Jerry Quarry vs. Vitali Klitschko

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by Duodenum

And that leads me to wonder how much of a case could be made for Quarry without the availability of services like that. We no longer have to take Foreman's word for how good Quarry was, we can see some of his benchmark wins for ourselves. ]

Incompetent or corrupt organizations like ESPN no longer have the power to act as the gatekeepers of such footage, spinning our opinions about these historic performers to suit their own prejudiced or ignorant agendas, and only broadcasting Quarry's rematch with Ali, showing Muhammad at his best and Jerry at his worst.

At least ESPN usually broadcasts Foster/Mike Quarry first, so we can see what disturbed Jerry so much before heading out to try doing battle with Ali. ESPN would probably prefer to ignore that devastating win by Foster, but Jerry compells them to show that earlier bout it by referring to it in his post-fight interview. Thanks to that, we get to see Foster broadcast on a regular basis too.

The lack of sports history knowledge possessed by these glib, pretty boy twinkies and airheaded beauty contestant bimbos, with blow dried hair and brains, on venues like ESPN is repulsive. Do they know how to read anything except teleprompters? Or can they not even do that, but just repeat what they're told on camera through their earpieces?

I hear you. In my opinion modern technology has enhanced the viewer’s access to boxing, but it has also diminished the announcers’ ability to call a fight since they rely heavy on technology. Some of the old blow by blow announcers didn't have multiple replay angles or zoom in lenses technology. They were forced to learn their craft by relying on their own eyes and ears.

I don't want to defend EPSN too much, but I do want to point out that they have a 30 minute segment on Quarry titled, “ Jerry Quarry the forgotten heavyweight. “ It shows footages of Quarry vs Ali, Frazier, and Norton. Quarry was a genuine contender who had the misfortune of being born at the wrong time as he fought Frazier and Norton at their best, and Ali near his best.

[Mendoza]

Mendoza
Hostage of fortune? Perhaps. I think soothsayer of correct news is more likely. Vitlai will defeat MCcline. The odds of McCline scoring a knockdown are long.

Janitor: Hang on now. We don't even know what sort of condition Vitally is going to be in. He might have lost a lot during his layoff.

>>You can see the current gym clips on you tube. Vitlai looks good. In additon, he has the size and power. These things are the last to go.

Mendoza: Tua was knocked down multiple times as an amateur? In what fight besides Savon? Names pro favor.

Janitor: Let us take a look at the Savon fight. You have a fighter renowned for his chin as a profesional being iced by a single punch as an amateur. Would it be fair to say that his chin improved a fair bit after that.

>>Didn't you says Tua was knocked down multiple times? Tua was a teenager when Savon, a seasoned fighter with a dangerous right hand floored him. Tua has a proven chin as a pro, same as Vitali.

Mendoza: Louis offensive style did not put him in the danger zone as operated behind his jab. It was his defense and lack of balance that made him hittable.

Janitor : But Louis did not just operate behind his jab. He took it to his oponents on the inside Henry Armstrong style at times. He also did not have the edge in reach over most of his opponents that Vitally had. This ment he had to be prepared to get hit now and again to get the job done.

>>Louis had a skill edge, a reach edge, and speed edge and in most his fights. The Baer's and Simon's of boxing had a reach edge, but neither man had skills or speed edge.

Mendoza: Schmeling hurt Louis with one the second or third flush right hand in the fight. I own the match. This logic proved that other punchers could do the same and knock Louis down when they landed. History proves this.

Janitor:But before this Louis like Vitally had fought a number of known punchers taken their best and had never been down. By your logic we could argue that he had an all time chin at this point.

Louis's number of knockdowns also have to be offset against the fact that he fought more world class fighters than most other all time greats by a ratio of 2 or 3 to 1.

>>False. Schemling was the first puncher who landed something serious on Louis. We all saw the results. Louis could not recover. He was hurt and off balance. If you can show me another puncher who tested Louis chin by landing hard shots on him before the first Schemling, I will have learned something today. Please don't say Max Baer. He hardly got in much at all.

Mendoza: Dozens of ranked contenders? If you include the McCline fight, Vitlai has fought 13 fighters who fought for one of the four major world title belts. He also fought 4-5 fighters who fought for the European Heavyweight championship belt.

