deviation.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 12:58

Senya13 wrote:I'm certain there are at least several hundreds of heavyweights with a known height for 1950's (I think most rated guys have the height), for example, and they are spread normally, not like somebody entered only shorter heavyweights and didn't enter taller guys. There's no reason to believe the sample would be totally off the mark. For weight it will be even more accurate.
While taking just 20 guys from the end of the year may prove to result in distorted results, as the sample is too small. 20, where there is over 1000 active heavyweights listed in boxrec database right now, that has very high chance of big deviation.

Shouldn't we be focusing on the top fighters anyway?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 13:44

DaveV17 wrote:DF wrote:
"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."

I don't know how much Dempsey made, but I'll take your word for it - he must have made a lot because he sure didn't fight much. About 6 fights in seven years between Willard and Tunney. Maybe his paychecks are what imspired guys like Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, etc.?

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

I believe that Morrison had a pretty good amateur background too. I believe that he was at some national tournaments and maybe even the Olympic trials. Either way, Morrison developed into a strong, fast, 225 pounder who was never floored or troubled by anyone under 200 pounds.

From this link: http://www.pound4pound.com/FanFight/April06.htm

Also mentioned here: http://www.subfighter.com/modules.php?n ... ic&t=49221

I thought it was common knowledge Morrison's amatuer background was very minimal and consisted of Toughman contests and maybe one national tournament. Quarry on the other hand was an extremely decorated and experienced amateur fighter.

Why bring up how often Dempsey fought? He still was the richest athlete in America at the time.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 14:11

To get to the top, you need to pass through a line of tomato cans. And when in 1960's most of Quarry's opponents weighed about 200lb, in the 1990s or 2000s he might have to go through a lot of 220-230lb guys instead. It may look like not that much of a difference for heavyweights, but it does play an important role to separate guys below 200lb not only by cruiserweight limit, but in general, guys that weighed 200lb or lower rarely got to the top during modern epoch, and those who got there were exceptional fighters.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 26 Jun 2007, 14:31

Senya13 wrote:To get to the top, you need to pass through a line of tomato cans. And when in 1960's most of Quarry's opponents weighed about 200lb, in the 1990s or 2000s he might have to go through a lot of 220-230lb guys instead. It may look like not that much of a difference for heavyweights, but it does play an important role to separate guys below 200lb not only by cruiserweight limit, but in general, guys that weighed 200lb or lower rarely got to the top during modern epoch, and those who got there were exceptional fighters.

Hmmm. If you look at Morrison’s record, not too many of his early opponents were 220+ lbs. In general, they were slightly bigger on average than Quarry’s, but many were right around or even under that magic 200 lb mark.

Senya13 · Post by **Senya13** » 26 Jun 2007, 14:40

Although the thread is about Morrison, but I'd rather take some better heavyweight from 1990s. Like I said, he's not a good measure stick to compare 1960's and 1990's.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 14:45

Senya13 wrote:Although the thread is about Morrison, but I'd rather take some better heavyweight from 1990s. Like I said, he's not a good measure stick to compare 1960's and 1990's.

Why not? You claimed he would easily dispose of Quarry in a couple of rounds!!

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 26 Jun 2007, 15:16

Thats really important that Morrison was never floored or troubled by anyone under 200 pounds. He had a total 3 of these fights, all against nobodies.

Guess what Jerry Quarry's record was against opponents over 230 pounds? 3-0. One of them was even a contender.

It's mind boggling how much emphasis daveV17 and senya13 give to weight.

In"modern times":
Roy Jones at 193 was able to win the heavyweight title in his first fight at this weight against the 226 pound John Ruiz.

-Ruiz was much more competitive against Valuev, who outweighed him by over 90 pounds.

-Holyfield at his best didn't weigh much over 200 and he beat top contenders that were bigger.

-Chris Byrd, who small for his era, (and not strong for his size) beat contender after contender who was bigger than him.

Interesting that Morrison "big wins" were against Foreman (who weighed 256) and Ruddock (who weighed 243). Yet he lost to the inexperienced Bentt who weighed 226. Bentt then lost to the smaller Herbie Hide.

If weight was really so important, the champion would be one the heavyiest heavyweight. How often since the 1880's has that been the case?
There are many more examples of small heavyweights (even for their time) being the champion- Fitzsimmons,Burns,Marciano,Patterson,Holyfield,Spinks,Byrd etc. All were small for their era.

Yes size can be a factor. However, there are many other factors to consider as well.

