Your right Ali was a cutting puncher and he did open that cut with a punch. Quarry was vunerable to cutting in general. More than the average fighter. That night in Atlanta would have been interesting if not for that cut. The circumstances with Ali's ringrust showing up after the first two rounds. Quarry was working his way into the fight before the cut occured. Would it be fair to say Quarry was still a bit green in his fights with Patterson?
You could definitely make that argument, yes. Maybe slightly green, in his 25th and 27th fights. But I reckon he was a lot closer to his best/prime than was Patterson. And I don't think he ever performed better. Also, like many others, I tend to rate the early Quarry as the best of him. I think he boxed and countered better, moved better, was quicker, in those years when he was still in his early 20s. In the 1960s.
I wasn't arguing about anything other than your suggestion that Quarry's "ridiculous inconsistency" accounts for why he'd lose to 'great' fighters or lose big fights. I'm pointing out that his consistency was normal for an ordinary contender below championship/elite level. It's not as if he was beating prime ATGs one night and then losing to unknown journeymen the next. He won some and lose some against other contenders, and consistently lost to the elite. I never said you said that. But you talk about him fighting "the wrong fight". I'm pointing out he had 2 chances against the both of them ...... and performed equally poorly or worse on the 2nd attempts ...... so I'll let you draw your own conclusions on that. It's pointless talking about fighting the wrong fight when he couldn't manage anything better on his 2nd chances. Don't be silly. It's not the first time I've heard "he fought the wrong fight", out of his style. I'm sure everyone has heard that. I'm just pointing out what a flimsy idea it is. Just because some press wrote something about him and repeated it dozens of times back in his day doesn't mean we have to buy into it wholesale. Same with the boxing press now. I wouldn't suggest you have to go check the press sources before forming a valid opinion of Anthony Joshua or Errol Spence or whoever. It makes little sense to say he "often" fights "atypical" of his style. If he was doing something so often, then it's a characteristic PART OF his style. The worst opponent he lost to in the prime of his career was Chuvalo. The best opponent he ever beat was Patterson. (& He was beaten quite severely in fights with Ali and Frazier.) That puts him quite firmly in a consistent (and fairly narrow) bracket. If you can't see that, I have nothing else to say on it. I didn't pretend Baksi was as good or better than Quarry. I said Quarry was better, but not much better. I don't rate Ezzard Charles particularly highly at all, either. But he's a notch above Quarry and Ellis.
Quarry was a very highly skilled fighter. Charles was an ATG though. Jerry focused and with a proper plan that he sticks too is a huge problem for most guys. Gotta go with Charles though by a decision. I always wondered how much a proper corner would have made a difference in Quarrys career. I dont consider his father a proper boxing trainer let alon a teacher.
I always liked Quarry but feel he’s overrated by many. He could barely edge by an old Patterson. He lost to a underrated but still beatable at heavyweight Ellis. Charles woulkd be too good.
No. You couldnt say he was fairly old at all. The man was 26 when he started fighting at Heavy full time, though he had been fighting heavies prior to that. Same age as Holyfield when he moved up. He was 27 when he won the World HW title. He was 30 when he lost the HW title. He was 32 when he challenged Marciano. I notice there is an agenda on this site to protray Charles as old light heavy who moved up when he was old. Truth is he was in his mid 20s. The facts are there.
Btw...Quarry isnt beating anyone he cant outbox. Quarry is not on Charles' level as a ring general. You can match a 174 lb Charles against a 200 pound Quarry. Quarry is still going to get cut to pieces.
Its not the age its the mileage. Charles had 68 fights in 9 years as a pro (taking over a year off during the war) against some of the best fighters in the world when he took the title. You can paint him as this prime heavyweight but he wasnt. He was fighting above his best weight and most experts at the time felt his best performances were behind him. Furthermore, prior to fight ing Walcott he had never fought anyone as good and as big as a Jerry Quarry and that includes Elmer Ray with his padded record (who Charles split two fights with). So I will continue to stand by my assertion that while Charles should be favored in a mythical matchup over Quarry he was by no means a sure bet.
It's erroneous to describe a pro athlete in his 20s as aged. You can't declare a fighter "aged by proxy" based off the number of fights he had either. There has to be an observable decline or other concrete factors to consider. Not to mention Charles was not an unusually busy fighter for that era, it was standard. It's best to just stick to the facts. Charles was not aged when he became a full time Heavyweight competitor. He was in his mid 20s and not on any observable decline. Nor did he suffer one until much later. It doesn't surprise me that Charles was more dominant against smaller or similar sized men, any fighter as great as he was would be. Regardless, he was still very successful against heavyweights. I'm not interested in any appeal to authority. I think Charles overcoming the 35 pounds and long jab of Joe Louis to become lineal HW Champion is more impressive than any of his Light Heavyweight victories. But he did face and defeat Walcott twice (arguably three times). Yes, he lost a close disputed decision to Ray before knocking him out in the rematch. Ray may have had a padded record, but Quarry doesn't have any wins over a younger future lineal Champion in the middle of a hot run. From his 46 comeback to his 51 loss to Walcott, Ray is the only man who can claim victory over Charles even if it was disputed and close. That's a hell of an accomplishment that Quarry can't touch. On the flip, Quarry never beat a fighter as skillful as Charles, somehow getting outfoxed by a gatekeeper version of Machen.
