January 2002 - July 2006 - The Jerry Quarry Foundation

watching pro football on TV.) God bless 'em. |
|8/14/04 09:59:58 PM|Gerry|Cleveland||same||||9|Massimo, glad to hear Italy is
your favotite country. Damiani and, of course, Benvenuti were fighters I like
very much. Italy did beat the U.S. in hoops recently, should be a wide open
tournament. Cleveland has at least two boxers at the Olympics... Ernie, if we
don't take apart history and challenge it, how do we learn from it? Thanks for
proving my point. Incidentally, JQ had just two title shots, something seriously
wrong with that, Ellis and Frazier. His first fight against Ali may have seemed
like one, it wasn't. Circumstances in two of those fights are open to
conjecture, his performance gainst Frazier made a second fight necessary, and
that ended weird. No, Ernie, I'm not tired. Take Jimmy D's view of it if you
don't like mine... Massimo, I rate Wilt and Kareem #1 and #2, the BBC is pretty
close. Their playoff matchup in '72 is a must-see if you can find it. Jerry West
and Oscar Robertson also matched up, great series. Thanks again. |
|8/14/04 11:49:05 PM|Ernie Laxalt|Reno, NV||elax66@aol.com||||10|Gerry says:
"Ernie, if we don't take apart history and challenge it, how do we learn from
it? Thanks for proving my point." There is no speculation of "what if" in
analyzing history, Gerry. There is investigation, interview, further study,
examination of sources, new hypotheses, discussion but not speculation. History
is a view, or probably many views, and you challenge one view or another. For
example:1. Someone could study a proposed list of the 30 greatest
heavyweight boxers between 1960 and 2000. Identify all the judges and referees
in all their fights, and compare judging and referee performance and ruling.
From this analysis, attempt to suggest conclusions. Most obviously, which judges
seemed contrarian? Which judges seemed to favor sluggers most, or boxers most,
or champions most? With home computers, database programs and the Net, this
would be a great project for someone to undertake. I'd love to read the
conclusions and discuss them. I know that in earlier times -- say the 1950s --
the East Coast was the heavyweight boxing capital and the same pool of referees
there was drawn from time and again. I wonder how that influenced decisions and
careers. 2. Study the careers of 10 top boxers from this era. Figure out
ways to compare processes in their careers: first fight, second fight, third
fight; or fights at age 20, age 21, age 22, etc; or other "looks". Then you
could construct models of their momentum, and possibly who peaked too early, too
late, and so on. From what you find out, describe an ideal way to bring a
heavyweight along. 3. Take a specific claim, and investigate it. A popular
claim here seems to be, "Jerry Quarry, when compared to heavyweight boxing
peers, had unusual circumstances in his career that prevented him from winning a
championship." How would you study that? You'd begin by naming these possible
circumstances and investigating each one, including analysis of what other
boxers also underwent them. One circumstance is heavy bleeding. All right,
others with that problem are Henry Cooper, Chuck Wepner, etc. Maybe a hypotheses
is that this problem handicaps white boxers. But counterevidence suggests Jack
Dempsey, Rocky Marciano and others did not have that problem. These are
formal examples, Gerry, for the really serious boxing fan to pursue. But I
propose we try to move in this direction: posing questions that can be responded
to with reference to known facts and information, avoiding speculation and other
undeterminable propositions. See what I mean?What did it mean that Jerry was
a West Coast boxer? Was it a disadvantage or an advantage? Would judging and
scoring have been significantly different in his fights if he'd been from
Boston, New York or Chicago?|
|8/15/04 05:13:44 AM|Timana|Auckland||kiwi@hotmail.com||||10|I am happy I
visited this site because it seems you can have different points of view without
resorting to insults. ErnieYou're correct in saying that there
is no 'what ifs' in analyzing history, but this is only so when taken from a
purely historian's perspective. However, when looking back in time, trying to
predict the present or the future, 'what ifs' are the most effective tools in a