Janitor: Sure but many of them had seen better days when he fought them.

>>This can be said to many fighters. Did Carnera, Shakrey, and Schmeling see better days before they meet Louis? Yes. Did Bradock have a two year lay off? Yes. Did Bradock floor Louis? Yes. Why? Louis did not have a top chin and lacked good defensive fundamentals and balance. This really is not a Joe Louis thread. Let's move on from this point, unless you can show me big punchers who tested his chin ( Like the shots Lewis and Sadners landed on Vitali ) on Louis prior to Schmeling or post Schemling with Louis not going down.

Mendoza: I would much rather be hit by Walcott's bomb then Briggs bomb. Briggs certainly hits harder.

Janitor: He hits harder but dose not have the same technique. Walcott is probably a greater threat with a single punch than Briggs.

>>True, but are we not talking about who hit harder?

Mendoza:Now this is silly. A professional heavyweight at any level competition should not be compared to a woman institute of boxing. I'll close with the following point which I once again invite you to dispute.

Janitor: I was talking metaphoricaly. My point is that you start to get knocked down more when you step up to world level.

>>Well, Quarry was down in some non-title fights too.

Mendoza: I'll list the following fighters who have very good to great chins who have been dropped by punches. I might miss a few...

Holyfield: Down from Toney, Cooper, and Bowe....none hit as hard as Lewis or Sanders.

Tyson: Down from Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis.

Holmes: Down from Tyson, Shavers, Snipes, and Issac.

Foreman: Down from Ali, Young, and Lyle.

Ali: Down from Banks, Cooper, Frazier, and Wepner.

Liston: Down by Marshal, Ali, and Martin.

Marciano: Down by Walcott and Moore.

Dempsey: Down by Sudenberg, Flynn, Fripo and Tunney

Vitali: Down by no man. In fact he was in trouble far less often without going down than anyone on the list.

Janitor :You see my concearn here. These fighters were all knocked down either when they were fighting the best available challengers or while they wereovermatched early in their careers.

>>>Ugh. Not so.

1 ) The above paragraph clearly shows other fighters with top chins were down by punchers who in many case did not hit as hard and land the type of knockout shots that Lewis and Sanders did on Vitlai.

2 ) The above paragraph shows that many top champions were knocked down from non-elite level of competition. You wrote,

'My point is that you start to get knocked down more when you step up to world level."

Well-- I do not consider Bert Cooper, Ken Issac, Marty Marshall, Chuck Wepner, or Sundberg to be world level fighters, yet they floored Holyfeild, Holmes, Liston, Ali, and Dempsey!!!!!! So you see this is a fact that should be used when evaluating chins. You can not have it both ways.

Mendoza: I do not understand why you're fighting this tooth and nail. Perhaps Vitlai just isn't your cup of tea. If that is the case, then Howard Cossell said it best. " What's right is not always popular, and what's popular is not always right. " -Howard Cosell.

Janitor : I have nothing against Vitally but I look at his resume and wonder if his vaunted chin and KO percentage might be something of an artefact of his opposition. A paper tiger if you like.

I think people are being a bit premature to automaticaly pick him over all time greats because they weigh less than 200lbs

.

>>Vitlai has KO'd some very hard to stop opponents. Purrity, Bean, and Donald to name a few. These guys dull Ko percentages, they do not inflate them. Vitlai in most cases has Ko'd his man quicker than the field of fighters who fought the same men. If this isn’t the sign of a puncher, I don’t know what is.

No one is automatically picking Vitali to beat all fighters less than 200 pounds. This would include Dempsey, Louis and Maricano! I have not seen that opinion here. What most are saying is Vitlai would defeat Quarry.

As a footnote Vitlai did fight two smallish heavyweights who used to be cruiser weights. They were Norris and Hide. Norris in particular had a good durability. Take a look at who he fought and you'll see. At any rate these two smallish heavyweight lasted a combined 3 rounds before getting knocked out.

I have put some time typing in a reply here. I beleive you don't dislike Vitlai, but at the same I get the hunch you never read replies that center on an apples to apples comparison on who took the better punch. I hope you now view Vitali's ability to take a punch in a new light.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

>>You can see the current gym clips on you tube. Vitlai looks good. In additon, he has the size and power. These things are the last to go.