Heavier weight doesn't mean you are stronger. Even if you are stronger, it doesn't mean that are a hard puncher. Even if you are a hard puncher doesn't mean you will be a great fighter.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 26 Jun 2007, 16:38

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 16:55

DaveV17 wrote:Alp, nobody said Morrison was a great fighter, just a bigger, quicker, more powerful fighter than Quarry. Morrison had a good offense, and I doubt that Jerry Quarry could survive the early rounds against the type of attack that Morrison used against Mercer. I don't see Quarry as being strong or durable enough to survive that. If you do, fine. You are the kind of guy I'd like to bet on fights with...

You "Older is Better" types always try the same tactic, you leave out everything said about the fight except that Morrison was bigger than Quarry. Then you try to bring in some big, slow, ponderous fighter like Jess Willard for a comparison. I don't think Willard would be in the top 50 heavyweights today if he came back exactly as he was when he was fighting. Talk about a late starter in boxing who got to the top on size and strength only...Willard should be the poster child for how a man can reach the top in some eras by simply being big. At least Valeuv had boxed his whole life and has some skills. McCline looks like SRR compared to Willard, big deal, nobody is comparing Willard.

Big is not the key in boxing, but being big, strong, and athletic goes a long way. Morrison was all of those things and if he would have learned to fight relaxed he could have been much more.

In fights with Norton, Frazier, Ali, Lyle, Foster, Shavers etc. . . Quarry was never stopped early. In fact Quarry was never stopped early by anyone.

Yet Tommy frikkin' Morrison pulls the trick . . .

I've had it with this thread. This is beyond stupid.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 26 Jun 2007, 17:06

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 26 Jun 2007, 17:17

I brought up Willard as one example because you guys keep mentioning weight over and over.
There is more to consider than just bigger, quicker and more powerful. A lot more.

I don't get this whole thing about Morrison being so fast. I saw many of his fights. He wasn't particularly fast or athletic. He certainly wouldn't have a big advantage over Quarry here.

Why is it assumed that Morrison could blow out Quarry even if he did land?
As some us keep asking, who did Morrsion ever stop that was any good?
Quarry proved he had a great chin throughout his career.

The chances are actually greater that Quarry would blow out Morrison early. Quarry had decent power, and Morrison had a very vulnerable chin.

Besides his chin, Morrison had a terrible defense, was wild, didn't have good stamina, and in general had limited boxing skills.

Quarry didn't have have tremendous power and wasn't vwery flashy. However he was a professional that did most thing as t least competently.

Quarry was the more accurate puncher of the two.
Quarry had the better defense of the two.
Quarry had the better stamina of the two.
Quarry had the better boxing skills of the two.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jun 2007, 17:20

DaveV17 wrote:DF, none of the fighters you named fought like Morrison, none of them had his combination of quickness and power. Watch the first 3-4 rounds of the Mercer fight - I don't see Quarry surviving what Mercer took.

Quarry wouldn't be taking what Mercer took b/c he had something call foot movement, and knew about something else called counter-punching, and about giving angles. Mercer was a lead-footed statue absorbing punches.

And even though you are full of crap by thinking Shavers and Lyle didn't match Morrison in offensive capabilities, you are going to say Ken Norton, universally recognized as an outstanding athlete, a very fast, big, strong, and powerful fighter, was below Tommy Morrison? I can't debate this anymore. I will go insane.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 26 Jun 2007, 17:45

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 27 Jun 2007, 09:19

Norton was pretty old and past it when he fought Cooney and Shavers, who were much better than Morrison anyway.

Norton was very good defensively and it's doubtful that the wild swinging Morrison would land a big one.
Even on the outside chance that he did, Norton may be able to take it. We don't really know that Morrison had that much power since he never stopped anyone good.

Morrison had almost no defense and Norton would have many opportunities to nail Morrison. Since Morrison had a vulnerable chin, this fight probably wouldn't go the distance.

This would be a mismatch. Two completely different levels of fighters here.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 27 Jun 2007, 09:28

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 27 Jun 2007, 09:39

Norton is a clear level or 2 above Morrison but Tommy brings problems to the fight for Ken.

Ken couldn't fight going backwards and could be KO'd early. My feeling though is that once he'd warmed up and got a few rounds under his belt he was a far tougher opponent to stop.

Morrison is almost the exact opposite. Morrison landed some real bombs on the cement chinned Mercer. Those punches would have stopped many other fighters. They might have stopped Ken.

