Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
Maybe it's arguing semantics, but I really think Quarry should not be qualified as a great fighter. He was completely outgunned - mentally and physically - when he stepped up against great opposition. Did he even manage to win a single round in 4 fights against Ali & Frazier?).
How can someone be great if he wasn't even champion? Some will say that he would've been champion if Ali/Frazier weren't around, but why? He basically went even with an over-the-hill Patterson, who is widely regarded as one of the weakest (lineal) champions ever. This is not even considering losses to Ellis and Chuvalo. He's an excellent contender, but I wouldn't call him first-tier or great.
Norton has a better case as he at least beat first-tier opposition. Still, other than Ali his resume isn't all that either. He's got a razor thin win over Young, beat an older Quarry, other than that...? Olympian Bobick? This is weighed against devastating knockout losses.
They did fight in the most popular era of heavyweights, against even more popular names.
Yeah I suppose you're right. Greatness is getting a tad carried away when describing Jerry Quarry I'll admit. but like you said, he was an "excellent" contender. I'll stick with that.