I loved Quarry back in the day but if he lost to Jimmy Ellis he could lose to Adamek. But I wouldn't bet on Adamek until he racks up a few more good wins at HW.
Jimmy Ellis was on a pretty hot streak back in the late 60's though, and in my opinion, earned the right to be called the champ in Ali's stead. Today he is regarded as little more than a paper champion who's name is a mere foot note in the pages of boxing history. It should also be noted that Quarry vs Ellis was a very close fight that some felt could have gone either way... I don't know if Ellis is as good of an athlete as Adamek, but I'd say that his skills were just as sound if not more so..
Both Ellis's and Quarry's meetings with Patterson were controversial, but I think both men had a fair amount of success. Jimmy Ellis is a particularly underrated fighter at this day and age.. For a man who started his career at middle weight and picked up 5 early losses, he more or less super achieved.. Ali was in exile, while Joe Frazier did not compete in the late 60's heavyweight elimination tourney ( don't know why. ) Ellis stepped up and got wins over Quarry, Patterson, Bonavena and Martin. That's a lot of good guys to beat in such a short period of time and all of whom were considered live contenders. He had early success against Joe Frazier, but got worn down and beat by the better man, but I feel that Ellis has been a forgotten man in the grand scheme of things..
He was not 35-4-4 as you stated here. Also, by 1974, Quarry had lost 2 to Ali and 2 to Smokin' Joe Frazier. Quarry usually only lost to the best. As much as I like Quarry though he tended to run hot and cold. The Pole seems to be a more consistent fighter than Quarry ever was. There is no way Adamek could have beaten Ali or Frazier though no matter hard hard he trained.
Adamek 12 UD I like Quarry but Adamek is all wrong for him. Pole is bigger than him, has longer reach and a package of boxing skills and toughness. Adamek has very good punch output and is quite accurate with his shots. Quarry is the more experienced fighter at HW, but remembet that just like Adamek he fought many times with guys who were about 200 lb. Golota was shot but it was Adamek's (former 175 beltholder) first fight at HW - for me that is something. Estrada - this guy can box. He is big and wide, hard to hit, accurate and slick. I don't think that many fighters would look good against him and Adamek won clearly and it was only his 2nd HW fight. Arreola - from what I remember, most posters stated that Cris is to big and will crush Adamek. Everybody saw what happened. Tom danced and pot shoted 250 pounder. There were some who described Adamek as a brawler - that is wrong. He is one of those fighters who can adjust to a gameplan. He can box, he can brawl, he can slug it out. We saw him aggresive and we saw him as a counterpuncher. Quarry is savvy and tough but I think Adamek wins pretty easily.
Quarry wins this one. Adamek looks pretty good, but Quarry was a very good fighter. He was somewhat inconsistent, but an excellant fighter.
I personally think that a 1973 Jerry Quarry would have been very difficult to beat... He was 28 years old, in great shape, and had what many feel was his best year in boxing... He fought some 5 times that year beating prime versions of Lyle and Shavers, plus some other respectable foes.. As it currently stands, Adamek is 33 years of age, has only fought maybe 3 times at heavyweight against no one of serious note, and doesn't particularly hold much of a size advantage over Quarry who actually stopped much bigger men....
I disagree magoo. Arreola and Estrada are serious tests at HW but I agree that Adamek didn't showed everything that he is capable to do. He has only 3 fights at HW but he fought with good fighter in Arreola and Estrada. Remember that he also was The Ring champion at CW and he fought there with guys with similar size to those 70's heavies. Steve Cunningham would be a top 10 heavyweight in the 70's and Quarry was the size of O'Neill Bell (declining while facing Adamek though). Jerry also lost to less talented fighters than Tomasz.
Chris Arreola has a nice record with some impressive KO's, but he's limited in skill and shows up deconditioned to just about everyone of his fights... Eric Estrada is not a world class fighter no matter how we cut it, and Golata is 42 years old. As for your comment about the cruiserweights being of comparable size to today's heavyweights, it may hold true when sizing them up to Quarry who was only 195 lbs, but some of the men who Jerry beat were a lot larger than even today's cruisers. And franky, I don't think that the fighters Quarry lost to were less talented than the ones that Tomasz did.. How many talented fighters has he faced afterall? Finally, I don't how you think that steve Cunningham would have been a force in that 70's era... Sure, he might have made top 10 like you say, but that wouldn't have made him part of the very upper tier..
You might be underestimating Smoking Joe dude. The only fighter who dominated Frazier and made him look bad was the prime George Foreman. Ali had life and death with Frazier in their first and third fights. Even the second one was closely contested. Frazier would apply consistent, suffocating pressure against Adamek. I like Adamek but even Estrada was able to hang tough with him and land his fair share of blows. If that had been Frazier instead of..... Not a good thing for TA.
I say that George Chuvalo or even Jimmy Ellis were less talented fighters than Adamek. Quarry beat much migger man? Who? 6'3 219 Lyle (in his 20th pro fight)? I wouldn't say that he was bigger than Arreola (you say that Arreola is limited and I would reply the same thing about Lyle. Both are very dangerous though). 6'0 210 Shavers? Estrada is 6'1 and 240. Buster Mathis? C'mon... Machen was 193, Frazier 203, Ellis 197... Quarry never beated really good 6'2 220 pounder