I can't help think though that Norton with a game plan would be able to see out those early rounds. If he doesn't stick to it Tommy can get him but my money is on Norton surviving and coming back for a late stoppage.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 27 Jun 2007, 09:49

DaveV17 wrote:If Morrison and Norton could fight I would bet on Morrison - and early. I looked at Norton's record and unless I overlooked something, he NEVER beat a big puncher. Norton did well with boxer types who did not have a big punch. Norton was a busy, aggressive fighter who could negate a good jab, but he never showed he could take a big punch.

Styles make fights, and this one is all wrong for Ken Norton.

A Alp, you might want to inform our friend about the punching capabilities of the likes of Ron Stander, Boone Kirkman, Jerry Quarry, Jose Luis Garcia even Duane Bobick despite his weak chin had a very good punch . . .never beat a big puncher . . . .

Or the fact that just b/c you have a big punch, doesn't mean you can always land a perfect shot right on the chin of your opponent, esp. if they have a solid defense . . . .but Morrison always landed the big punch, right?

Oh wait, he didn't? You mean he went the distance with Lorenzo Canady, which was sandwiched in between KO losses to a 4 fight novice in Riddick Bowe and a KO loss to Bruce Seldon? And went 10 rounds with Sherman Griffin, who went on to be knocked out by a 40 year old Tim Witherspoon . . .they must have been more durable and had better defense than Ken Norton!!!

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 27 Jun 2007, 10:01

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 27 Jun 2007, 10:11

If Stander and Morrison had faced off, Stander would have taken Tommy's early assault and knocked him out in the middle rounds, just like he did to Earnie Shavers.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 27 Jun 2007, 11:13

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 27 Jun 2007, 11:21

DaveV17 wrote:The fact that Stander did beat Earnie Shavers probably says a lot about how the 70s heavyweights are overrated today. Shavers was a decent heavyweight, but you "Older Is Better" guys make him into a superman. Stander didn't exactly show an iron chin when Jeff Merritt almost launched him into space, and how about being stopped by Horace "Big City" Robinson?

Stander was a slow, fairly tough club/midwest circuit fighter, he would give Morrison about as much trouble as Tim Tomachek did.

Shavers had been fighting for all of 6 months when he fought Stander. He dominated early and then ran out of gas, much like Morrison did throughout his career. Shavers was rather limited, but he was incredibly tough, and in his prime probably would have been able to outlast Morrison.

I do tend to agree that Morrison might have been a problem for Norton, even though Norton was a much better fighter. While I don’t think that Norton had a glass chin, his style wasn’t well suited for defending against punchers, and while I don’t think Morrison was a really big puncher, he did have decent power and would have had a pretty good chance of stopping Norton in an early round.

Interesting that you mention Merritt, because he was bigger, quicker and more athletic than Morrison, so he probably would have dispatched Morrison pretty quickly, don’t you think?

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 27 Jun 2007, 11:29

Ambling Alp wrote:Heavier weight doesn't mean you are stronger. Even if you are stronger, it doesn't mean that are a hard puncher. Even if you are a hard puncher doesn't mean you will be a great fighter.

Nice boxing quote.

Heavier weight definately does't mean you are stronger. I have a friend who is the same size same height same weight as I and he challenges guys 70 lbs heavier to arm wrestling and handles his own. I challenged him once and felt like he was going to break my friggin arm!!!

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 27 Jun 2007, 11:34

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 27 Jun 2007, 11:52

DaveV17 wrote:Merritt vs. Morrison

Merritt was not very durable, tall, and skinny - but he could punch. If he and Morrison fought it would be whoever got there with the most first. One or two rounds either way - if you blinked you might miss it. One of them would be counted out early.

That is one I'd like to see.

He was called Candy Slim, but he wasn’t really THAT skinny, at about 6-5 and 210-220. He had very powerful legs and was extremely quick, and IMO a much better offensive fighter than Morrison with a very strong jab and devastating power in both fists. He was only the 2nd to ever stop Terrell (past prime) and he was the first to drop Stander (overweight). Yet he only briefly appeared in the rankings as he was dispatched by both Henry Clark and Stan Ward, two journeyman/fringe contenders from the West Coast.

It’s also interesting that you brought up Merritt because his skills, assets and liabilities are very similar to Morrison’s. He was big, quick and athletic, but with not the greatest chin. An he just couldn’t quite cut it in the 70’s HW scene.