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

Facts? I posted clear facts. You didnt have to be even close to a world beater to beat a guy like Bivins. Period. Its nothing but revisionism to rate him as highly as you do. Simple as that. Any moron (except you) can cross compare the records of guys like Marshall who wasnt even a HW at the time in question and the guys that beat him and see he wasnt some monster thats throwing the fear of god into a guy like Quarry. Ashamed of myself? No, Im ashamed at a younger generation of idiots who buy into hyperbole around these guys without using the god given gift of critical thinking in order to come up with an informed opinion of them. No, Im not scared to match wits with you because you would first a wit to match much less wits and you have neither. Go back and tell me again how great guys like Johnny Allen, Roy Lazer, Abe Simon, Tony Musto, Lee Q. Murray, Charley Roth, Altus Allen, Johnny Flynn, John Thomas, Phil Muscato were to notch numerous wins over your pet favorites? No? Didnt think so. Yeah Quarry lost his big fights but Id put four losses against two top five all time HWs (one of whom was #1) against anybody any of your pets lost to. Jimmy Ellis? Yeah Id put him up against them as well. Fact is most of Quarrys losses anywhere near his prime came against Hall of Fame HWs with bonafide all time great wins on their record and his wins stack up with any win a guy like Bivins notched. He fought in the greatest, most competetive era of HWs in history and was rated in the most of that era. Bivins cant boast that despite fighting in the talent depleted 40s. The only reason anyone even knows who he is is because some hipsters dug his fake "duration champion" title out of the trash.

 

Hi everyone, I remember reading as a kid that Quarry believed he would have handled Marciano easily. I think he said something like he was " absolutely certain " he could have handled Rocky. Whether it is true is another matter but Quarry believed it was. He definitely had a height, reach and size advantage over Rocky and also had MUCH faster hands. I wouldnt put much difference in Jerry's left hook vs Rocky's right hand as far as power goes either.

What Jerry didnt have was Marciano's cold mindset and ability to keep his cool. Rocky was a ferocious piece of work and a guy who certainly didnt " overthink " when he was in the ring unlike Quarry who could be a bit too thoughtful in my opinion and who fought the wrong fight tactically on more than a few occasions. .

Quarry's best wins of Lyle, Shavers, Mac Foster and his draw and win against Floyd Patterson are actually all round stronger performances than Rocky's best opponents in my opinion.

Its debatable but I believe so anyway. Size and freshness are very important at Heavyweight.

I believe Jerry would do VERY well in the 1940s.

Cheers All.

 

You don't really deal in facts, you deal in strawmen. And this statement here:

"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."

This might be the most factually wrong statement anyone on this site has posted. Again, same old song and dance from you. You present yourself as an enlightened expert but have no clue what the heck you are talking about.

Outside of the names Bivins, Marshall, and Quarry...this has nothing to do with anything I said. Can you address my actual comment? I know it's hard to do, as you typically just want to go on weird rants against arguments of your own invention..but if you are going to quote me, I would appreciate if you addressed me.

Kind of like people high on the 70s that make out Jerry Quarry to be a world beater to boast the already rich resumes of their favorites.....

And if we really want to go down this road, Jimmy Bivins was undefeated in his 4 year prime run, and beat about 6 Hall of Famers in two weight classes. Just saying...

This is kind of a stupid way to argue anyway as we are discussing how Quarry would do over the course of a decade, not a magic Quarry that stays prime for every fight.

This is the most surreal statement I've ever seen. And kind of disrespectful.

I would say the discovery of Bivins' ill treatment in old age back in 2009 brought a lot of mainstream media attention to his Hall of Fame career and achievements.

 

Why did you like a post that states:

"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. "

Do you prescribe to this abuse of facts? Does fantasy typically inform your arguments?

Will you admit that you either didn't read Klompton's ill informed post or simply don't know nothing about the era?

 

Why is it such a huge thing that he liked someones post? Seriously, who cares?

 

Then why do you care? Im interested in the weird psychology of this place.

Are you worried I will call you out for liking a fact abusing post? Its also obvious to me that there are more usernames in this thread than actual posters, and isnt that just weird? Lol . Creating alts to like your own posts..is there a prize I should know about?

 

The guy is polite and insightful and has made some great posts recently. Why harrass him over liking a post? We've lost enough fine posters without running more out of the place.

Do you have proof of more usernames vs posters? Haven't dual accounts been banned?

Aren't you an alt due to being permanently banned or have i been reading that all wrong?

More than happy to be educated as to what people are liking their own posts thru different usernames. Interesting accusation. I'm all for one username.

