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

"do you believe cuddling produces great fighters"

I know this was just a typo but I just can't resist. Fighters need loving too. Depends on the girl.

Okay, seriously, do you mean "coddling"? And the answer is no. Fighting the toughest out there hones basic talent.

But you haven't really come to grips with so many men of fighting age being in the service. Louis and Conn stopped fighting in 1942. Charles in 1943. Lesnevich and Pastor in 1942. Others were serving but fighting on weekend passes. And one has to assume that the conveyor belt of new talent stalled. Isn't the logic pretty convincing that the talent level would fall during the actual war.

"These guys were all baptized in fire"

This seems to be referring to being in the war itself. I agree, but hardened veterans getting into boxing would have no impact until 1946 or so.

"Bivins"

Thanks for the info on his injury. This might well have effected his later performances.

But, it is also possible that he simply faced better competition. Charles and Moore improved. Walcott was better, as you pointed out, than the wartime group. Bivins' victory over Maxim in 1942 was when Joey was only 20. Maxim probably improved by 1948. Bivins lost a couple of times to Murray, but later beat him. Bottom line is that it might be impossible to judge how much the Bivins slippage is due to him not being what he was and how much is due to improved postwar competition.

"Tami Mauriello"

One reason Tami was probably so well thought of in the ratings was that he was such a prodigy. His split decision loss in his first championship loss to Lesnevich came when he was 17. He drew with the proven Pastor when he was 18. And he was not yet 20 when he had his two close fights with Bivins. I suppose folks drew the reasonable conclusion that he would improve, which proved wrong.

"Bettina"

Well, the "murderers row" held no terror for him. He beat Tiger Jack Fox, Harry Bobo, Mose Brown, Lou Brooks, Curtis Sheppard, Buddy Walker, Booker Beckworth, and Eddie Blunt, as well as Bivins. Only Bivins ever beat him--the two going win, loss, draw in three matches.

"Bettina is certainly Gus' best win I would wager, even if it was kind of fishy."

Why fishy? This is the first I have heard of this fight being a fix or anything. Lesnevich was noted after the war for having a dangerous right which could take a man out.

By the way, just on Gus, Billy Fox was the #1 contender going into 1947, not Charles or Moore. So he defended against the top rated man I think. Hard to say if he or his management knew of any possible fixes to build up Fox. The Mills fight in 1946 made sense as Len Harvey had been a championship claimant before Mills beat him. It was sort of a unification fight.

 

Yeah he likely would have gotten a belt in the early 1980's. What I meant if being recognized as "The" champion like Holmes was.

It would have been great if Quarry was a belt holder in 1985 and Spinks moved up to fight Quarry.

 

I think if Marciano fought Patterson, the result would've been very different when Marciano landed clean shots as opposed to when JQ landed clean on Patterson. I wouldn't say Lyle, Shavers and Foster are better than Walcott, Charles and Moore, bigger but not better. And even with the size, it's debatable whether Lyle, Shavers and Foster could've taken Walcott, Charles and Moore.

The one knock on Marciano is that he never beat a so-called quality heavyweight over 200 pounds. Had Moore not beaten Valdez or maybe if Williams came along 6 or 7 years earlier, we may have got to see him rumble with a good, 200+ pound heavy.

 

