BoxRec

What happens?

Quarry UD or late stoppage. His better chin and excellent counter punching makes the difference.

Board up your windows Theone, A hurricane is about to hit

Wow I've heard it all . . Quarry was a great fighter but Dempsey was in another league, he would've battered Quarry about the ring. Better chin? How many times was Dempsey stopped in over 70 pro fights? Oh yeah, just once. It's not about chins in this one (both had great chins), it's that Dempsey was a faster, harder hitting, quicker-footed Frazier and Quarry's defense was porous. Jerry's face would be a sea of red but it'd probably be Dempsey's body work that ends up stopping him.

I'm well prepared Seamus, thanks!

Dempsey is easily one of the most overrated heavyweights in terms of head to head comparisons.

I've really really tried to picture Dempsey beating every heavy in history; his aura and persona is so freakin cool I want to consider someone like him the best of them all. However after seeing nearly every fight footage of Dempsey available (and yes, i took the age of the footage into account) Im just not as impressed as most. Quarry seems to be the much more technically sound fighter; his counter punching was excellent and his chin appeared sturdier than Dempseys. And not that this has anything to do with a head to head fight but, Quarry level of competition was significantly better than Dempseys.

dempseyfire wrote: it's that Dempsey was a faster, harder hitting, quicker-footed Frazier

Awesome

If Quarry fought Dempseys opponents he would probably make it thru his career with all his marbles. The level of competition Quarry had to face was much tougher. Dempsey faster? More like wilder. There was almost no finesse to his style and the way he held his hands would have had him eating right hand counters all night. Quarry would box Dempsey silly.

Dempsey a harder hitter than Frazier??? based on what exactly???

Dempsey was pretty fast. I totally agree that he is overrated, but he was a great fighter. I think he would bust Quarry up, but it would be a war.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Dempsey was pretty fast. I totally agree that he is overrated, but he was a great fighter. I think he would bust Quarry up, but it would be a war.

yea you're right...he was fast. But other than that everything else is thrown way outta proportion.

theone wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Dempsey was pretty fast. I totally agree that he is overrated, but he was a great fighter. I think he would bust Quarry up, but it would be a war.

yea you're right...he was fast. But other than that everything else is thrown way outta proportion.

Dempseyfire has Quarry beating Holyfield, so that gives you an idea of what you're up against in a mythical fight with the immortal jack Dempsey.

Quarry is chronically under rated by many.

Fvck off Frazier hits as hard as Dempsey. You're dreaming.

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.

Dempsey was better all over the place. Frazier would've been a victim, too, but at least he is well & truly in Dempsey's class --- the way The One surmises Dempsey's competition is breath-takingly ignorant.

Is Yancey going to chime in with a take, since he started this?

theone wrote:If Quarry fought Dempseys opponents he would probably make it thru his career with all his marbles. The level of competition Quarry had to face was much tougher. Dempsey faster? More like wilder. There was almost no finesse to his style and the way he held his hands would have had him eating right hand counters all night. Quarry would box Dempsey silly.

Dempsey a harder hitter than Frazier??? based on what exactly???

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.

Guys who poo poo on Dempsey's comp are simply ignorant of that era so I won't even waste my time.

This is essentially a pick-em fight for me. Dempsey was fast and he hit harder than Quarry for sure but he was also much cruder and technically I would favor Quarry. While Quarry did face more skilled opposition I think it is common place to underestimate just how tough boxing was in the Dempsey era. Dempsey him self was teak tough and Quarry had stamina problems through out his career. I think I would go for Dempsey late if I had to pick a winner. I don't see a quick kayo either way, the both had great chins.

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.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Is Yancey going to chime in with a take, since he started this?

My bet would be on Dempsey, but I think it would be a war.

I do wonder how Dempsey would respond if Quarry gets in a real lick with either hand.

If Dempsey was indeed susceptible to a right hand counter, I think about that right hand Quarry pole-axed Bodell with.

(no, dempseyfire, I'm not equivocating Bodell with Dempsey!)

The first couple of rounds, if Quarry takes the mano on mano attitude that he had in the first Frazier fight, would be brutal.

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

Quarry would fight well against anyone. But he has to be the underdog here.

Some people just don't rate anyone pre-Louis. They'd laugh at Joe too only that would a step too far. Others don't rate anyone post Ali.

Dempsey was one of the greats. His opposition was strong. Saying he's overrated is a bit of a joke when he's now unable to hold a shot, was crude and lacked KO power....

Jack Sharkey - Jerry Quarry would be a better match up.

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.

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.

Except for maybe Tunney, nobody Dempsey fought would have been able to sniff the top ten during Quarry's era. .

I never said Dempsey faced superior comp, but to make a statement like the above is plain ol' ignorant. I'm just pissed this fight couldn't happen in real life I would make a lot of money off the people here who think Dempsey was some crude brawler in an era of unskilled Chaplin impersonaters.

dempseyfire wrote:

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.

Except for maybe Tunney, nobody Dempsey fought would have been able to sniff the top ten during Quarry's era. .

I never said Dempsey faced superior comp, but to make a statement like the above is plain ol' ignorant. I'm just pissed this fight couldn't happen in real life ]I would make a lot of money off the people here who think Dempsey was some crude brawler in an era of unskilled Chaplin impersonaters.

I don't think I've ever seen you this irrational.

Dempsey had great KO power. He was very speedy, had a great defence for an aggressive come-forward fighter. He was durable and had one of the greatest left hooks in boxing history. He was a great finisher.

He was a swarmer who started quick and held off in the middle rounds to pace himself for the finish.

His opposition gets underrated because he didn't fight Wills.

You can say Willard was just a big durable fella with a decent right hand. You can say Fulton was a big man who had some ability but is overhyped. You can dismiss Firpo as a wild slugger with power and good promotion... But that just makes them sound like alphabet titlists from the last 3 decades.

Other than a comparison with the 1970s Dempsey's competition was sound.

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.

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...

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It was better than any current competition without a doubt. Not that I said otherwise.

No, mate, just sort of responding to general statements...

I put up a fantasy match a while back Willard-Wlad...

The logic being Wlad was a better boxer but Willard would take his KO punch late into the fight and would more than likely still be around to throw it.