Jerry Quarry vs. Bob Foster: Who wins?

I have always put equal authority among the WBA and the WBC, therefore I consider Terrell a champion, although I do think the motives for stripping Ali were less than good. Much respect to your opinion.

 

Love this revisionism .. Please show me where Quarry almost knocked Norton out ? That's total crap. Norton destroyed him, period .

 

Not sure it's a no brainer .. only Ali and Frazier beat Foster in his own prime and Quarry was a far step below those two .. the cuts suggestion likely comes from Foster being able to both hit Ali frequently and be one of the only two cut him .... and Quarry suffering such a serious cut against Ali very early in the first fight .. of course Quarry would be favored but Jerry seems to me to be a man that often under performed .. gusty as hell but inconsistent ..

 

Not so. Quarry unloaded a lot of good stuff on Norton, but Norton was composed and knew what he was doing. To say Quarry was on the verge of a knockout is ridiculous. There is also not a good reason to think Quarry would beat Norton in his prime. He struggled with Frazier, who was VERY similar to Norton. He also struggled with Patterson, who was in decline, and probably not as good as a peak Norton. He lost to Chuvalo (albeit in a rather dubious fashion), and to an old Machen, as well as one or two other prime losses. If Chuvalo and old Machen could do it, prime Norton certainly could. It's a close slugfest, I'll give you that.

 

William, I disagree with you on this subject , but you are a class poster. Period.

 

BINGO

 

there's nothing wrong with that at all and thank you

 

Several problems with this line of thought: The idea that ONLY Ali and Frazier beat Foster in his own prime. Two glaring issues with this statement: 1. When Foster was dominated by a past his prime Zora Folley he was 27 years old and had been a pro for four or five years having already faced several top fighters. The only reason to shorten Foster's prime would be to be able to say only two heavyweight greats beat Foster in his prime. Thats simply not true. If Folley past his best could easily best Foster then so could Quarry at his best. The other glaring problem with this statement, if we accept that Foster's prime was ridiculously short and only the two best heavyweights of the era beat him in it is that, if we do accept that, it leaves open the fact that beyond those two Foster never defeated anyone who present the same combination of size, power, and stylistic issues that Quarry brought to the table. You MIGHT argue that he beat better fighters (and even that is debateable considering his best win at 175 during his "prime" was over a guy who was nearly 40 and fighting 15 pounds above his best weight while having almost every disadvantage) but those supposedly "better" fighters certainly werent more difficult or dangerous head to head for Foster than Jerry Quarry would have been. The 175 pound division was pretty weak during Foster's reign. The idea that because Foster cut Ali a stoppage over Quarry on cuts would be possibility is pretty far fetched. Foster cutting Ali was flukey and his hitting him often was more down to Ali having zero respect for him and toying with him. Even if Foster cut Quarry, no guarantee, at least as likely as getting an eventual stoppage is that Jerry roars back and clobbers Foster who never once showed in his career he could take a heavyweight punch. I would just add that if we are to suppose that only great heavyweights like Ali and Frazier could defeat Foster in his apparently very short prime then show me the guys who were as good and big as Quarry that Foster beat, because he never proved he could. He squeeked by Burt Whitehurst literally on one point on one card when Whitehurst had failed to win half of his fights. He was dropped and hurt by Eddie Vick who was 11-12-3 at the time. In fact almost every time Foster defeated a heavyweight that opponents record was barely 50/50. It says a lot when your best heavyweight victory is over 45-28-8 Willie Besmanoff who had won just one of his last seven fights and had just 19 KOs in 93 bouts. Foster was literally zero threat to any genuinely rated heavyweight contender and Quarry earned his top ten status every time he was ranked. Id love to hear a solid breakdown based on Foster's actual capabilities of how hes supposed to beat Quarry because he wasnt very good going backwards, couldnt take a heavyweight punch, had nothing to get Quarry's respect with, wasnt nearly as strong as Quarry, I could keep going but I just dont see it. Whether Quarry presses or counterpunches I think he chews Foster up and spits him out and given his size, strength, power, and durability advantages I think hed go right after Foster and break him in half. Yeah, you might hope Foster gets a hail mary and cuts Quarry but thats an outside chance and even then there is no guarantee it doesnt backfire resulting in Quarry turning up the heat and getting Foster out of there.

And while Quarry did get hammered by Norton you might want to watch that fight again, Norton was rocked and shaky in that fight.

 

Very similar to Norton? Frazier? GTFO! Norton turned down more than one offer to fight Quarry before Quarry was totally shot and got knocked out cold by Quarry in sparring in 1970 at the Main Street gym in LA. Outside giving Ali stylistic problems Norton is one of the most overrated fighters in history.

 

Great points. Have you ever written a book before? I had subscribed to the idea that Foster would win this fight (how?) last time I posted on this thread, and since have revised my opinion on that subject. Your argument here cements my opinion on the subject. I'm with Quarry. Very nice writing.

 

Yes. Both were proponents of the cross-arm defense. Of course, Frazier often did not use it, whereas Norton always did. Both focused on body punching to soften up their opponents. Both relied primarily on the left hook (although Norton added the uppercut and the right overhand to his arsenal later in his career), and both had great left hooks, although Frazier's was clearly greater. Both were high-stamina and tough. Both possessed considerable speed (not like Ali or Holmes). Both had good head and body movement, but I would put Frazier ahead in that area. The only key differences imo btwn the two were that Norton had a great jab, whereas Frazier only had a good one. Norton was also much more defense-minded than Frazier, who often walked right into shots from his opponents. Other than that, I would say Frazier was better in every area; Norton was still very good however. I find Norton overrated in some camps too. Imo his biggest demon was a lack of aggression. Norton can be underrated in other camps though too.

 

All true, and Quarry in his prime didn't cut that easily unless he was being continually pummeled by Frazier or Ali, and I see no possible scenario in which Foster would be rugged or tough enough to hang in there long enough to inflict anything close to the punishment Quarry was able to absorb against Frazier and Ali or even against Norton when Jerry was on the way out. Given how poorly Foster did against rated heavyweights, a person would have to live in fantasyland to think that Foster could defeat Jerry at any time other than the very tail end of his career.

 

It is true, in the video, I agree that the ref saves Norton from going down. However, there is no way of knowing how close he had Norton to getting knocked out. You can't say that the ref saved Norton from a knockout, just a knockdown. You could what-if everything to death. Ttyl.