Its asinine to suggest Quarry, fighting in the deepest HW division in history was coddled but Jimmy Bivins fighting in the weakened WW2 HW division against usually smaller guys was somehow thrown to the wolves. Here is how tough bivins had it: He won his fake ass title created by his manager and hometown promoter in a fight against a guy Louis knocked out in one round upon his return despite being on a noticeable slide. Thats why nobody took Bivins claim seriously. Thats why it and he were forgotten until 45 years later when sympathy for his plight brought a rush of goodwill and interest. The guy was a footnote for a reason. When he finally fought a totally shot version of louis he ran like a track star all night. The guys best wins didnt even come against HWs so to act like he is so much better than Quarry is silly. He was beaten by men who were smaller and less formidable than Jerry so I see no reason to believe that Quarry couldnt have beaten him, even in a series, much less guys like Marshall and the rest of the mythical black murderers row. Part of the problem is that when these guys who were legitimately interesting guys, got rediscovered over the last two decades the pendulum swung wildly and unrealistically in the direction that now every single one of them is considered this all time great ducked/feared fighter who would have been a champion in any era. No. The guys who knew them and saw them live and breath didnt think that. Im not saying they were bad or were totally written off, but they werent viewed in their own time as some view them today. A healthy dose of realism and context is needed when discussing these guys. Im perfectly open to entertaining the idea that Quarry having equal parts bad luck and inconsistency COULD have been beaten by someone like Bivins (certainly not someone like Marshall). But I wouldnt make him an underdog in that fight and I would give him a very good chance at winning a series. I think its ridiculous to say a guy who fought Ali 2X, Frazier 3X, Shavers, Lyle, Norton (who ducked him for years), called out Foreman every chance he got, Ellis, Patterson 2X, Chuvalo, signed to fight Bonavena numerous times, etc was somehow coddled. He wasnt. He fought at a similar frequency to the fighters of the 40s and against a much more threatening level of opposition than Bivins did and managed to maintain a damn good record doing it. Who ever embarrassed him in his prime? Nobody. He had beat the dog **** out of Chuvalo when he was controversially stopped on a fluke. He was stopped early on a cut in a fight against the greatest HW in history but was still competitive when the fight stopped. He went to war with Joe Frazier. He fought with a broken vertebrae against Jimmy Ellis and only lost by a one round swing in a majority decision. The only two guys who had anything like an easy time with Quarry were two of the greatest HWs in history, both of whom would have run through Bivins like **** through a goose. Even when he was totally shot he gave Norton some scary moments and had him reeling like a blade of grass in a high wind. No, these 40s guys werent the greatest of even their generation. The division had been dramatically weakened by the war and the landscape was entirely different than it would have been without the war. Quarry would have fit in just fine in that division.

 

Well, while I have raised I think legit questions about the level of WWII competition, but saying Quarry met the tougher competition doesn't convince me.

Quarry had 66 fights. 20 were against fighters with losing records. Another 7 were against men with winning records but less than 10 wins. Bivins had 112 fights. 8 were against fighters with losing records. Another 4 against men with winning records but less than 10 wins. Looking at Bivins and Quarry, one sees that Bivins fought much more experienced fighters on the whole. One could focus on the losses, but the forties group also had a lot more wins.

What do I draw from this? I think the 1940's had a lot more depth both before and after the war. Makes sense as boxing was much more popular. The 1970's had quality at the top and might have won a top five versus top five tournament, but what about the 10th guy down, the 15th, the 20th, the 30th? My take is that these guys would have been a lot tougher in the 1940's.

Overall, Bivins CONSERVATIVELY had probably 70 or more fights against men who were rated at one time or another. Off the Boxing Register, he had 45 fights against men rated when he fought them. Quarry wouldn't even approach those numbers. Bivins had more fights against rated fighters than Quarry had total fights.

What about fights against champions. Quarry fought five champions (Patterson, Ellis, Frazier, Ali, Norton) and had 8 fights in which he went 1-6-1. His one win was the rematch with Patterson, which was controversial, but seems to have been a fair decision for Quarry. His draw with Patterson, on the other hand, was generally viewed as a gift. The rest are losses, the only tight one against Ellis. He was stopped five times in eight fights.

Bivins fought eleven champions for 24 fights in which he went 9-14-1. He defeated eight champions, and also lost to eight champions. Losing 4 of 5 to both Charles and Moore pushed him into losing territory. In fairness, these champions were mostly middles and light-heavies. His only win over a heavyweight champion was against Charles who was not a heavy at the time. My take would be that Bivins was almost certainly the best light-heavyweight for a while. At heavy, he is much less accomplished. Like Quarry, he was unimposing against heavy champions, going 1-6, but with only one KO defeat.

