January 2002 - July 2006 - The Jerry Quarry Foundation

"opponents". Foreman lost part of his reputation in Zaire. Frazier was
considered great even in defeat, yes. Norton, no. There was an earlier cast
including Zora Folley, Doug Jones, Eddie Machen, Cleve ("Big Cat") Williams,
Amos ("Big Train") Lincoln, Buster Mathis, King Fletcher, Thad Spencer, even
George ("Scrap Iron") Johnson -- who went 12 rounds with a young Joe Frazier and
lost as decision -- who had many excellent outings and stayed in the Top 10 or
20, but who fell well short of greatness. Some were deserving at high ranks,
especially Zora, but never got their shots until the last phase of their
careers. There was also a slew of overseas fighters including Karl Mildenberger,
Henry Cooper, Brian London and others who were built up for Ali and the cable
promoters, and he made mincemeat of them all. Funny how Ali never really learned
how to box .. guess he was so gifted, athletic and smart he never needed to.
I also believe Liston and Foreman were great fighters, but with the way
Sonny was owned by the Mob, his real greatness is unrevealed, so to speak.
Perhaps more than anyone, Larry Holmes proved his greatness again and again and
again, and his left jab is the finest any of us are ever likely to see. Ken
Norton was a tremendous fighter, and quite likely took the 2nd Ali fight in LA,
but didn't get the decision. Where, then, is the greatness? In those days,
Rocky Marciano was considered the paradigm of a great heavyweight, and so was
Joe Louis. None of the sportswriters or commentators of the day would have
considered any heavyweights fighting in the 60s and 70s to be at the Marciano-
Louis level. The Ezzard Charles-Joe Walcott era was thought to be truly great.
Anyway, do we call the heavyweight division in the 60s and 70s great because
there were so many very good fighters? I guess that's reasonable. Or is it
because the pickin's are so putrid now? Even then, though, people were
groaning and sneering about the rotten state of boxing, the final decline, etc.
Therefore when we say it now -- and I believe it is true, now -- it sounds
questionable. When Butterball fights, or even David Tua or Johnny Thunder (sorry
to have the name wrong)or even these 2 Russian brothers, surely Jack Johnson,
Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis and Sonny Liston turn over in their graves. What do you
guys think? I think to make a boxer, you generally need a pretty desperate kid,
a poor kid, someone who's willing to bleed to make it, and usually one who sees
boxing as his only chance. With the dozens of pro and "amateur" sports now and
their huge programs, as well as the phenomenal sums of money to be made and the
worldwide exposure, most kids choose other sports. In terms of bringing young
boxers along, the promoters, managers, and cable people have completely knuckled
under to instant gratification, and throw fighters into title fights way too
early and long before they deserve it. Obviously, one of the key reasons
Jerry Quarry did so well is that he began early and served a long apprenticeship
with excellent teachers and good opponents. I may be wrong, but I don't think
many American kids get that any more as they learn to fight and get into the
amateurs. Myself, I finally got my clock convincingly cleaned 37 years ago, so
I've been out of the game too long to know. Can anyone correct me or confirm any
of these ideas? Seems like we always have strong fly to middle divisions, right?
By the way, whatever happened to the kid named Baby Cassius who used to
fight at the Olympic Auditorium around 1966-1970? He had everything he needed to
become champ. Who believes Oscar de la Hoya will prevail against Shane
Mosely? I just can't pick against Oscar. They're perfect examples of what I'm
arguing here -- there are no heavyweights nearly as good as Oscar, Shane, Roy,
Pernell, James Toney -- oops, Evander was, in his prime. Take care, guys. |
|8/24/03 04:28:53 AM|Tubby Breslin|Fullerton,
CA||bearstubastanchu@aol.com||||10|You folks really know your boxing. First of
all, I was wrong: Jerry didn't have lots of title shots. But he had 2, which is
more than 99.9% of pros ever have. He was also in contention for a decade, in
the minds of opponents, promoters, managers and fans. I'm interested in the
proposition that the 60s and 70s were a great era of heavyweight boxing. At that
time, almost no one was saying so. Very few of the ranked heavies then were