BoxRec

yeah,but do you really think Jerry Quarry would have been as well regarded in retrospect if he hadnt fought
during the "Golden Age of Heavyweights"?

klompton wrote:Quarry could and would beat Norton in his prime.

i disagree totally

Quarry was in fact :past his prime" when he fought Norton, over 60 wars, how many bouts did Norton have? about half that? Just because they were both 29, means nothing! Ok Jerry should not have took the bout on such short notice (he had $185,000 reasons. I think it was actually maybe 17, 18 days notice At the most ,-Jerry was in Hawaii, They intial Promotion was FOREMAN-BONAVENA, THEN NORTON-BONAVENA, THEN NORTON-YOUNG (Garden did not think Young was a big enough name! Then Jerry came to their rescue. Norton was like #21 and Quarry like #27 or #28 alltime top 50 Ring Magazine heavyweights. i would go with that, both had great careers!

badkatt wrote: ↑26 Nov 2015, 21:33

klompton wrote:Quarry could and would beat Norton in his prime.

i disagree totally

I am in total disagreement of that which you totally disagree with back 5 years ago.

Klompton was....and is correct in his assessment. And he wins the clock radio.

Alp will drop back in to assert that that their similar age, not their disproportionate wear and tear were per-eminent in Norton's victory, and would be just as wrong now as he was then. Time does not affect this matter.

How come we didn't hear about Quarry's "wear and tear" before the fight? (Or for the next 25 years for that matter.)

With Quarry is is often a story of excuses and how he would win this fantasy fight or that one that of course never actually occurred. He was a good fighter who could sometimes beat other good fighters. However, he could not compete when he had to move up to the next level.