Okay, Quarry has the better resume and is more proven against a larger selection of quality fighters. But how do we see this unfolding head to head and stylistically? Jerry was one of the better counter punchers that I can think of and a technically sound boxer with decent ( but not great ) power. I'm not sure how many south paws he's ever faced and more specifically one with Sander's combination of power and hand speed. Neither man was especially durable. Quarry had the tendency to get decked frequently and cut up well. Sanders had poor late round stamina and was KO'd or stopped in all of his four defeats.. Sanders was noticeably the much larger man at 6'4" and a prime weight of around 220-225, while Jerry was around 6'0" and fairly consistently at about 195. Not sure who I'd go with. Legacy wise, Jerry is a top 100 heavyweight, while Sanders might not be. But I think in the ring, its pretty even money.
I'm confident Quarry especially at his best would win this fight. Sanders with his power can potentially score an early round knock out against pretty well anyone but Quarry wasn't an easy guy to knock out and I think he wouldn't have to much trouble lasting a few rounds with Sanders. Sanders always slowed down after the first few rounds and once that happens I think Quarry would take over completely eventually finishing off Sanders or at least winning a clear decision.
Quarry all the way. Sanders was on the cusp of being something truly special, but it never quite happened.
I would take Quarry to the bank on this, as long as he gets past the first 3 or 4 rounds he's in a very good position to win the fight.. Sanders had poor conditioning, and that would off set his size advantage, Quarry had to much heart to lose to this guy..
Just one thing to consider. Corrie Sanders wasn't ALWAYS deconditioned when he was younger and actually fought in a fair amount of fights that went 10 rounds and even one or two that went 12. Of course, he was inconsistent in that manner, and the men he showed up in good shape against and went to the cards with were not contenders like Quarry. But the truth still stands that his stamina and conditioning did not always fail him. Jerry was the better fighter from a lot of different standpoints. But as a much smaller man who got decked and cut regularly, going in against a fast starting south paw with quick hands, a big punch, and an obvious size advantage, his odds are probably not as good as they look on the surface.
I lean with Jerry here but he has to get past some dangerous fast hands from a southpaw, I favor Jerry's stamina and chin but Sanders could hit and Jerry never liked speed
Jerry Quarry was a far better fighter than Corrie Sanders. It is possible that Sanders could beat Quarry if he was extremely lucky, but otherwise, forget about it. - Chuck Johnston
And Quarry was truly special? Quarry was definition of the cusp. Sanders has his shot in the first 5 or 6 rounds. If Jerry survives, then it plays more into his hands. Both knew how to arrive out of shape and distracted. Wouldn't lay a bill on this one unless I had inside news from the camps. Sanders quite a bit more talented but Jerry had skills.
Sanders is a classic frontrunner. If Quarry can last past 6, he'd probably take it for me. Corrie's dangerous early, though. Not a fight I'd bet on either way.
Bingo. Most of the better contenders Quarry defeated didn't have the kind of handspeed to complement their power the way that Sanders did. As soon as he got in the ring with Ali and Frazier, he lost emphatically. Sanders can't be rated in the same tier of quickness as those men of course. But he certainly had faster hands than Lyle, Shavers, Mathis, Foster and possibly even the aged version of Patterson who for all practical purposes beat him.