 

[url]http://www.darwindogs.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Eye-Roll-GIFS.gif[/url]

[url]https://media.giphy.com/media/SY98QgUymDW92/giphy.gif[/url]

[url]http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/nice-try-gif-2.gif[/url]

[url]https://media0.giphy.com/media/3oxRmGWG6wJ7jmBjHO/giphy.gif[/url]

 

well, I to a considerable degree share skepticism about "murderers row" designation for WWII contenders.

To begin with, out of a total population of 130 million, about 15 million men served in the military (also over a million women) during the war. When we eliminate women, the old, the very young, and the infirm, the percentage of youthful men of boxing age in the military must be very high. And many of the others were working full-time in war-related occupations. It was a total effort.

My questions would be not only the boxers themselves, but what about the trainers, the sparring partners, etc. Were most gyms actually open full-time? It seems to me that boxing on war-time footing would have to suffer a tremendous dip in quality. And were the guys who were active fighters actually training? I read years ago that Ezzard Charles was in the army when he fought Bivins and Marshall in 1943 and not training at all. He took the two fights to get money to send home to his family. I don't know the truth of this, but would point out that the results for Bivins and Marshall were quite different when they faced a trained Charles after the war. How do we evaluate results when fighters are in the service but taking fights when they have a weekend pass?

This certainly brings up Bivins, who was a top contender during the war, but proved ordinary after the war, dropping completely out of the ratings in 1946 and 1947, remaining out of the ratings most years, and never getting back into the top five yearly rankings.

He is not alone, the two most successful wartime white heavyweights, Tami Mauriello and Melio Bettina, each at one time the number one contender, proved vulnerable after the war. Gus Lesnevich, who was in the service during the war, returned to KO both in 1947. I wouldn't overrate Gus here, but I think his post-war success exposes the quality of war-time competition.

But, the facts of boxing life during WWII don't lift Ellis or Quarry. Yes they lost to two ATGs, but they went 0-7 with 7 KO defeats and with none of the fights particularly competitive. Just losing doesn't prove anything. Conn against Louis gains stature because he fought well. Likewise Walcott against Louis, or Ray against Charles and Walcott. Truth is Bonavena and Bugner performed better against Ali and Frazier than Ellis and Quarry did.

My take on Quarry is about like Janitor's. He might, like a lot of other contenders over the decades, have had a shot at a title if he fought the right man at the right time, such as Leon Spinks or the 1933 Sharkey, etc. But normally, he would be what he was in his own era. A guy who came up short against the best.

 

And i think that it is perfectly possible just like bonavena too

 

Excellent, let's have a reasonable debate on this subject and see what ground we can cover.

Not sure on the military story or how much it effected his performance. The Bivins fight is only one month removed from a dominating performance over rated HW Joey Maxim, which would have been Charles' biggest win at that point.

So I think Bivins vs Charles I is very much an on the level meeting between two young fighters, though Bivins was 25 years old and certainly closer to his apex while Charles was very much just a kid and wouldn't fully blossom until after the War.

Marshall however was 6 plus years older than Charles and had been a pro far longer; no doubt he was prime during these bouts. It should be noted that Marshall was already 32 and 33 and on a skid when Charles avenged the loss. We never saw a prime Charles vs prime Marshall meeting.

Bivins was supposedly badly injured by MPs during service in 44 and never quite returned to form. So he is just as much a victim of the War.

Let's look at Bivins defeats during 46 and 47 and see if it's really a case of new talent emerging after the War:

*A very close SD to Walcott, a fellow Murder Row member active during the War Years.

*2 losses to Lee Murray, an arch rival and Murder Row member also active during the War Years. Murray nearly defeated a prime Bivins in 43 but was soundly defeated in a rematch that might have been Bivins' greatest moment. So Murray was always a tough match up for Bivins.

*2 losses to Charles, a peaking 25 year old who was in fact a fresh return after the War. Yet Bivins defeated him before the War when they were both fairly fresh and young.

*A loss to Moore, again...a rival and Murder Row member active during the War Years whom Bivins' defeated. Moore by this time had been revitalized by stomach ulcer surgery, he was no longer vastly out weighed by Bivins.

So Bivins downfall was brought upon by 4 men. All 4 were fellow Murder Row fighters. 3 of which he had previous wins over. 2 of which were long time rivals during the War years.

Going beyond 46 and 47 all of Bivins losses incurred from 48-49 would be from Charles, Moore, and Maxim. Again outside of Charles, two war time rivals he previously defeated in his prime.

By mid 1949, Bivins was entering his 30s and started playing tough gate keeper, trading wins with younger fighters and such.

To be fair Gus had beat Tami twice before the War effort.

Gus was dominated by Bivins before the War effort and went on record that he would not defend the title against him before leaving for service.

Gus was dethroned by Mills...After Mills was demolished by a past prime 33 year old Marshall. So what exactly does that tell us? Gus ducked an aged Black Murder Row Contender after the War to fight the man destroyed by him and still lost.

