Did Jerry Quarry became underrated ?

Norton had a fine career post Foreman. People still opine he beat Ali in fight III and he ran Holmes right down to the wire. He also pole axed Quarry.

But Duran as i said wasn't remotely near the conquest Ali was vs Norton at that time. Laing had lost two of his previous 5 fights pre Duran, one against a guy 9-7-2. His two wins were against a guy 15-16-0 and another at 13-0-0.

 

It's far from fantasy though, there was a proposed date 'before' Roman in mid- 73, which Foreman's camp said wasn't enough time (in June i think) to which Clancy said it was BS and he was happy to move it later that year (October/November). Bugner was also mentioned as an opponent but Quarry seemed the more likely. All of a sudden Roman enters the fray and gets the shot. Then Quarry is moved behind Norton, when it looked like he would be getting first shot...then by early 74 he wasn't even getting the 3rd shot.

Well, that'd be good. His 74 certainly made up for 73 at least.

Well yes, when we say 'Foreman', we mean his camp. King had his grubby hands on it, definitely.

 

He did, he's robbed against Ali in 76, a grand effort vs Larry and maybe a bit lucky with Young but Kenny's career and Quarry's were at different stages (Jerry had retired in 1972 before embarking on a comeback). But my argument is far more about time and place than yours (or Swag's) really.

It was. Both were Ring's Upset of the Year- and for similar reasons. Norton-Ali was a bit bigger but not "remotely near"? Nah.

 

I'm not sure what's "far from fantasy" tho? My "fanciful fantasy" comment wasn't about the fight being proposed or talked about, it was purely aimed at reasons "for that fight falling thru".

i.e. I've shown that prior to Quarry walking up the steps to Shavers Foreman was deep in negotiations to fight Norton yet plenty of people still trumpet Quarry's impressive KO of Shavers as the turning point. This is a prime example of "fanciful fantasy" as it's simply not true.

Foreman faced Ali, Frazier x 2, Norton and Lyle in a 3 year 5 month period with 1 1/4 period where he sulked and didn't fight. That's a solid top end over that time period. To me anyway.

King was there somewhere. He did bring Shavers to the Quarry fight before flying off without him after he lost.

 

I've put a solid amount into time and place. I've argued Norton was actually the higher rated contender and also that his brace of fights with Ali put him above Quarry as an opponent especially given Quarry's result against Ali. Whether Quarry and Clancy thought they had a fight coming or not there was nothing in Quarry's resume putting him above Norton or even level with him IMO. Remember this is prior to Shavers as George was already deep in negotiations with Kenny and possibly Don.

Duran was barely scraping into the top 10 at the time and talking time and place the fact is many thought Duran was washed up (quit vs SRL and barely won a couple of rounds out of 15 vs Benitez) and almost everyone did after he lost to Laing. Laing got almost zero credit from the win and that's a fact, upset of the year or not.

Ali was #2 in the world. It's no surprise Norton's results vs The Greatest thrust him forward in a big way.

So i'll stand by not remotely near. Some will agree, some won't but it's all right there on the table.

If we go into hindsight the gap is even bigger, HUGE actually.....but we don't even need to go that route, again, IMO.

 

You've put around the Shavers fight timeline only it seems (mostly from a NY Times article) - a time when it appeared he'd been in negotiations with Norton's camp and Quarry's camp which we've established and agreed on. Like I said earlier, he chose Norton instead but Quarry's team had a right to feel aggrieved.

I know this, and didn't argue otherwise. But Quarry had beaten Lyle, Shavers and Middleton- all of whom appeared in the top 10 in 1972/73, hence why he deserved his shot- one big win shouldn't necessarily provide a fighter with a shot at the title. Norton was maybe a case of 'too much too soon'.

An upset is a two-way thing though, Laing's rating was far below Norton's at the time and Kenny was on a decent enough run to get him into the Top 10. This example was used as a reply to your suggestion that if if Norton hadn't got a shot at Foreman early 74, George would have been criticised if he'd chosen Quarry instead (or similar words) and I disagree- it would have hardly been mentioned.

