January 2002 - July 2006 - The Jerry Quarry Foundation

keep George off balance and beat him to the punch like he did Lyle. Foreman had
a tendency to wind up and telegraph his punches and Jerry's quick hands could be
a plus in keeping Foreman honest because like the Lyle fight, Jerry would land
some hard punches to let Foreman know he was in for a fight. Foreman badly hurt
both Frazier and Norton early before either of them landed their best punches,
something that would have made him have more respect for them. If you notice, in
two of Foreman's toughest fights, a loss to Ali and a near loss to Lyle; Foreman
was hit very hard in the first round and he seemed to take notice he was in for
a tough battle. Another reason for Jerry having a chance agaisnt Foreman, his
ability to take a punch. Jerry took some hard shots from Lyle and he was still
standing. Jerry also absorbed a couple of hard punches from Earnie Shavers
before lowering the boom on Shavers in the very first round. That Jerry did
well with sluggers can be shown by the Lyle and Shavers fights as well as the
Mac Foster fight which ended with Jerry winning by sixth round knockout. Foster
entered his fight with Jerry 24-0, all by knockout and ended his career with a
record of about 30-6, all of his wins by knockout. Bob when you say Jerry would
lose to Foreman because of his style, it seems that you are going by the
public's perception of Jerry's style of standing in front of his opponent and
slugging it out. Sure Jerry could be something of a "lunkhead" at times and do
just that, a perfect example of this is the first Frazier fight. But Jerry
could also be a fine boxer if he used some in and out movement and counter
punched. This is the style that would give have given him a good chance to
defeat Foreman. |
|5/24/02 11:23:02 AM|Gerry Schultz|ohio||jgschultz||||9|Thanks for the feedback,
gentlemen. Not to belabor the point, Joe was clearly enough a better fighter
than Jerry. I simply say Jerry was good enough to beat him with the right fight.
I'm a fan of both about equally, they fought in such a great era. Holmes was
about 15 pounds plus above Jerry, and quicker of foot, but not more talented a
boxer, certainly not as tough. they are very comparable to me, but that seems a
minority opinion, especially with the poll put in by Kent which I'm seeing for
the first time here. I'm probably not the expert some of you are, but I think
Rocky, while contributing nothing stylistically to the sport, was unstoppable
during his time, I put him at #3. I also think most of the "classic" guys shown
#9-15 should be given better credit. Is it fair, given the size and athleticism
of today's heavies to say that since Holmes could beat Tunney, he deserves a
higher rank? Absolutely not, to me. Tunney ruled his era, and the skills and
athleticism then present. Consider also how great a champion like Marciano was
outside the ring, how he promoted his sport, and represented, vs. Foreman even
though they were both brutal sluggers. Good to see Bivins in there, he was a
secret during his era. No faulting the first two certainly. Tyson, while
carrying serious baggage personally, deserves a higher place in my opinion. |
|5/24/02 12:18:04 PM|Kent |La Habra, Ca||oriononside@aol.com||||10|I don't have
a major problem with most of the Ring magazine top ten from the top fifty list
but I will say this, Evander Holyfield at number three is a glaring error! Sure
he deserves somewhere in the top twenty, but number three, that is pushing it.
That Foreman and Holmes as older fighters past their primes gave Holyfield
trouble speaks volumes about the superiority of the earlier era. I believe both
would have beaten Holyfield handily prime against prime. Don't get me wrong,
Holyfield was (and I stess was!) a very good fighter but not the number three
all time greatest heavyweight. I also agree that Tyson should be rated higher.
It shouldn't be taken into account what a king dufus he is out of the ring
because inside it at his best, it would be hard to beat him in any era. |
|5/24/02 04:31:08 PM|steve|nj||dmmsrm@comcast.net||||10|hey kent,thanks for the
top 50!now you've got things stirred up!this mess you've created could take
month's to straighten out.what's the deal with harry wills,joe jeanette,jimmy
bivens,sam mcvey.i must plead the fact that apparently i'm not much of a boxing
historian.who are these guys?does anyone know enough about them to paint them