BoxRec

This one makes me laugh just thinking about it.What a barn burner it'd be!a genuine pick em if there ever was one.my money would be on quarry by 12 rd sd.

Morrison had one of the weakest of chins in heavyweight history and also a huge left hook, but Quarry would walk right through Morrison and score a knockout in one, or two rounds.

I call it "The Fight for the Whites"

Tommy would certainly be "lookin up" in short order.

Quarry early, no question.

Morrison would destroy Quarry. Quarry was horrible, even worse than Morrison, if that is possible.

Morrison would wipe the floor with Quarry and finish him in 2 or 3 rounds.

Quarry was 20 times the fighter Morrison was.

Anyone who picks Morrison in this knows jack about both of these fighters, I have to say it.

Quarry had an AMAZING chin, no way Tommy takes him out early. And we all know, or should know, Morrison's defense and stamina sucked big time.

Add in Tommy's weak chin, and the only way Morrison could ever was would be some hail mary picture perfect punch.

Joe Hipp people . . . . Morrison's rep as a fighter has really gotten overblown with the passing of time.

edit

DaveV17 wrote:Both of these guys had uneven performances so it wouldn't be a sure bet either way.

Morrison's stamina and chin let him down at times and at other times they were good. Morrison's speed and power could overwhelm Quarry, at least in the first 4-5 rounds. Morrison might well bust Jerry up early in the fight to the point that Quarry could not test Tommy in the late rounds.

Morrison is the bigger, quicker, more powerful fighter. If Quarry could be knocked out by George Chuvalo, floored by Roy Crear and Memphis Al Jones, he could well be knocked down and out by Tommy Morrison.

On the other hand, Quarry did have some good performances like his wins over Thad Spencer, Ron Lyle, and Mac Foster but he was always inconsistent. He lost to Jimmy Ellis, Eddie Machen, and George Chuvalo, and had a draw with Tony Doyle. Morrison also had some good wins and some surprising losses.

At their absolute best, Morrison is a quicker and harder puncher and he is much bigger and stronger. Quarry never fought a muscular, solid 225 pound man with the offensive quickness of Morrison. For that reason, I would have to give the edge to Morrison but Quarry did pull some surprises.

Quarry's KO loss to Chuvalo was primarily due to Quarry not hearing the count. He was not badly hurt. Watch his fights with Frazier, Lyle, Foster . . .Quarry had an iron jaw.

Quarry never faced muscular 220 lbs fighters? How about Ron Lyle, who was much better than Morrison. Foster and Lyle hit as least as hard as Morrison, and Shavers moreso.

Love you don't even mention Morrison's "suprising losess" . . .his gift vs Ross Purrity, his brutal KO defeats to Mercer and Michael Bentt . . .his war and near loss to journeyman Joe Hipp.

But to sum up . . you are saying Morrison wins bc he's bigger and stronger. Is this your only criteria for picking a fight? I wouldn't want you to be my Vegas agent. How about the fact that Quarry was much better defensively in his prime? Or was a great counter-puncher? Or had far superior stamina and durability? Or had KO power himself and could definetely dent Morrison's weak chin?

Quarry was a perennial top 5 contender in a deep era of HWs.

Morrison was a fringe contender who's crown achievement was running away (literally) from an old and sterile George Foreman . . .

edit

dempseyfire wrote:Foster and Lyle hit as least as hard as Morrison, and Shavers moreso.

IMHO Lyle hit much harder than Morrison. Lyle is the only fighter to have a non-fatigued George Foreman. While Ali KO’d him, it’s pretty obvious that George was exhausted, and he was also pretty tired and off balance against Young. Lyle dropped him in devastating fashion twice and nearly stopped him.

DaveV17 wrote:DF, Nope, I wrote that Morrison was Bigger, Stronger, and Quicker than Quarry. He was also quicker than any power puncher Quarry ever faced. Morrison was much quicker than Shavers, or Lyle, or Foster. Morrison was a sharp hard puncher with great speed.

Morrison did have stamina problems and at times he had chin problems. Whether Quarry could survive against Morrison long enough to test his stamina or chin is the question.

