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.
