09.12.2012 Views

January 2002 - July 2006 - The Jerry Quarry Foundation

January 2002 - July 2006 - The Jerry Quarry Foundation

January 2002 - July 2006 - The Jerry Quarry Foundation

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

ignored my point.It's you guys not me who has the problem. I believe<br />

there were great, very good, good and weak heavyweights in all era's. YOU DON'T!<br />

ARRRRRRRRRGH! I feel like Charlie Brown. Kent I never said that Ellis,<br />

Bugner, Chuvalo etc. were better than <strong>Quarry</strong>, Jim Dorsey did. I said that<br />

Holyfield, Tyson etc. could (and most likely would) beat Ellis, Bugner, Bonavena<br />

and other 70's boxers. I include Lyle and Shavers as well. You people really<br />

overrate them. As for size. Byrd is 220 NOT 212. Byrd, Holyfield and<br />

Tyson are considered small by todays standards but would be big in the 70's. In<br />

fact little Byrd, Brock, and Holyfied are bigger than <strong>Quarry</strong>, Ellis, Bugner,<br />

Frazier etc. and the same size as Ali and the younger version of Foreman.<br />

See how times have changed in terms of size. Lamon Brewster is<br />

actually bigger. He's 230. Roy Jones was 199 not 193. Check your facts.<br />

Ruiz was 226 for the fight. It must be noted that Ruiz slimmed down. He did so<br />

to be able to keep up with Jones' speed. Ruiz is usually in the 235-240 mark. As<br />

boring as Ruiz is he too could compete with your precious 70's era.Let<br />

alone Vitali who has skill along with size.|<br />

|12/30/05 12:05:48 PM|For Your Info|Markhan, ON||FYI@yahoo.com||||9|Please<br />

before responding READ CAREFULLY. You tend to just sprint through fast and then<br />

answer even faster without really thinking. Take your time. <strong>The</strong>re's no need to<br />

rush. You end up claiming the complete opposite of what I said or<br />

meant.For instance I WAS THE ONE WHO MENTIONED THAT QUARRY BEAT JACK<br />

BODELL WHILE BUGNER LOST. I ALSO MENTIONED LARRY MIDDLETON TOO. SO WHAT WAS THE<br />

POINT IN POINTING THAT OUT TO ME WHEN I ALREADY DID SO A MONTH AGO! See what<br />

happens when you don't read properly. This leads to<br />

misunderstandings.I stated that PEOPLE MAY SAY... not that I<br />

SAY!.What I was saying was that people may argue that Bugner is better than<br />

<strong>Quarry</strong> because he was more competetive (though clearly losing) against Frazier<br />

and Ali than <strong>Jerry</strong> did. In fact people have said this. HOWEVER I COUNTERED<br />

THAT others can make a point that <strong>Quarry</strong> beat Bodell and Middleton while Bugner<br />

lost to them. So maybe <strong>Quarry</strong> was the better. As clear as this was you all<br />

misunderstood and thought THAT I WAS STATING THAT BUGNER BETTER THAN QUARRY!<br />

NO!NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! I DINDN'T SAY THAT! My point was simply<br />

that both sides had merit. Since neaither ever faught each other we can only<br />

speculate. Both arguments had validity however. Whew! I guess you're all<br />

getting senile in your elderly ages. So maybe I'm wasting my time explaining<br />

things since you'll forget anyways.|<br />

|12/30/05 12:10:01 PM|FYI|Markham||FY!@yahoo.com||||9|One more thing. Buner did<br />

better against Ali and Frazier PERIOD! That includes <strong>Quarry</strong>/Frazier<br />

1.Saying that <strong>Quarry</strong> did better is bs. If you mean from rounds 1-4 then<br />

sure but if you mean the whole fight than absolutly NOT! Nonesense. Bugner was<br />

more competetive throughout the WHOLE fight than <strong>Quarry</strong>. After the 4th <strong>Quarry</strong><br />

was fodder.|<br />

|12/30/05 12:28:24 PM|FYI|Markham||FYI@yahoo.com||||8|By today's standards<br />

<strong>Quarry</strong> and Ellis were built up cruiserweights as well so Holyfield would have no<br />

problems with them. In fact I believe it's Holy who's the bigger boxer.|<br />

|12/30/05 12:49:51 PM|Angelo|DC||funktron@yahoo.com||||10|FYI: I was born in<br />

the mid-60's, so I don't fall too far from your cut-off---and yes, there have<br />

been some good fighters since '79, including Tyson, Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield,<br />

Witherspoon---the list goes on. But for guys like Byrd and Ruiz to be on top<br />

for so long---that tells me that there is a lack of dominating talent out there<br />

right now. Look, on any given night, Buster Douglas could have whipped most of<br />

the "golden era" guys we always talk about. Ditto for Riddick Bowe. But for<br />

the most part, I don't think the modern age (90's plus) heavies have the same<br />

competitive craziness that the 60's and 70's guys did. Just my opinion---and if<br />

you look to the lighter weight categories, there are still amazingly good<br />

fighters like Bernard Hopkins in this new era---guys who could light it up<br />

against anyone of any era. But for the heavies, I just don't see it. |

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!