Well, i typically don't and only have in response. Two fighters clearly at different stages of their careers. One had his last chance and the other maybe wasn't quite ready.

 

Yeah it's a key time for me. If Foreman had veered away from Quarry after the impressive KO of Shavers it wouldn't be close to the same conversation. It's a very important point.

Quarry had a right to feel aggrieved, yes. By the same token if Foreman about faced after the Shavers fight and said nah i'm fighting Quarry then Norton would have felt aggrieved. These things happen all the time. Leonard did it a fair bit. Hearns didn't fight Hagler, ali played the game too etc etc etc......the jilted has the right to feel aggrieved, by all means.

All very arguable. Quarry hadn't beat Shavers at the time Foreman moved onto Norton.

We might well be on different wavelengths. I am not talking about Foreman being criticised at the time, i am talking about now. Foreman absolutely would have been critiqued over why he didn't fight Norton way back then just like some critique why he didn't fight Quarry. This is inarguable for me. I'm seen him critiqued/criticised over much much smaller things which invariably happens to countless others too.

Perhaps we are on a different wave again. Are you still talking about Duran and Ali as the two fighters? We were on Ali being a bigger conquest than Duran, both at the time of the fight. An upset is similar but not the same.

 

What griped me about the whole deal FOREMAN/QUARRY they both would have made $million to 2$$mill dollars, been the biggest payday for both, I'd make George maybe a 12-5 fav, albeit Jerry fought his best at these sorta circumstances, and always beat the big intimadating slugger, Mathis, Foster, Lyle and Shavers were a combinded 118-3 w/ 106 Knockouts all 4 ranked anywhere from #1 to #5 in the world. And Jerry barely lost a round in any of these bouts! (knockdowns 3-0)

 

Hi ronny.
You have made some valid observations, and on point, all of which I agree with, BUT we are talking about the Foreman of the early 70s and if they would have fought I believe Jerry ( my fav HW ) to be in serious trouble, not unlike the Chuvalo fight, he would be pushed and shoved around by big George, whilst taking huge roundhouse punches from both fists, unless Jerry can unload early and maybe, just maybe, force a
stoppage, I don't see him hearing the bell for the 4th, or thereabouts, also sadly, the fight would only add to the amount of punches that shortened his life.
stay safe buddy, chat soon.

 

I wouldn't really categorize Mathis as an intimidating slugger. And Foster's number 1 rating was absolutely absurd. He beat exactly ZERO top ten fighters. I will grant you, Quarry's results against Lyle and Shavers were very impressive.

 

Gotta agree it is a pity that fight didn't happen, even if the most probable scenario was Foreman blasting Jerry badly.

It is true that Jerry somehow excelled against sluggers and with his counterpunching ability and toughness he has a chance to pull an upset for the ages... you never know.

 

With the same logic I ponder your opinion on Wilder vs Foreman?

 

Agree with you. I personally hate the old “Irish” nickname for American fighters. Imagine a black fighter born in Ireland using that nickname.

 

NO ONE WOULD FITE BUSTER MATHIS,, WATCH HIM AGAINST JOE FRAZIER GEORGE CHUVALO AND GET YOUR OWN OPINION, HE MAY NOT BEEN THE BIGGEST SLUGGER BUT HE WAS AN IMPOSISING FIGURE WITH SPEED. the Kayo of Foster another one know one would fite, was simply fierce and magnificant power display, only time Foster was ever knocked out.

 

The fight was signed shortly after Quarry-Shavers right?

Whether the Shavers fight came in to the equation or not (and it well could have if it wasn't signed already by then), the thing is that Foreman chose the fight with less money. That almost never happens. I can't see many having a problem with choosing whichever meant the most money of the two, but choosing the one that meant the least money of them does set off alarms.