January 2002 - July 2006 - The Jerry Quarry Foundation

|9/16/05 02:39:10 PM|Kent|Murrieta, Ca||kentallenent@aol.com||||10|Gerry, but as
I pointed out to Noam, Frazier's NYSAC title was considered a legitimate world
heavyweight title but it like Ellis' WBA title was disputed. Frazier cleared up
the dispute with his win over Ellis in 1970.It has nothing to do with
the old Frazier debate about whether he could take a punch, etc, it is just an
historical fact that he held and defended a world title nine times with four of
those defenses being of the undisputed title.By the way, Jerry Quarry
fought for a world heavyweight title twice in his career, once verses Ellis for
the WBA title and once verses Frazier for the NYSAC title. Every biography of
Jerry's career states this and if Frazier's first title wasn't a world title
defense against Jerry, then Jerry would have fought for the title only once. |
|9/16/05 04:45:25 PM|Noam|same||same||||10|Hi KentI understand all that,
however when Joe refused to enter the WBA tournament (the only guy who refused
by the way), the New York Commission wouldn't accept that winner and named it's
own version vacant. That's how Frazier v Mathis came about. It was the world
title you have when you don't really have a world title.The WBA didn't
even rank Mathis as being in its top 8 to be in the elimination tournament. In
fact, the Ring Magazine didn't have Mathis rated in its Top 10 for the years
surrounding 1968 when Joe fought him for the vacant title.With due
respect to all concerned, the New York title at that point was a makeshift
reaction to the more credible 8 man WBA elimination tournament that Joe refused
to enter. All 8 guys in the WBA tournament were ranked higher than
Mathis.Kent, I know this isn't about Joe, and I am not criticizing him
for it. That was the politics of that time. However, the New York title meant
nothing and wasn't accepted by all of the boxing world. |
|9/16/05 04:54:31 PM|Noam|same||same||||10|Hi Gerry - in his book Joe
acknowledges that he refused to enter the WBA elimination tournament. At that
point he hadn't been offered the other fight.I don't doubt that Joe was
better than the other guys in the tournament. He eventually proved it by beating
Ellis. However, I do say that Joe lacked some stamina and didn't want
consecutive hard fights. He wanted things on his terms.The other fact is
that Joe got the easier fight by only taking Mathis on. He only had to take one
fight not several. And Mathis was wasn't ranked in the Top 10 by Ring Magazine
or the Top 8 by the WBA. Joe was taking the easier course and I suppose one
point of view would be that this was the smart way to go. But it was still the
easier way. Good luck to him.|
|9/16/05 06:26:52 PM|Gerry|Cleveland||same||||10|As far as the NYSAC, that it
was a nothing title is proven untrue, any title is only as good as the guy who
holds it. Mathis was undefeated, was certainly on par with much of the WBA
field, and was one of the top guys left not claimed by that field. If Joe was
not in the tourney, I don't know what he was expected to match with if not the
guys not in the tourney.Joe lacks stamina? I'll let you reel that one back
in. I know Ali would disagree there with you.Again, Joe had beaten Bonavena,
Machen and Chuvalo prior to Mathis. Who did Holmes beat for his
titleshot?Just one guy - Shavers. Not much of a comparison.You might
also want to compare opponents winning percentages. If you do, you'll find
Frazier in front there as well. The NY State title was very disputed, but so
was Holmes' IBF belt. The title has not been unified more than a few times since
1967 and still is not today. So it's always disputed.Consensus, though
showed both Frazier and Holmes as the top dogs of their days. In fact, that is
why Frazier was offered a belt in the first place... As for the uneducated, I
can only guess I.S. is speaking from personal experience. Information is never
an expert. But a person with information can be. Expertise does not equal
wisdom, either. Sadly, there is little wisdom in boxing.Those helicopters
you hear may be flashbacks of Apollo Creed pounding your face in, or , it may be
a reason to see a pharmacist.Either way, I can only hope Bernard is not your
dog. Because then you'd have real issues. Thanks again.|