It is one thing to look good in gym clips and another to look good against your oponent in the ring.

I will wait untill after the fight before I list it as an easy win for Vitally.

>>Didn't you says Tua was knocked down multiple times? Tua was a teenager when Savon, a seasoned fighter with a dangerous right hand floored him. Tua has a proven chin as a pro, same as Vitali.

The point is that being knocked down as a teenager and amateur dose not mean that you will have a suspect chin as a 28 year old profesional.

>>Louis had a skill edge, a reach edge, and speed edge and in most his fights. The Baer's and Simon's of boxing had a reach edge, but neither man had skills or speed edge.

The bottom line is that he was fighting oponents of similar reach and height over most of his career.

>>False. Schemling was the first puncher who landed something serious on Louis. We all saw the results. Louis could not recover. He was hurt and off balance. If you can show me another puncher who tested Louis chin by landing hard shots on him before the first Schemling, I will have learned something today. Please don't say Max Baer. He hardly got in much at all.

I suggest you go back and watch the film. Baer lands a number of flush shots on Louis's chin and Louis dose not flinch.

If you beleive that Louis had never been hit cleanly by a puncher before the Schmeling fight given the opposition he had fought at this point you are being a little niaeve.

>>This can be said to many fighters. Did Carnera, Shakrey, and Schmeling see better days before they meet Louis? Yes. Did Bradock have a two year lay off? Yes. Did Bradock floor Louis? Yes.

But they were all world class and ranked at the time. The ex champions that Vitally beat often were not.

>>>Ugh. Not so.

1 ) The above paragraph clearly shows other fighters with top chins were down by punchers who in many case did not hit as hard and land the type of knockout shots that Lewis and Sanders did on Vitlai.

How is it not so?

As far as I can see the only fights where these guys were knocked down were at a world level except in cases where they were rushed along at a speed that they would not have been today.

2 ) The above paragraph shows that many top champions were knocked down from non-elite level of competition. You wrote, Well-- I do not consider Bert Cooper, Ken Issac, Marty Marshall, Chuck Wepner, or Sundberg to be world level fighters, yet they floored Holyfeild, Holmes, Liston, Ali, and Dempsey!!!!!! So you see this is a fact that should be used when evaluating chins. You can not have it both ways.

Got to take each on a case by case basis. Wepner was at least ranked when he dropped Ali andvirtualy pushed him anyway.

Liston against Marshal was being moved along at a fast pace with little backing.

>>Vitlai has KO'd some very hard to stop opponents. Purrity, Bean, and Donald to name a few. These guys dull Ko percentages, they do not inflate them. Vitlai in most cases has Ko'd his man quicker than the field of fighters who fought the same men. If this isn’t the sign of a puncher, I don’t know what is.

There may be something in that but lets not go to town here. It is at the top level that your KO credentials are really tested.

No one is automatically picking Vitali to beat all fighters less than 200 pounds. This would include Dempsey, Louis and Maricano! I have not seen that opinion here. What most are saying is Vitlai would defeat Quarry.

A lot of people here would pick him over Dempsey Marciano or Langford based soleley on the size differential.

Picking him over Quarry by the same logic is also premature.

As a footnote Vitlai did fight two smallish heavyweights who used to be cruiser weights. They were Norris and Hide. Norris in particular had a good durability. Take a look at who he fought and you'll see. At any rate these two smallish heavyweight lasted a combined 3 rounds before getting knocked out.

Quarry would have done exactly the same to them.

I have put some time typing in a reply here. I beleive you don't dislike Vitlai, but at the same I get the hunch you never read replies that center on an apples to apples comparison on who took the better punch. I hope you now view Vitali's ability to take a punch in a new light.

I don't dismiss his ability to take a punch but I do think there are unanswered questions about it. I think his next two fights will answer a few of them.

[Duodenum]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

I hear you. In my opinion modern technology has enhanced the viewer’s access to boxing, but it has also diminished the announcers’ ability to call a fight since they rely heavy on technology. Some of the old blow by blow announcers didn't have multiple replay angles or zoom in lenses technology. They were forced to learn their craft by relying on their own eyes and ears.

