January 2002 - July 2006 - The Jerry Quarry Foundation

anyway. Thanks.|
|9/20/05 06:06:05 PM|Gerry|Cleveland||same||||10|Noam, I don't believe Joe's
boast was based on deeds. It was based on confidence, and he certainly did prove
the point.It is true in both directions: Joe fought some good guys, and
clearly some second-tier guys, just like all the fighters compared in the WBA
field.But, as stated before, Joe had a hard time getting fights. He was not
a charismatic draw, he was very tough to defeat. Heck, he barely had management,
interest in him was so low.This has to be considered with him. Even Ali had
trouble, until he became the Louisville Lip, in getting interest in him, as did
Norton, who was much like Frazier on the way up --- a very tough fighter who
does not draw crowds.Rank is not black and white. After the first half
dozen, it can be very subjective. Quarry, for instance, got the better of it,
then the worse of it as his career progressed. It can come down to a matter of
saleability for a fighter or whether a big wig has paid for it.Either way, I
don't dismiss guys like Chuvalo or Mathis, who proved their ability at least
early in their careers, for meeting contenders like Frazier, Quarry, Ali and
others.Also, the WBA tourney, while very key to the careers of Ellis and
Quarry, was not a perfect thing. The fighters got their ranking AFTER they were
entered in the field by the WBA. Could a few other guys have been chosen for
that field than the eight that were? You bet.It was not that cut-and-dry
that these eight were WAY better than everyone else.And that is my point.|
|9/20/05 06:11:47 PM|JIMMY DORSEY|VENTURA
CALIFORNIA||RONNYRAINS@YAHOO.COM||||10|HAVING HAD EVERY RING MAGAZINE FROM 1965
TO 1975, YES BUSTER MATHIS WAS RANKED NO.6 WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CONTENDER BY BOTH
THE WORLD BOXING ASSOCIATION AND RING MAGAZINE. THE SAME NIGHT HE FOUGHT JERRY
QUARRY, JERRY WAS RANKED NO. 4 BY THE RING, AND NO.2 AHEAD OF BOTH LISTON AND
BONAVENA BY THE WORLD BOXING ASSOCIATION, YOU GUYS DO HAVE A VERY VALID POINT
FOR I DO NOT THINK HE WAS IN THE TOP TEN FOR EITHER ONE, WHEN HE TOOK FRAZIER ON
IN 1968, TAKE CARE!|
|9/20/05 10:04:22 PM|Noam|same||same||||10|Hi Jimmy - thanks for the comments. I
got the information that Mathis wasn't ranked in the Ring Magazine's Top 10
directly from the below
site:http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ra
tings:_Heav... It shows that each year from 1960 to 1969 The Ring
published its annual rankings. Mathis was never in them. He may have appeared
fleetingly in a monthly rating, but he was never included annually, for any
year, according to that site anyway.Gerry - I guess we're not going to
convince each other. I can only say that Joe opted to fight the unranked Mathis
for a title only recognized by six states, rather than fight seven ranked guys
for a version of the more widely acclaimed WBA title. For fighting Mathis he got
$150,000.00 when he would have got $175,000.00 for the WBA one. If Joe was
really confident he was the best in the world at that point, I know what path he
would have taken. Thanks. |
|9/20/05 10:07:47 PM|Noam|same||same||||10|One other thing Jimmy. As Mathis
wasn't selected to fight in the 8 man tournament, it seems he wasn't ranked in
the top 8 at that point by the WBA. When Frazier withdrew, another boxer entered
and it wasn't Mathis. So I take it that he wasn't in the top 9 at that point,
also. Thanks. |
|9/21/05 08:28:51 AM|Angelo|Washington, DC||funktron@yahoo.com||||10|For me,
it's not really doubting that Frazier was better than the guys in the
tournament---but sensing a certain arrogance his team showed to stay out of it.
One thing absolutely can't be disputed: It was easier to wait for the dust to
settle and fight just once against the winner, Ellis, than to start from scratch
and go through three ranked contenders, not knowing who you would draw as the
tournament wore on. No argument there---he took the path of least resistance.
He was the best active heavyweight---but could have been upset by someone in the
tournament. I've given the analogy before: If you're the top ranked college