Jerry Quarry - Jack Dempsey

I think I'm giving him the credit that he deserve's no less and no more, what makes Tunneys so great was not his punch variety ( which is limited 80% of time its the 1, 2 ) but his ring genrelship and his knowing to use his strength's at what he was good at.


Ali's has one the best variety of combinations in boxing history, yeah he never goes to the body often, but he's use's ever punch in the game to the head.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD99VbFzqAg&feature=related[/ame]

 

me too

 

More ******ation against Ali. Excellent!

 

@ Tunney-Ali even being a debate in the classic :-( I don't really care if Tunney can 'do more or hit as hard'. Ali's faster, more workrate, better jab, better right, much more range and height and much stronger, how Tunney is even getting past the 1-2 I just don't know. This match up should not require too much thought

 

deal

 

Quarry was a solid fighter but not in the class of Jack Dempsey...Quarry could beat the big slow sluggers like Mac Foster and Earnie Shavers, Than Spencer, Buster Mathis and Ron Lyle who he totally dominated but with faster explosive fighter like Dempsey, I am afraid he would be out of his league...He would be tough for a few round but Jack power and speed would be evident...I am thinking about the Jack Sharkey fight, Sharkey was tough and strong but something in his thinking was erratic... Quarry could fight the Big punchers but he was a notch lower than the Best....Dempsey in my top 5 despite the way his great fame left him stagnant late in his career he still showed his power and quick reflexes of hand not foot late in his career in the battle of the long count and the Sharkey left hook dispatch...Dempsey top 5 IMO...Quarry does not last the full route

 

:deal

 

Good post ... as always, it is a matter of class and styles ...

 

Sorry but as much as i'm a fan of Tunney, he is not on Ali's level. He is basically a smaller Ali with less rythm, movement and strength.

As for Dempsey v Quarry. I see Dempsey prevailing, Quarry was a really difficult fighter to classify and i think Dempsey just has a bit too much for him.

 

The Brennan rematch nicely illustrated Dempsey's staying power and perhaps shows you how he may have dealt with Quarry if the initial gust didn't blow the door in.

An important point to make note of with Dempsey is that he was, for all his 1st round exploits, a very measured boxer who did not blow a gasket by forcing the knockout; in the Brennan, Carpentier and Gibbons bouts you will observe a calculating reserve steering his fiery intent. Even in the Firpo fight early on short, sharp punches are the order of the day with very few swings out of range.

For every Tyson similarity there are blatant disparities between the two early hunters; one is inside ability, another is pacing. Dempsey was a longer fighter and consequently was better adapted to slip into his own breed of 'stick-and-move' while the shorter Tyson was secluded to throw in his increasingly crude assaults on men who did not suffer his mid-range blasts, ala Tony Tucker.

Dempsey could go for your throat or take a step back and pummel you for the long haul. The 'early rush' syndrome of Tyson does not hold with Dempsey; it's part of the reason why he was special; very unique and varied for a come-forward assailant.

For whatever bias may have tainted Arcel’s judgement when he reflected on the Mauler, the brunt of his pitch rested on the fact that Dempsey was such a well rounded fighter - the build, the speed, the power, the movement, and yes, the stamina. Sometimes he held his hands low, and he sighted the fact his style made it hard to retreat as his main stylistic niggle, but there really wasn't much missing, or at least worthy of serious criticism.

Ferocity is rightly at the forefront of descriptions when encapsulating Dempsey, but after that, Ted Spoon thinks 'complete'.

 

Thanks for actually making a post on the topic the thread.