I don't want to defend EPSN too much, but I do want to point out that they have a 30 minute segment on Quarry titled, “ Jerry Quarry the forgotten heavyweight. “ It shows footages of Quarry vs Ali, Frazier, and Norton. Quarry was a genuine contender who had the misfortune of being born at the wrong time as he fought Frazier and Norton at their best, and Ali near his best.

Well, isn't that revealing in itself, that it shows his best known defeats? (Does this segment ever show Jerry winning a match?)

Mendoza, are you in the States, and if so, are you familiar with the NFL? The reason I ask is because of something appalingly lacking in knowledge said by a host on their morning Cold Pizza program. (I stopped watching it as a result of this.) If you're not in the States, or don't give a crap about American football, I won't bother to make mention of this complaint again.

What a ridiculous quote.. Quarry was NEVER KNOCKED OUT IN HIS LIFE

Now he is.

Thank you.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by Duodenum

Gee, you don't suppose the fact of Jerry's getting his fists on them in the first place had something to do with that, do you?

You suggest that because of the beating Quarry gave them? That is highly speculative and i don't buy it. The fact that Middleton (to name one) stepped up in competition caused his pretty record to go, not the fact that he lost to Quarry.

[Vantage_West]

Originally Posted by Duodenum

How would Klitschko cope with Jerry's enormous strength, low center of gravity, and quickness in close? Bruce Lee had a well known saying, "Strength is good, but if you can't use it quickly it's of no avail." Jerry would have a pretty easy time getting underneath Klitschko's arms, and moving side to side under his jabs and crosses.

As for the old saying, "Don't hook with a hooker," that's entirely in Quarry's favor. For two rounds, Jerry actually outhooked and outworked Frazier on the inside, especially to the body, and this wasn't against a slow starting version of Smoke, but one who was coming off a single round dismantling of Zyglewicz. Klitschko is a headhunter, and a long range headhunter at that. Unlike Frazier, he's no 15 round fighter.

Quarry boxed in an era of eight ounce gloves. How's Klitschko going to hurt him with ten ounce pillows when Shavers and Lyle couldn't faze him with the lighter equipment? We can see how big Klitschko is, but Quarry showed how strong he was at the very beginning of his rematch with Ali, when he effortlessly picked up Muhammad without the use of his gloved hands, only his arms, and deposited him in a corner.

I wasn't even convinced the Klitschko's could prevail over James "Buddha" Toney (who recently tested positive for Geritol and prune juice through carbon 14 dating).

Klitschko may be bigger and stronger than Jerry, but I agree with those who posit that the size advantage is all Quarry's.

i remember correctly he just striaghten up and just lean back up and lifted ali up...one of the funniest movements in boxing

[janitor]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

You suggest that because of the beating Quarry gave them? That is highly speculative and i don't buy it. The fact that Middleton (to name one) stepped up in competition caused his pretty record to go, not the fact that he lost to Quarry.

The point is that these wins were seen as being of much greater significance at the time than they are in historical context.

They are exactly the kind of wins that Vitallys admirers use to build up his record. Good wins at the time but not likley to look great in 50 years.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by janitor

The point is that these wins were seen as being of much greater significance at the time than they are in historical context.

But should we really limit outselfs to what people knew back then? We know how well they turned out and we judge them alike.

It is interesting to note that the Quarry supporters do anything to avoid comparing resumes like i did earlier.

They are exactly the kind of wins that Vitallys admirers use to build up his record. Good wins at the time but not likley to look great in 50 years.

You keep repeating this, i don't know why.
Buddy Baer (another "brother of..") didn't really have that very significant wins either but he's not forgotten 80 years later. Unless you are talking about the normal people of course, but then i can guarantee you that they don't know who Quarry was either. Some people who followed to sport in the 70's might remember, but then again, so will a lot of people who watched Vitali Klitschko, 30 years from now. He has a huge fanbase in Germany and eastern Europe, where he is a celebrity.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

But should we really limit outselfs to what people knew back then? We know how well they turned out and we judge them alike.

So how highly will people rate Corrie Snders or Kirk Johnson in 50 years time?

You keep repeating this, i don't know why.
Buddy Baer (another "brother of..") didn't really have that very significant wins either but he's not forgotten 80 years later.

I would dispute your asertion that he dose not have many significant wins. If we gave him the benefit of the kind of analysis Vitally gets we could build him up into much more than he actualy was. An all time knockout king and borderline all time great.

