Jerry Quarry vs Ezzard Charles

You could say ring generalship would determine the winner. Sometimes Charles went to war when he was better off using his skills. Quarry hits a little harder, takes a better punch, and has a very good counter hook.

If Charles opts to box and move, he'd have a much easier time winning.

I could see all possible outcomes here, but the most likely one is Charles on points.

 

There was no "ridiculous inconsistency".
He was fairly consistent. He consistently lost to the top-ranked prime and elite fighters, the smart fighters, but usually beat the contenders of the lower tiers.
Like the other contenders on his level of any era, he'd win some and lose some.

He "fought the wrong fight" because he wasn't equipped to fight the right fight against the better fighters.
He just wasn't good enough.
He had 2 chances against Ali, 2 chances against Frazier. He was overmatched against them, in 4 attempts.
He had 2 chances against a fading Patterson (who was at least a clear level beneath Frazier and Ali even in his prime) and the best he could do was a controversial "W".

 

Charles would defeat Quarry very clearly, probably on points.
As would prime Patterson, of course.
As would prime Machen.

 

Though I'm a big Quarry fan, I think Ezzard would be too good for Jerry. Ezzard by decision or tko on cuts.

 

Quarry has the tools to beat Charles. A better chin, power and his hands were just as quick.
He tended to cut though. In both the first Ali fight and the first Frazier fight those were the difference.
That is always a possibility. Otherwise he beats Charles by decision with a knockdown.

 

How many times was Patterson down in those fights?

 

Whatever. Ive forgotten more about Quarry than you think you know. The guy was inconsistent even in winning. Thats not even disputable. It was a knock on him during his career when he was active by people who covered him regularly. And yes, he often fought the wrong fight when he had the ability to fight otherwise. He hung back against Ellis when he could and should have pursued him. He was roundly criticized for it and as a result he went headlong into Frazier when he should have done what he did best: counterpunch. Was he ever going to beat Frazier? No, but he could have done a lot better had he fought the style that he was best at and most comfortable with rather than let the fans and the press get his Irish up. He would have prolonged the fight, made it closer, and not suffered all of the facial damage he eventually did as quickly as he did. He was never going to beat Ali so that doesnt go down to inconsistency. But fights against Alongi, Memphis Al Jones, Eddie Machen, Chuvalo, and others in addition to the aforementioned Ellis and Frazier fights all illustrated Quarry's mental and emotional deficits in the ring and how those effected his ability to either carry out a strategy or map one at all. And again, I picked Charles but the idea that he wins easily and wide is silly. Charles wasnt this dominant HW. He fought in the weak, depleted post war division and still struggled with nearly every good HW he fought and some that werent on Quarry's level. So the idea that Charles is just an easy lock to beat a focused and in shape Quarry is ridiculous. He would have to be favored but an easy pick? No.

 

I agree with almost all of this but make no mistake about it Ali was fortunate Jerry cut. That would have been a rough fight for Ali had it gone farther. Quarry migjt have won and spoiled the FOTC. Look at his bout against Oscar.

 

You're a raging Fan Boy.
That much is obvious.

That's pretty much what seperates the ordinary contenders from the top echelon though. They win some and lose some, and perform unevenly.
That's NOT "ridiculous inconsistency", that's just what ordinary level contenders do. They're just not good enough.

Quarry was a "WHITE HOPE" so the coverage of him was magniified, including all his disappointing traits and when White Hopes disappoint the media always gets over-critical.

"Should have, Could have, Would have" .....
Listen to yourself.

He had 2 chances against Frazier and was bashed up the same both times.
(And I know you'll make the excuse he was past it in 1974, but so was Frazier. )
Quarry just wasn't good enough to make a fight with Frazier more competitive.
He had a decent 1st round in the 1st fight, and that was about it.

Ellis simply outboxed him. it was quite close, but clear. Ellis was coming off good wins over Leotis Martin and Oscar Bonavena, so it's no huge surprise he outboxes Quarry. If Quarry had pressed the issue perhaps he gets countered more and loses worse, we don't know.
It doesn't need EXCUSES and EXPLANATIONS.
Quarry wasn't good enough to rise above about #3 (if we're generous, and exluding Ali, during Ali's exile). He just wasn't good enough.

