Marciano would obliterate quarry, and Quarry's face would look as bad as George Foreman's after his gift against Alex Stewart, if not worse.
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/jerry-quarry-vs-rocky-marciano-primes.297806/ https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/prime-v-prime-jerry-quarry-v-marciano.206164/ https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/rocky-marciano-vs-jerry-quarry.596516/ https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/rocky-marciano-vs-jerry-quarry.532206/ https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/quarry-vs-marciano.13587/ https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/jerry-quarry-vs-rocky-marciano.60550/ https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/jerry-quarry-v-the-following.236442/
Quarry said that he would handle marciano easily and i could be agree with him. Much faster .15 pounds bigger,more skilled and the bad styles for quarry were cute boxers,he did pretty well against slower punchers. Joe Frazier was much faster ,20 pounds bigger than marciano and his Work intensity and constant pressure was much worse for quarry than anything that rocky could offer
Quarry would prove a damn sight tougher than a lot of Marciano s opposition did .He gives him a harder time than Moore , that I'm certain of .
I honestly don't think he'd do as good as Walcott (at least as far as clearly winning before the end) or certainly not as good as Ezzard Charles from the first fight. He'd probably do as good as Moore did.
It would be an entertaining fight. Both guys are easy to hit. Quarry needs to box but also get Marciano`s respect not an easy thing to do. There would be blood in this one. If I have to pick I`m gonna go with the guy who found a way to win everytime. Jerry Quarry one of my favorites sometimes found a way to lose. Rocky was consistent and he would be in Jerry`s face non stop and Quarry as tough as he is can`t take it all night.
That is possible, but Marciano was cut in all his major fights.Two of which would have been stopped in Quarry's era.
I remember an article decades ago in I think Boxing Illustrated in which Quarry said he thought he could handle Dempsey, but actually had a higher opinion of Marciano and didn't claim he could beat him. Could someone give the actual citation for Quarry saying he could easily handle Marciano. But Quarry thinking this or that doesn't make it true, anyway. I think Dempsey beats Quarry easily.
My take is Quarry seems to be the most overrated fighter on this board. I heavily favor Marciano by a KO.
Joe frazier was much better than Dempsey and joe could not beat quarry "easily". So you got no credibility.
I rate Frazier above Dempsey, but it all comes down to "easily" doesn't it. Bottom line is Bonavena and Bugner gave Frazier much tougher fights. I just re-watched both of the Frazier-Quarry fights, and frankly, I saw both as one-sided. The 1969 fight of the year fight was competitive for about three rounds, and then was just Frazier pounding away on Quarry. "Domination" was the word Cosell used, and Angelo Dundee agreed. The second fight was not as close, and by the fifth Frazier even seemed for a bit to be reluctant to keep punching Quarry. Cosell pointed out that Quarry simply did not have a good defense. In fairness to Quarry, he showed great courage in standing up to beatings, but I don't think he showed either great skill or power. As for Dempsey, I think while Frazier was perhaps better and certainly more relentless, Dempsey probably had more explosive punching power, and I just don't see Quarry as likely to be a particularly tough opponent given his obvious weaknesses. "So you got no credibility." I can live with that.