How would Jerry Quarry be viewed as a contender in the 40's?

Quarry would have beaten everyone except Louis.

His best win would be over buddy bear

 

I believe Jerry Quarry would be a solid, top contender in any era. Had he come up in the 1940s I believe he would have done very well, although I don't see him doing very well against Louis. It would be interesting to see him in with Billy Conn, Bob Pastor, Buddy Baer, Lou Nova, and the Walcott of the mid-40s. He could beat them all, but he could be erratic and inconsistent at times, so he could drop a couple along the way. I could also see him going against the likes of Elmer Ray and Curtis Sheppard - these fights could be the 40s equivalent of his Mac Foster, Ron Lyle, and Earnie Shavers fights. Jimmy Bivins would probably give him a tough fight, and maybe Tiger Jack Fox. Overall, I see Quarry having an outstanding career in the 40s and maybe getting a couple of title shots against Louis.

 

Wasn't Bivins considered to be the "Interim Champ" while Joe was away in the WW2 Army?
Quarry beats Bevins by SD, and finally gets some form of Hvywt. Champion status (until Joe comes
bak home).

 

Yes, Bivins was the interim champ during WWII. You pose an interesting scenario of some possible title recognition for Quarry at that time. It is unfortunate that despite his successes in the late '60s and early '70s, Quarry never actually fought for the undisputed heavyweight title. The best he could get was the finals for the WBA title against Jimmy Ellis in 1968 and against Joe Frazier a year later for the New York State version of the title.

 

Quarry would be a regular top 10, but with that schedule and talent he loses alot more frequently.

Quarry against Murder Row? He might pick up a few wins but no way he is winning a series against Marshall, Bivins, Walcott, Charles, Moore...i even think Maxim beats him.

 

Id pick Quarry to be the top guy for a decade outside of Louis.

Not sure why Quarry couldnt beat Marshall, Walcott, Bivins, Moore, or Maxim. This nonsense with these murderers row guys needs to stop. Jersey Joe Walcott didnt get 18 losses being unbeatable. Bivins didnt get 25 losses being unbeatable. Maxim didnt get 29 losses and 4 draws being unbeatable. Lloyd Marshall didnt get 25 losses and 4 draws being unbeatable. Was a prime Quarry worse than Johnny Allen, Roy Lazer, Abe Simon, Tony Musto, Lee Q Murray, Charley Roth, Altus Allen, Johnny Flynn, John Thomas, Phil Mascuto, etc? No he wasnt. So if those guys can beat these supposedly unbeatable fighters Id give Quarry a good shot at it. The only one I might make a favorite is Charles and Im not even sure Id make him a favorite. He was a great LHW but his HW resume is spotty. Early on his competition at HW outside of an aging Walcott sucked and he split four fights with him. His competition got stiffer later and he lost a lot more. Its easy to say he was aging at that point but it might have been just as much that they were more capable big men than he was used to fighting. Regardless, I dont think because youre black and have a cool tag line like "murderers row" you are unbeatable. A guy as relatively big (compared to those guys) as Quarry, who hit as hard as he did and who could box well (in his prime anyway) while being as durable is going to notch wins against those guys especially in a series. Id have no problem favoring him over Marshall, Maxim, and Bivins (two wildly overrated fighters today). Id like favor him over the 1940s version of Moore as well. Id make him 50/50 against Walcott who like Quarry wasnt the most consistent performer at any point in his career.

I dont agree that frequency of fights would have affected his record. The guy fought an average of every 2 months for the ten years that he was really active from 1965 to 1975. That compares favorably with most fighters of the 1940s. With the exception of Chuvalo and Cranmer Id pick every guy he lost to to notch a win against anyone on the murderers row, Maxim, and Id give guys like Frazier and Ali a great shot at beating Louis himself. So I think you can stack him up well with anyone from the 1940s.