Like I said, you can say that about more fighters than not.
It's the norm to be like that. It's not "ridiculously inconsistent".
That's what seperates the elite world class, the top echelon, from the second-tier contenders.

Ezzard Charles was a notch above Jimmy Ellis, by my reckoning, so he'd outpoint Quarry very comfortably.

 

Ali was cutting fighters up from the very beginning of his career, consistently.
Ali was a cutting puncher. And he found Quarry pretty easy to hit.
So it's not a case of being lucky with that.

Bonavena was strong and awkward, very unorthodox and unpredictable. He gave Ali real problems, as he did with Frazier. Quarry was the opposite. Frazier and Ali had Quarry's number dialled in, relatively easy work.

 

The Quarry fights, he was down, I think, twice in each fight.

 

I can't see Quarry going 15 with Marciano

 

I don't think Quarry was much better than Joe Baksi and Joey Maxim, to be honest.
And Charles beat them up quite clearly.
I mean, Quarry was possibly a little better, but not by much.
He's insanely overrated on this forum section.
Yes, he was a plucky warrior and in the second half of his career he upset a few up-and-comers (Mac Foster, and notably Lyle and Shavers) in the "1970s golden era" ...... but he was nowhere near as good as people here sometimes make out.
He really wasn't anything special. Just an ordinary solid contender, not championship material.

 

This !
Jerry ,as brave as they come ,as was Charles for that matter .I just think Ezz is the all round better fighter and what ever Quarry does ,Charles does it a step up .I don't see either guy hitting the floor ,maybe Quarry gets a little busted up .Charles gets a unanimous decision .

 

Thats why I picked Charles right dumbass?

Which perfectly describes plenty of guys Charles struggled with at HW.

Oh bull****. Quarry earned both his ranking and the praise he got from the press. The guy came out of the golden gloves with a performance that still stands in the record books. He had been a popular amateur performer on the west coast for a decade when he turned pro and as a result was immediately signed to fight for the premier promoter on the coast before one of the most educated and discerning boxing crowds in the world. You didnt get repeat plumb assignments at the Olympic Auditorium which was famous for its discerning audience and tough matchmaking by being a bum or a fraud. Quarry put asses in seats throughout his career not because he was white but because he could fight and he proved it. The guy had skill, toughness, and a punch. I already said his mental makeup was a as much a defect as a weak chin or an inability to punch so Im not sure exactly what you are arguing about other than the fact that you enjoy trolling me and have a bug up your ass because I dont think Charles was a particularly great HW.

Who here has ever argued that Quarry could or would have beaten Frazier or Ali? Thats nothing more than a straw man argument. Would you care to pretend that Charles would have beaten Ali or Frazier? No. Because he wouldnt have. He would have been beaten with equal ease. Frazier was a bigger, better version of Marciano who beat Charles twice. Ali would have picked Charles apart. It wouldnt have been funny. See how easy it is to argue about things we arent even discussing. The fact is that Quarry was often criticized for letting his heart overrule his head and thus fighting the wrong fight, atypical of his style or gameplan. You can pretend, out of ignorance, that I just conjured that up out of thin air but if you would ever spend as much time studying contemporary sources as you do on this forum pontificating about things you dont have much knowledge about your arguments would be better constructed.

And like I said. Quarry was known for being inconsistent. It often didnt have a thing to do with the level of his opponent, or the level he was capable of fighting at. It had nothing to do with his skin color either. It was what it was but that was the knock on him and it was accurate. Anyone who has watched the guy fight over his career (and again, I guarantee Ive seen more of him than you) knows this to be true.

I disagree. I think Charles was an ordinary HW who lorded over a weak era of the division. Ellis wasnt a great HW either mind you but I certainly dont see Charles as being clearly better than him at HW in any sense of the word. In fact I think they were pretty equal in most areas and in some (like speed and footwork) I think Ellis was clearly better.

Pretending Baksi was as good or better than Quarry is ignorant. Baksi was a lumbering oaf who had been inactive for a year and a half when he fought Charles and Charles performance in that fight was called unimpressive. Its a nice trick picking one Charles' weaker HW opponents and trying to draw comparisons to Quarry but it simply doesnt hold water. That might work on someone who doesnt know any better but thats not who you are talking to here.