January 2002 - July 2006 - The Jerry Quarry Foundation

diet down one weight class, if possible, with the theory being that the
individual will retain the strength he had at a higher weight. This isn't always
the case, plus with everyone doing it, it sort of evens the field. Some fighters
have done OK going up or down, but the majority going up hit the wall. Duran and
Hearns didn't, but most light heavies do. Spinks found the going much tougher,
but someone like Quarry at cruiser would have had a walk in the park.
While Foster couldn't take the great heavyweights, I believe he would
have taken most of the less than great, much less ones sort of on the line
between the two divisions. I also think he would have been a shoein at
cruiserweight, if the division had been around when he was fighting.|
|10/21/03 04:35:12 PM|Massimo|Rome||8||||10|Last time Tyson fought was in
February. Eight months of rest but for a good reason: his exhausting battle
against Clifford. The Thrilla in Manilla looks a joke in comparison ! Mike, be
serious ! If you want to fight, keep on fighting, but if you don't want to
fight...Just quit, please !|
|10/22/03 08:46:57 AM|Fran|SE PA||plc7755@aol.com||||10|Very well put Foster was
one of the greats from that era. Another was Mantequilla Napoles. I think
Napoles would have been an intesting match for Sugar Ray Leonard. |
|10/22/03 08:46:58 AM|Fran|SE PA||plc7755@aol.com||||10|Very well put Foster was
one of the greats from that era. Another was Mantequilla Napoles. I think
Napoles would have been an intesting match for Sugar Ray Leonard. |
|10/22/03 02:19:49
PM|Roadscholarette|Chicago||roadscholarette@hotmail.com||||10|Jose Napoles was a
superb fighter. He won 77 of 84 fights, 57 by knockout, beating such men as
Cokes, Griffith, Lopez, Backus, Lewis, Pruitt, Perkins, and Muniz, some more
than once. He lost to Monzon, trying for the middleweight title, but Monzon was
a phenom at middle, one of the greatest ever. Big too - six feet.Anyway,
Napoles would have been a dangerous contender in Leonard's day, and against him
or Duran, could never be counted out. Re middleweights - there's an aura
and mythology about Sugar Ray Robinson, just as there is about Ali that no one
could have beaten him, but IMO, his opponents were not of the quality of those
in the golden age of middles, late 70s and into the 80s. This was the time by
which middleweights should be measured, just as the 70s was for heavyweights. I
think Robinson would have had his hands full with Hagler, Hearns, Leonard, and
Duran. Fighters like Graziano, LaMotta (not the heavy hitter he was portrayed to
be in the movie), Basilio, etc. would have been lucky to have gone the
distance.Robinson and Ali are often named as the best fighters ever, but
for my money, the best, pound for pound, and the most fundamentally complete,
was Roberto Duran.|
|10/22/03 03:27:36 PM|Kent|La Habra, Ca||kentallenent@aol.com||||10|R.S., I
disagree that Ray Robinson's opponents were not of the caliber of the
middleweights of the 70s and 80s. LaMotta, Graciano, and Basilio were all
fundamentally sound fighters who were tough as nails and they, along with Tony
Zale, would fit in well in the later era.LaMotta, although not a heavy
hitter, put a lot of pressure on his opponents and he was also a very good
defensive fighter who was hard to hit as he bobbed his way in. I have
heard people compare LaMotta to Haglar opponent Vito Anterfermo but the
difference is that although Anterfermo was a tough pressure fighter who threw a
lot of punches but was not a heavy hitter, LaMotta's defense that I mentioned
above was much better than Anterfermo's defense and Anterfermo gave Haglar a
very tough fight in their first fight, which was scored a draw, even though most
people thought Haglar won. I think style wise LaMotta matches up very well to
Haglar.Duran, the best middle division fighter. Yes, one of the best
but his "No Mas" fight with Leonard, in which he quit in frustration after
chasing Leonard for seven rounds in their second fight, brings him down a notch.
As does his knockout loss to Thomas Hearns and his decision loss to Haglar, even
though he gave an in prime Haglar one of his toughest fights. |