 

Quarry would've been a top 10 fighter. Depending on when in the 40's he came along, he'd likely pick up losses to Louis, Charles and Walcott. I definitely think he'd be a top 10 fighter.

 

Quarry might have beaten those guys but those guys might have beaten him as well. He arguably lost to a past his best, but still very good Floyd Patterson. He lost to an over the hill Machen who was out pointed by Moore KO victim Harold Johnson. So while the above named wouldn't be unbeatable to JQ, they also wouldn't be doomed to lose to him either.

 

The 40s was actually a pretty strong era from the top five down.

Quarry would be good enough to beat the best contenders, but not good enough to be consistent.

I think that he would be the #1 ranked contender at some point, and that he would have been popular with the boxing press of the time.

At the end of the day he would have been in the same position as everybody else i.e. in the shadow of the bomber.

 

Not very reasonable, and I just love how you are scared to quote me. You always do this, you try to pick at my posts but don't want to quote me because you know I'll respond and call you out. Like I'm about to do.

Okay, let's start with this pathetic childish straw man.

My quote:

" He might pick up a few wins but no way he is winning a series"

So you just went on this huge rant asking for nonsense to stop...but grossly misquoted me. What's the point in that?

Charles' HW resume is vastly superior to Quarry's.

You are picking the best version of Quarry.

Not considering that if Quarry was active in the 40s, we would see him battle with back injuries, cuts, and have even more off nights than he had in the 60s and 70s, given he would be mixing it up with more dangerous opponents on a more frequent basis.

Quarry was done after just 9 years and 60 plus fights.

Now put him in Bivins shoes. Fighting 15 years in 100 plus fights, at least over half being dangerous contender level opponents. Quarry's body isn't holding up.

 

Lol, yeah Im scared of the reply from a guy I know for a fact hasnt seen anywhere near the amount of footage on ANY of these guys or read as much coverage of them.

No Charles HW record isnt better, in fact its notable for how weak his level of competition is despite being a champ and having a lot of defenses. His record isnt better in terms of who he beat or who he lost to. Period. Particularly not in the era we are discussing: The 1940s.

The other fighters you mentioned not only dont have near the record of Jerry against top tough HWs but most of them have almost no meaningful HW wins in this time period. Im supposed to favor some middleweight or LHW with 25 losses over Quarry because he was black and someone says he was a supposedly feared member of a mythical made up group called "the murderers row" ?. No.

You can try to pump Bivins up all you want but he was a poor mans Jimmy Young of that era. At HW he was a spoiler. And in Quarry he would be facing a HW. You may try to use your imagination and shrink Quarry down to a manageable size for Bivins but thats not how this works in the real world. The best HW Bivins beat was Hatchetman Sheppard who had 30+ losses. But wait, I guess because hatchet was black and supposedly feared and notched a couple of decent wins against guys he outweighed 30 pounds he was great too, lol. See thats the problem with these guys everyone supposed to be ducking, it gets difficult to explain all of those pesky losses on their records without claiming these obscure guys they lost to who also have dozens of losses were also great and suddenly the idea of what actually makes a great fighter is so watered down and cheap its meaningless. Bivins wasnt any better at HW than a lot of other also rans. The guy claimed for years he was ducked and Louis shoulda fought him but he actually got into the ring with a shot Louis he ran like a chicken **** all night and stunk out the joint. Nope sorry, not buying hes any better than Quarry. Ive seen enough of him to know better. He wasnt bigger, didnt have a bigger punch, wasnt more durable, didnt have any better wins at HW, and Im not even sure he was a better boxer than Quarry whose skills are underrated.

 

Yeah, I never even said Quarry couldnt beat them. He just pulled a straw man there which i find to be insulting as they are unproductive.

I could see Quarry fighting these guys 2 to 5 times each. Thats just how it was in the 40s, I see him notching wins over them but overall I see them winning a series against him.

Even during his peak years, Quarry was inconsitent and injury plagued. I just dont see him beating these guys multiple times.