Why is Quarry looked at as a modern sized HW while his counterparts are looked at as "too small"?

I've never heard anybody call him modern sized, but maybe it's just cause of how he stacked up against bigger guys (Especially with the rumor of Foreman ducking him). Took shots from Lyle and Shavers without flinching, and had both of them rocked hard.

 

Jimmy Ellis was a blown up middleweight and he competed during the “Golden” era.

 

Who says that, though? Has anyone seriously said they would be too small for Patterson, Ellis, Bonavena etc?

 

Think you're gaslighting now. Been around here forever and never seen anyone say Quarry would stand much of a chance against Tyson or Lewis. Seeing what Ruiz did to Joshua, many probably doesn't see it as too far fetched that Quarry could do something similar looking at how he did against Lyle and Shavers. But Lewis and Tyson? Nah, with all due respect that seems a bit made up that that would be an opinion.

 

"I get really annoyed imagining what people say, but no one actually has said, about Quarry vs Tyson and Lewis." Good premise for a thread that.

Think I'll join this trend and start a thread about how annoyed I get by people thinking Berbick would beat prime Ali just because he beat washed up Ali.

 

Bingo. I'm still looking for all these people throwing Quarry in with the big boys.

 

The thing thats held against the Walcott era HWs is not just their size but the size of their opponents. Thus theres an idea they wouldn't have done as well against bigger fighters. Whereas Quarry fought in the 70s. Same goes for the 1900s(the decade not the century).

People considering someone like Louis, Ali or Usyk small is simply because in recent decades HW was dominated by Lennox, Klitschko,Fury,AJ and Wilder. Those sort of guys have always existed but they've traditionally been viewed as unskilled outliers relying on their size. For the first time we've reached a place where people are starting to see that as the standard HW.

 

Yeah, this is probably the most desperate attempt at some version of "the 70's are overrated and 40's/50's underrated" I've seen. Don't think many would favour Quarry or Ellis against Charles and Walcott and certainly not against Louis. Can't remember claims of that nature.

But many of the confusing threads involving fighters from these eras seem to have the end goal of "see, Marciano could absolutely beat Foreman, and Lewis and Tyson too". We'll see where this ends up.

 

I would need to see what you're seeing to know that it exists. And I'm not saying it doesn't, because we all hone in on different things, in fairness. I really have not noticed the tendency you're describing though.

 

Which people say this?

 

Can you point us to a post that says Quarry was a "modern sized heavyweight?"