And Quarry?

Ali--Quarry didn't last ten rounds in the two fights together.

"He went to war with Frazier"---and was beaten to a pulp and stopped.

"called out Foreman every chance he got"--and so we'll supposed to think Quarry wins if this match comes off?

"He gave Norton some scary moments and had him reeling like a blade of grass in a high wind."

Of course, I have only seen the original fake telecast and the fake film of it which shows Norton pounding Quarry into a bloody hulk. All I see is Quarry punching himself out hitting Norton on the arms and gloves for the most part while Norton couldn't seem to miss. This fight shows Quarry's big weakness, which was always there. He just didn't have a great deal of head movement and ate up a lot of punches. Slipping and rolling with blows was not something he did well or often.

"Ali, Frazier, Shavers, Lyle, Norton, Ellis, Patterson, Chuvalo"

Of this list, he only bested Patterson, Shavers, and Lyle. We just disagree that he was all that competitive against Ali, Frazier, or even Norton. He also managed to lose to Chuvalo, which takes some doing. Even Pete Rademacher couldn't manage it. Shavers generally managed to lose the big ones despite his punch. Lyle might have been a bit green when Quarry took him. The 32 year old Patterson in a close decision is probably his most impressive win.

Quarry was a decent contender, but I differ with praising him to the moon. Bivins certainly was a better all-around fighter, but was really a light-heavy or pocket heavyweight. That is a good point, and it showed after the war.

My take is Quarry would be problematical in the 1940's. It was just the norm then to toss a guy into one tough fight after another. I think Quarry's style and shaky defense might have actually led to an earlier burn-out then happened in the 1970's.

 

Sorry pal but if you face the greatest HW in history and the guy you are being compared to didn't then you've faced stiffer competition. That's how it works. Quarry faced several men who were much tougher than anyone Bivins faced. Bringing to bear Bivins record against MWs and LHWs does not convince me that his accomplishments against those guys makes him a threat to Quarry who was a career HW in the toughest era of that division. Bivins may have been a scourge of smaller guys but that success didnt translate to the HWs in any meaningful way and wasnt even really consistent against the best guys he faced even in the lower divisions. Like I said, some people have some fruity rose colored goggles when it comes to a guy like Bivins. Some people love to give LaMotta stick for supposedly fighting so many smaller guys yet look at Bivins record. He almost always held the advantage in size against his marquee opponents. When he fought HWs by and large they were mediocre, unless you subscribe to the popular bleeding heart belief that being black in the 1940s made you 20% better than your contemporaries despite your performances. I don't.

If you want to delegitimize Quarrys wins and losses we can play that game all day long. Take away Bivins wins against WWs, MWs, and LHWs and then come back to me and tell me about how great a HW he was. I can name you exactly two men who were great fighters and happened to be HWs when Bivins fought them: Walcott and Louis. He lost both of those fights. You have to stretch to really give Bivins any HW chops at all by throwing in light heavyweights he fought at catchweights: Maxim, barely over the LHW limit he split two fights. Moore, barely over the LHW limit in their last fight and stopped Bivins. Charles Barely over the LHW limit in their last two fights and beat Bivins in both. Ill even help you and throw in a bloated Melio Bettina who Bivins went 1-1-1 with. See a pattern here? Those are the best names he was facing and at HW he wasn't rising above the crowd even against smaller fighters. He also managed to lose to Franklin, Musto, Pastor, Murray, Morrow, and since you want to hold a loss to Norton (and yeah, you may want to go back and watch Quarry battering Norton on the ropes and Ken being clueless, theres a reason why Ken wouldn't fight Quarry after they sparred until Quarry was seen as shot) when Quarry was totally shot against him lets throw in losses guys like Sid Peaks and Clarence Henry among others. None of those guys were great HWs. SOME were contenders but none were anywhere near all time great status and frankly Louis was badly faded when Bivins turned chicken and ran against him and Walcott is pretty low on the greatness barometer. So yeah, I'm pretty comfortable picking a career HW who fought in a deep deep era against a guy who was barely breaking even against bloated LHWs and MWs.

