I'm sure Frazier enjoyed fighting Quarry very much. I can't see Dempsey doing any less well against Quarry. Probably ends it sooner.
This kind of thread is becoming popular: a good, tough heavyweight fighting an atg. Dempsey would win in brutal fashion.
It's not a first round ko for Jack, and quarry manages to get a few shots in, but by the seventh Dempseys landing at will. A brave effort as usual from quarry though.
Patterson was still plenty fast at 32. Other than that, I was not responding to you in particular but to the "blow out" responses being bandied about. One thing I will take issue with is this Dempsey/Frazier equivalency. Frazier's resume stacks higher and deeper. His best win dwarfs any victory that Dempsey ever had, and in fact, Frazier almost had that win 3 times (and certainly it is arguable he had it twice). In general, Frazier navigated significantly rougher and deeper seas with Ellis, Quarry, Ali, Mathis, Bonavena, Chuvalo and even Foster (if we are going to include Gibbons as remarkable win on Dempsey's ledger). So, while they had some stylistic similarities, they were not necessarily qualitative similarities. Again, my point being this is a closer fight than a blow-out. I still favor Dempsey, tho.
That's all very well but Quarry v Frazier is a far better baromoter than Quarry v Patterson, Shavers or Lyle that you were mentioning. It's not a "blow out" because Quarry was tough. But it would be a brutal beating, rather one-sided, and Quarry would lose by KO or TKO.
Dempsey however was the far greater technical fighter than Frazier with two handed KO power. With Joe Aside from the hook he had nothing else to bring to the table.
I remember Joe hit Quarry with a particularly hard right hand near the beginning of the 3rd round of the first fight that really signalled a one-sided beating was about to commence. He was also scoring well with the straight left. So I dispute the idea he had nothing aside from the hook. 8:51 This content is protected
Even if we take this flawed observation, we can still say that Joe... had nothing else to bring to the table but wins over better, and more likely FAR BETTER, opponents. At the end of the day, that is most of what matters.
Frazier definitely had the power in his right. He just didn't deliver it nearly as well nor as often. I suppose his body mechanics preferred the left, and using his right probably left him more open than he would've liked. His power overhand right was hard, but extremely short. He couldn't get the homerun range on it like Louis and Rocky.
It was very well known and understood that Frazier was what boxing trainers call a one armed fighter. That does not mean all he had was one arm. It does mean that Joe lacked good coordination between his left and right hands. You very rarely see Frazier put combos together that include right hands to the head. He lacked fluidity with his right hand. In fact Frazier never in his career knocked any fighter down with his right hand. Frazier himself stated his right was a work in process well into the latter stages of his career. All this was well known by those who lived through that era.
Problem for Quarry would be his severe lack of defense. He'd be catching far more than he lands and I believe Dempsey punched harder. Not a good sign. Dempsey would chop him up badly. Quarry was a brave tough guy but not an elite fighter. He'd have to catch Dempsey on a bad day to have much chance of being competitive in this match.
Ali aside, this list of Frazier victims is not exactly awesome. Chuvalo lost to most of the good men he fought. Mathis only beat Chuvalo. Foster never beat a good heavy. Bonavena was a notch above this group. Ellis and Quarry? Okay, but I think many tend to overrate them. I am not as big as some on Jack Sharkey, but I favor him over all these guys. And also Tunney of course. An on the down slope Dempsey still came close to beating Tunney. Quarry and Ellis weren't up to beating top men or giving them good fights at that age. I think Dempsey handles Quarry in a competitive fight.