If you asked me who to bet on, and you listened, you would do quite well. I seldom miss one because I see boxing from a boxing perspective, I don't care what a sports writer writes. I have been in and around boxing my whole life and I know that size, strength, and speed are huge factors in any boxing match. I'd love to have the opportunity to bet some of these fantasy fights with you. I'd let you have your romantized view of the past and take smaller, weaker men who you believe have mystical skills. I don't see things that way, I'll just take the guy who is going to win.

Shavers and Lyle had reasonably fast hands. Did Morrison have greater handspeed? Probably. Would it make any difference? No . . . Quarry was a very strong and athletic man himself. You, by cancelling out all of the other intangibles, are simply not making rational sense in saying Morrison wins b.c he's bigger and stronger (and I'll even give him a slight edge in handspeed for the first 4 rounds but that won't make any difference)

In boxing, conditioning and skills beats out sheer strength 9 times out of 10 . . and I don't even think Morrison has such a grand power advantage as you are making out here.

edit

Can you imagine what Primo Carnera would have done to Joe Louis with his 60 pound weight advantage? Obviously Carnera would have a huge power advantage because he was bigger. It's doubtful that it would last 6 rounds.

Can you magine what Jess Willard would do to Jack Dempsey? Willard was obviously the harder puncher since he outweighed Dempsey by more than 50 pounds. It's doubtful that this fight would go more than 3 rounds.

Ambling Alp wrote:Can you imagine what Primo Carnera would have done to Joe Louis with his 60 pound weight advantage? Obviously Carnera would have a huge power advantage because he was bigger. It's doubtful that it would last 6 rounds.

Can you magine what Jess Willard would do to Jack Dempsey? Willard was obviously the harder puncher since he outweighed Dempsey by more than 50 pounds. It's doubtful that this fight would go more than 3 rounds.

And these are the facts of the matter. Alp I applaud your logical, linear, no-nonsense approach to these matters. We alll know that until Valuev's rise to new heights of the HW divison Carnera was the man.

I think we are on the same page, buzz. In a nutshell, the higher the weight, the stronger the fighter is. The stronger the fighter is, the harder puncher. The higher the weight, the better a fighter can absorb punishment. There really isn't that much else that matters very much.

Btw, I was just doing a rough draft on my All-Time Top 5 Heavyweight Champions. Here it is so far:

1. Valuev (Obvious choice)
2. Carnera
3. Briggs
4. Douglas (he was at his best when he got up to 246 when he fought Holyfield)
5. Willard

Honorable Mention-Lennox Lewis. If he could have only been consistently at a high weight. The only two times in his career when he was over 250 was when he fought Klitschko and the first fight with Rahman. Those were unquestionably the best two performances of his career.

Ambling Alp wrote:I think we are on the same page, buzz. In a nutshell, the higher the weight, the stronger the fighter is. The stronger the fighter is, the harder puncher. The higher the weight, the better a fighter can absorb punishment. There really isn't that much else that matters very much.

Btw, I was just doing a rough draft on my All-Time Top 5 Heavyweight Champions. Here it is so far:

1. Valuev (Obvious choice)
2. Carnera
3. Briggs
4. Douglas (he was at his best when he got up to 246 when he fought Holyfield)
5. Willard

Honorable Mention-Lennox Lewis. If he could have only been consistently at a high weight. The only two times in his career when he was over 250 was when he fought Klitschko and the first fight with Rahman. Those were unquestionably the best two performances of his career.

I think you should also consider Butterbean, since he was the IBA Super HW champion and usually weighed about the same as Valuev for most of his title fights. And since he was the SUPER HW champion, he was probably much stronger than most of the guys on your list.

Stregnth in boxing Has some importance but their are many more qualities that make a fighter. But since the subject has come up I remember Quarry when he competed on the program, The Superstars. It was a television show were different athletes competed against each other in a variety of athletic events. One of the events was weightlifting. Who ever could lift the most over their head won. Quarry didn't win but he put 220 over his head. And that was with very little technique. It was supposed to be a clean and jerk but with Quarrys lack of technique it was more like a standing military press. If you can press 220 over your head in such a manner you could probably benchpress between 300 and 350. And this is from a man who said he never lifted weights. I would say thats pretty strong. He may not have looked it but he was very strong. I realize that in itself does't make a great fighter just wanted to point out I don't see many fighters having much of an advantage over Quarry in stregnth.

edit

There were great,good,average,below average, and bad fighters in every era. Some eras had better heavyweights, others better middleweights etc.