In fact he might be quite a good comparison in many ways.

Bottom line is however that Buddy is rememberd primarily for having fought Louis competitively and being the brother of Max Baer. Vitally by the same token will be remembered for a competitive loosing effort against Lennox Lewis and being the brother of Wladamir Klitschko.

Unless you are talking about the normal people of course, but then i can guarantee you that they don't know who Quarry was either. Some people who followed to sport in the 70's might remember, but then again, so will a lot of people who watched Vitali Klitschko, 30 years from now. He has a huge fanbase in Germany and eastern Europe, where he is a celebrity.

What do you see VKs significance being 30 or 50 years from now.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by janitor

So how highly will people rate Corrie Snders or Kirk Johnson in 50 years time?

Not highly, but there will be SuzieQ's posting on how Kirk Johnson is very underrated with high handspeed, etc. Dito on Sanders. If we are still talking about Alejandro Lavorante then i doubt the former two will miss the boat, 50 years from now.

I would dispute your asertion that he dose not have many significant wins. If we gave him the benefit of the kind of analysis Vitally gets we could build him up into much more than he actualy was. An all time knockout king and borderline all time great.

Well he had some significant wins over course, Galento, Savold, Abe Simon and he did knock Louis down. My point is that he was not more significant in his time than Vitali was in his (of course Louis has something to do with this, but that is irrelevant), yet we still remember him.

And i don't see why B. Baer should not be recognised as an extremely hard puncher. Not an all time knockout king, but still a very hard puncher. Most of his best wins are over former contenders or tomato cans, but then so are Shavers' wins, and he's a God here at ESB.

In fact he might be quite a good comparison in many ways.


Bottom line is however that Buddy is rememberd primarily for having fought Louis competitively and being the brother of Max Baer. Vitally by the same token will be remembered for a competitive loosing effort against Lennox Lewis and being the brother of Wladamir Klitschko.

Indeed there are some similarities and this is exactly what my point was: B. Baer is still remembered today while you suggested that Vitali will be forgotten in 50 years.
And there is the difference that Vitali has been ring champ and seen as "the man to beat" for a while whereas Baer never was.

What do you see VKs significance being 30 or 50 years from now.

As one of the most talented superheavies of the first 100 years of gloved boxing whose carrier was cut short because of injuries and therefore lacks in accomplishements. And yes, he will be the "brother" of Wladimir who has already surpassed him by far in my book, and who will be likely to enhance his legacy further whereas Vitali will not be able to accomplish much anymore due to age.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Not highly, but there will be SuzieQ's posting on how Kirk Johnson is very underrated with high handspeed, etc. Dito on Sanders. If we are still talking about Alejandro Lavorante then i doubt the former two will miss the boat, 50 years from now.

OK. So they might fall under the radar of some enthusiasts who specialise in their era. At the same time fighters like Ron Lyle will still be known to the average general forum dummy.

Well he had some significant wins over course, Galento, Savold, Abe Simon and he did knock Louis down. My point is that he was not more significant in his time than Vitali was in his (of course Louis has something to do with this, but that is irrelevant), yet we still remember him.

And i don't see why B. Baer should not be recognised as an extremely hard puncher. Not an all time knockout king, but still a very hard puncher. Most of his best wins are over former contenders or tomato cans, but then so are Shavers' wins, and he's a God here at ESB.

If you are arguing that Vitally will have a historical standing as good or better than Buddy Baer then I don't dispute it. However you do not get many threads on the classic forum pitting Buddy Baer against all time greats and if you did there would be nom asumption that he beat any bellow a certain size.

Indeed there are some similarities and this is exactly what my point was: B. Baer is still remembered today while you suggested that Vitali will be forgotten in 50 years.
And there is the difference that Vitali has been ring champ and seen as "the man to beat" for a while whereas Baer never was.

That is the wild card in the question. I would not be surprized if Vitallys claim to the lineal title is acepted by historians. If this is the case then he becomes the Marvin Hart of his era by default.

As one of the most talented superheavies of the first 100 years of gloved boxing whose carrier was cut short because of injuries and therefore lacks in accomplishements. And yes, he will be the "brother" of Wladimir who has already surpassed him by far in my book, and who will be likely to enhance his legacy further whereas Vitali will not be able to accomplish much anymore due to age.