 

I went to many Quarry fights & was never disapointed, Quarry had his share of fights before he got the good training that he had the physical condition but not the boxing knowledge. When he hooked up with Gil Clancy I seen him KO big Mac Foster who was 24-0-24KO's, KO Earnie Shavers in 1rd. and dominate undefeated Ron Lyle, I also saw him KO Joe Alexander after a scare. Quarry had a excellent chin and could hit with both hands. His 1st fight against Frazier was a war toe 2 toe but that Frazier was a great fighter while Quarry was very good and flawed. He used to lose his temper & it hurt him in a few fights. He was just not in the class of Frazier & Ali but a peak Quarry would be a solid contender in any era & may have beaten some of the weaker Champs or held an alphabet title in the split title ABC era's

 

I agree with most of this but I actually believe that Quarry was a better fighter before the Jimmy Ellis fight. After that fight he changed and not for the better. His plan was to go to the ropes in that fight and counter (which he was terrific at). Dundee knew this and prepared Ellis to stay in ring center and make Quarry leave the ropes. The fight devolved into a very boring cat and mouse game and Quarry got the blame for it. He wa very hurt by the publics reaction to him in that fight and from then on, for the most part, he became a much more aggressive slugger type. This meant he took more punishment, more chances, and generally fought more stupid. He was still good but he wasnt as smart and within about a year or two he also started packing on flab that he never had before. He was trying to bulk up because he felt he was on the small side but the extra weight hurt him IMO. He was by no means a perfect fighter before Ellis but I think he had a better style. It certainly would have suited him better against Frazier, rsther than try the seek and destroy tactics he landed on. Quarrys biggest problem was mental. He always seemed to be trying to find his own identity as a fighter and it made him make tactical mistakes in the ring that cost him. But when he was firing on all cylinders he was a very good fighter and a hell of a lot of fun to watch. A difficult fight for anyone but the A listers and even some of them. I just dont include Bivins in that group.

 

I agree with you on the mental part & to add to that Quarry's father played a large part of that much like Gerry Cooneys father did to him abusive. Mike Quarry told me that they had it hard growing up & were put down a lot by their Dad. Quarry when he was young & fit was a better physical specimen than the older Jerry & had he fought Frazier the way he fought Foster, Lyle & Buster Matthews he would have done better.

Quarry went a bit wild once he took over management to 3 dog night (the music group) he met the new wife & supposedly was drinking & coking & this was before the Norton fight, he knew he just went in for the payday & was in no condition.

 

Yeah this all jives with what Ive heard too. The one thing that puzzles me is the stories of his wars sparring with Mike. Ive heard so many eye witness accounts of it that it had to be true but Jerry loved Mike to death, was very protective of him, and its just hard to imagine him beating the hell out of Mike, who was much smaller, even in sparring. I have Mikes first amateur bout on film and Jerry does color commentary on it. Hes a nervous wreck for Mike the whole time. Its just weird to think of him beating him up. But, with that said, the Quarry family was ROUGH. The women supposedly got into brawls in the audience at the Olympic regularly and thats the WOMEN!

 

I have to disagree with the notion that the 70s are the best heavyweight era on a H2H basis. The heavyweights were much smaller then on average and I don't see how they are going to deal with the skilled big men we see in later eras like Lewis, Wladimir Klitschko, and Anthony Joshua. Guys like Frazier and Ali would giving away a huge amount of height and weight in these matchups.

 

Another point worth making is that the Vietnam war took place in the late 60s early 70s. If the war affected talent in the 1940s wouldn't the same be true for Vietnam?

 

Yes, about Vietnam, but it wasn't anything like the total mobilization of WWII, so the effect would be much more limited.