Some people do overboard and seem to think that almost everyone from way back is better than almost everyone now.
Some people do the opposite.

It's silly to have such an empahsis on weight when rating heavyweights.
As for Quarry-Morrison:
First of all, Morrison wasn't "extremely quick". He certainly wouldn't have much of an edge against Quarry.
I agree that Morrison was the harder puncher than Quarry. However, would Morrison be able to knockout Quarry? That is doubtful. Morrison could punch, but he wasn't the brutal puncher people make him out to be.

Who is the best fighter he ever stopped? A washed up Razor Ruddock? A washed up Pinklon Thomas?
Morrison really only had two big fights in his career (Lewis and Mercer) and he got crushed both times.
Quarry had a lot of big fights. Sometimes he won, sometimes he lost.
Quarry had a very good chin. It's doubtful that Morrison would knock him out.
Quarry had decent power but nothing special. Would he be able to stop Morrison and his mediocre chin? Maybe, maybe not.

There is actually a good chance this would go the distance. Quarry didn't have a good defense but it was better than Morrison. Quarry was also the more accurrate puncher of the two and had better all around boxing skills.
Quarry wasn't the most consistent fighter and it's certainly possible that Morrison could win. However, more than likely Quarry wins this.

DaveV17 wrote:Funny stuff, but you conveniently left out that Morrison was extremely quick and athletic, nothing like Willard and a few others. Size is not a major factor when taken alone, but when a man is quicker, stronger, and bigger he does have an advantage, at least to most rational people.

Of course if one believes that there are mystical, or secret moves in boxing that have not been passed on to modern boxers that negate all physical advantages and if one believes that boxers in earlier eras never fatigued, never took a second off in any round, and they could take punches better and throw punches harder than their modern counterparts, then one could believe that Jerry Quarry would walk through Tommy Morrison. I hate to burst your bubbles, but I just know better.

Tommy Morrison didn't have a weak chin and bad stamina just in comparison to the 1970s . . . he had it in his OWN ERA!!! This isn't Jerry Quarry vs Lennox Lewis . . .this is Jerry Quarry vs a very limited overhyped Mid-West prospect who had good power and good natural attrobutes but beyond that did not have vert much.

I was just re-watching some Morrison on Youtube . . .Quarry at his best was just as quick as Tommy with his upper body and certainly has much better footspeed than the ponderous Morrison. The only attribute I'd give Morrison over Quarry is punching power. Strength wise I'd say they were at least equal . . Morrison was not a super HW . . he had friggin' bicep injections for crying out loud.

Who did the mediocrity like Quarry face in his "prime" (supposedly the 1960's) who reminds Morrison? Buster Mathis? Quarry simply didn't face enough of quick, athletic big men to prove he could overcome such obstacles or to prove his chin would stand the test against them. 1960's was still an era of small heavyweights (although there could be found bigger guys, but they usually didn't stay near the top too long, unlike it had been from 1980's on).

Get real!!! Morrison mops the floor with Quarry.

How is Morrison suddenly becoming some giant fighters? He was an average sized HW, 6'2 who started his career at 210 and then later added some lbs that did him absolutely no good except make him look more "Stallone-like" for Rocky 5. His stamina was atrocious for a world class prizefighter.

Morrison and Mac Foster were the same size. The likes of Mathis, Ali, and Lyle were BIGGER than Morrison. Quarry faced better, more skilled punchers (Shavers, Lyle) and quicker boxers who also packed a fair wallop (Mathis, Ellis, Patterson)

The only style Morrison proved he consistenly could defeat was the "hey, I'm overweight and past my best" style of HW displayed in his wins over Thomas, Tillis, and Ruddock (a fight he was about to lose when he was saved by a hair mary punch)

Quarry would certainly not being seeing anything in Morrison he hadn't seen before and had been done much better than what was displayed by the Former Toughman competitor.