This is how people who saw him fight will remember him but what will the new generation say?

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by janitor

OK. So they might fall under the radar of some enthusiasts who specialise in their era. At the same time fighters like Ron Lyle will still be known to the average general forum dummy.

Yes, that is true. Does it matter though? I don't know all that much about B. Baer's opponents either, but i still have a decent picture of who he was and where he stands.

On Ron Lyle, he was certainly a bigger player than Kirk Johnson or Corrie Sanders, no question. But not bigger than Vitali.

Another thing to note is that many people here had their Muhammad Ali as youth hero and as a consequence know a lot about the 70's. Unfortunatly we have only a few posters (excellent posters, by the way) who actually lived throught the 60's or the 50's because many of them either lost their passion for boxing or are not aqcuinted enough with computers to find this site. If we had as many people from the 40's/50's/60's as from the 70's/80's, i can guarantee you we'd be talking a lot more about the punching ability of Elmer Ray instead of why Shavers, i quote, deserves to be mentioned among the greats of all time.

If you are arguing that Vitally will have a historical standing as good or better than Buddy Baer then I don't dispute it. However you do not get many threads on the classic forum pitting Buddy Baer against all time greats and if you did there would be nom asumption that he beat any bellow a certain size.

Of course, but that is because B. Baer fought 70 years ago whereas Vitali is still fighting today. And Baer lost to some pretty average fighters whereas Vitali (a bit like Tyson) also dominated lesser opposition AND he managed to look good in controversial (not in my eyes, by the way) defeat, which adds to it.

Vitali exactly the properies which make for a lot of extremes on both sides in discussion: he lost big fights, yet blew away lesser opponents and other contenders. The fights which he lost are one he arguably could've won with more luck. He towers over nearly every fighter from the past. He is not American and he is white. Etc etc.

I know you don't go there, but i can tell you that no fight in the general forum has been more discussed than Lewis vs V. Klitschko.

If there was an ESB 70 years ago, i imagine the same thing happening back then. "Baer knocked Louis through the ropes, he'd knock Fitzsimmons out in one round", etc.

That is the wild card in the question. I would not be surprized if Vitallys claim to the lineal title is acepted by historians. If this is the case then he becomes the Marvin Hart of his era by default.

This is how people who saw him fight will remember him but what will the new generation say?

No idea. Maybe he will be the Hart of the twentyfirst's century as you said.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Yes, that is true. Does it matter though? I don't know all that much about B. Baer's opponents either, but i still have a decent picture of who he was and where he stands.

On Ron Lyle, he was certainly a bigger player than Kirk Johnson or Corrie Sanders, no question. But not bigger than Vitali.

Another thing to note is that many people here had their Muhammad Ali as youth hero and as a consequence know a lot about the 70's. Unfortunatly we have only a few posters (excellent posters, by the way) who actually lived throught the 60's or the 50's because many of them either lost their passion for boxing or are not aqcuinted enough with computers to find this site. If we had as many people from the 40's/50's/60's as from the 70's/80's, i can guarantee you we'd be talking a lot more about the punching ability of Elmer Ray instead of why Shavers, i quote, deserves to be mentioned among the greats of all time.

Of course, but that is because B. Baer fought 70 years ago whereas Vitali is still fighting today. And Baer lost to some pretty average fighters whereas Vitali (a bit like Tyson) also dominated lesser opposition AND he managed to look good in controversial (not in my eyes, by the way) defeat, which adds to it.

Vitali exactly the properies which make for a lot of extremes on both sides in discussion: he lost big fights, yet blew away lesser opponents and other contenders. The fights which he lost are one he arguably could've won with more luck. He towers over nearly every fighter from the past. He is not American and he is white. Etc etc.

I know you don't go there, but i can tell you that no fight in the general forum has been more discussed than Lewis vs V. Klitschko.

If there was an ESB 70 years ago, i imagine the same thing happening back then. "Baer knocked Louis through the ropes, he'd knock Fitzsimmons out in one round", etc.

Some interesting points.

[Cojimar 1945]

Were Duplooy, Sprott or Cooper ranked highly when Sanders fought them? I didn't think any of them were rated in the top 10 at the time they fought Sanders. Cooper may have been ranked around 10th or so at one point but that was before he faced Sanders.