I don't think there should be any doubt Gus was inferior to Moore, Marshall, and Bivins. He didn't expose anything.

Mills and Gus would also lose to war time fighter Maxim, who might as well be an honorary member of the Murder Row.

 

"Gus Lesnevich" "He didn't expose anything."

He exposed Tami Mauriello and Melio Bettina. Mauriello was the #2 contender to Bivins in 1942 & 1943, the #2 contender to Bettina in 1944, and the #2 contender to Conn in 1945 (Conn had not fought since 1942) and rode his wartime record to be the #1 contender in 1946. The fact that Gus beat Tami before the war only shows to me that, yes, the level of wartime competition was down some, and Lesnevich, who was off from 1942 to 1946, was really better than the best white heavyweights out there, although not as good as Conn before the war.
Bettina was the #1 contender in 1944. He had a win, loss, and draw in three fights with Bivins, and was undefeated against everyone else from 1941 to 1947, before being blown out in one by Lesnevich.

"Charles in the service and not seriously training for Bivins and Marshall"

This claim was in a paperback on the heavyweight champions published right after the first Ali-Frazier fight. I really can't vouch for its accuracy. Who knows what research the author did? Just because something gets published in a book doesn't make it correct. What does stand out is that Charles' performances were really poor in these two fights compared to his fights before and for more than a decade afterwards. He was knocked down something like 15 times in those two fights. Not training properly could explain it. I would like more and better info about it if anyone has it.

Charles and Bivins ages--they are not that far apart. Bivins was born in Dec, 1919. Charles in July, 1921. Age should not have been a factor in the fights after the war. I had not heard about Bivins being injured in the service. Could you give details? But one thing, he won a dozen fights after coming back in 1945 & 1946 before losing three in a row, including among them a win over Moore.

"Walcott"

Walcott started fighting again in 1944. I don't see him as a member of a wartime murderers row as his best years and victories were all after the war. What he and Elmer Ray do show is that there was untapped black talent out there which the war era allowed to be tapped.

"Marshall"

Marshall did KO Mills, but Lesnevich had KO'd Mills the year before in a championship match. And Maxim KO'd Mills three years later.

His NY Times obituary lists Maxim as being in the service from 1943 to 1945. But he fought a lot in those years, including 1944, while an MP. Did he train well for these fights? Bettina was also in the service. and Bivins. I think it hard to judge how trained these men were for a top effort even if taking fights on off days. Is it important that Maxim proved better than Bivins in 1948?

Still, what about WWII itself. 15 million men in the service, not to mention an even greater impact on much of the rest of the world. Is this really the era which would produce a "murderers row" for the ages?

On Bivins--his opposition was really formidable. Going through his record, I would CONSERVATIVELY estimate that he fought at least 70 of his 112 fights against men who were at one time or another rated in the top ten. The Boxing Register lists 45 of his fights as being against top ten opponents at the time he fought them. As far as I can tell, all or almost all of his postwar losses were to men at one time or another top ten and generally when he fought them. Bivins defeated eight world champions.

 

Mauriello's #1 rating is kind of puzzling, honestly. He preserved his record from 44-46 by staying out of the mix, I think Walcott with his wins over Baksi, Bivins, Oma, & Murray was clearly the best HW entering 46.

Prior to Gus' win, Mauriello got demolished by Louis, then got badly mauled by Shkor. There was nothing left to expose, he was on the way out, and Gus already had his number before the war.

Bettina is certainly Gus' best win I would wager, even if it's kind of fishy. That one win really doesn't expose the War Years and Murder Row though.

I disagree. It's a messy situation in 46 and I don't see Gus as a clear front runner given he lost to Woodcok & Oma then Mills & Maxim.

Bivins and Marshall were the first real LHW punchers he faced at this point. I heard Charles got injured against Marshall but that isn't much of an excuse, since it likely was from a KD.

I don't think age itself was the factor. I think Bivins just peaked and declined at a younger age, he certainly grew into LHW faster, having 9 pounds on Charles in their first meeting.

According to biographer Jerry Fitch, Bivins was struck in the ehad by Military Police and left unconscious for two days, apparently suffering some nerve damage.

Bivins had about 20 pounds on Moore in that fight. If he did slip, I think it's clear you still needed to be pretty darn excellent and physical to beat Bivins until at least 49.

Well do you believe cuddling produces great fighters or experience? These guys were all baptized in fire, it made them hard and experienced. There is very little left to doubt. I also feel Maxim, LaMotta, and other white fighters benefited from this harsh scheduling.

On the topic at hand. Sure Quarry beat Lyle and Shavers, but could he beat them 2-5 more times over a period of several years? That's what Bivins had to do against Charles, Murray, Maxim..etc.