I9'll go with the Rahman jab to get the points in a close decision type bout. Like say 7-5 or something along those lines. Good fight and a hard matchup for both.
Best for best I take Rahman. He was a decent boxer and could hit very hard. I think Quarry is a bit light in the pants for him.
With modern nutrition and training, he could easily carry 215 and look solid. I agree he didn't look as quick in 70's when over 200 pounds but that was also late in his career at that weight. Fighter's back then didn't do weight training. Today, everyone does.
Rahman wasn't too good as a fighter, big and strong but not very good. Quarry was clearly more skilled. But he also had a tendency to get hit too much which wouldn't help him here. On the other hand, Quarry was also capable of sticking to a plan and outboxing bigger stronger guys. He did it to Ron Lyle. in the years since his death Ron lyle has become nearly invincible, or so it seems, so that should count for something.
My man, have you not been paying attention. According to almost everyone born after 1990, almost all of the "super heavyweights" of the last 20 years would beat almost all the heavyweights of previous eras because they are just too big. Skills really just don't matter.
He was a champion. Jerry can't say that. Like I said before, Rahman has a massive reach over Jerry and was a bigger guy. If Jerry had Tua's chin on him I would go with Jerry, but he doesn't. Easy money.
Like who? A 219 Lyle? Certainly not a 218 Norton. Is a 210 Shavers suddenly big? Cuz Rahman was 235 fit and trim.
Rahman was slow, and, had a terrible ring IQ. Very predictable. He was really only a small cut above guys like Obed Sullivan.
Rahman KO'd Lewis and Sanders. That's a pretty damn good top two pelts on one's resume. More than a "small cut" above Obed Sullivan.