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

"Sorry pal, but if you face the greatest heavyweight in history, and the guy you are being compared to didn't, then you faced stiffer competition. That's how it works."

Not in my world. You have to actually do something against that competition. The Cleveland Browns were 0 wins and 16 losses last year. I have no idea if they faced better competition than the Eagles or the Vikings, but what difference does it make? They failed badly against the competition they did face.

There is no logic to Quarry lost badly to Ali and Frazier, and therefore he should be favored over Louis, Walcott, Charles, etc. Wepner might actually have been in against tougher competition, losing to not only Ali, but also Foreman and Liston. Doesn't make him anything other than a journeyman.

Also Quarry couldn't beat Ellis, a guy who a couple of years earlier was a journeyman middle. Ellis going all the way to a title might expose the quality of the division below Ali and Frazier in a more balanced view.

Also, I don't disagree with anything much you have said about Bivins. You're really only elaborating on points I have made about the quality of WWII competition and Bivins being actually best at light-heavy. But for me, Bivins clearly isn't in the top five of 1940's heavies. Louis, Walcott, Charles, Moore, and Ray were better, and also most likely Conn. Pastor and Bettina were off record on equal footing. But Bivins did fight a helluva lot of tough fights, much more than Quarry.

"you may want to go back and watch Quarry battering Norton on the ropes and Ken being clueless"

About as silly a take on this fight as there could be. Norton simply blocked most of the punches before firing back.

"some people have some fruity rose-colored goggles when it comes to a guy like Bivins"

I think I have been reasonably critical of Bivins. The "fruity rose-colored goggles" bit is an odd turn of phrase, but I concede you might know more about "fruity" goggles than I do.

At least I am not picking out a fight in which Bivins ended up a bloody, helpless, hulk and claiming that his opponent was battered and clueless.

 

Straw man.

Straw man.

Rubbish. These fighters are not a modern invention.

Straw man.

No, he didn't.

What a weird goal post.

Hahaha.

 

Its strange that you and I mostly agree on Bivins, so wildly disagree on Quarry, and yet seem to have basically the same conclusion. For instance, I agree that its about how you perform against your best competition and that Quarry lost to his but so did Bivins and Bivins best competition was worse than Quarrys. I also believe that the HW contenders Quarry beat were head and shoulders against those Bivins beat so of course I rank Quarry higher than Bivins. In regards to Ellis I agree he wasnt special as a MW but the problem with that analogy is that he was killed himself to make the division, was anorexic at that weight, and when he allowed himself to move up in weight he improved as a fighter and excelled and became a very good HW contender. To deny that is to deny reality. I consider Ellis a more accomplished and more dangerous HW foe than Bivins. If you want to argue that Bivins had a better record at MW or LHW thats an entirely different argument.

"There is no logic to Quarry lost badly to Ali and Frazier, and therefore he should be favored over Louis, Walcott, Charles, etc. Wepner might actually have been in against tougher competition, losing to not only Ali, but also Foreman and Liston. Doesn't make him anything other than a journeyman."

I never said this at all. I said Quarry faced tougher competition than Bivins and I stand by that. I also say that Quarry beat better HWs than Bivins and I stand by that as well. My point is that if Bivins best HW name on his record is a shot Louis and Quarrys is a prime Ali, the best HW in history, then logic follows that Quarry faced the stiffer competition. I already illustrated that Bivins resume at HW against real HWs is rather thin (which you agree with) so Im not sure why you insist on contending that Quarry A. Didnt fight stiffer competition when he has a loaded resume in an loaded era, or B. That he was somehow coddled compared to Bivins, as has been alleged on here. Whether you believe that Bivins had it rough by fighting all of these MWs and LHWs that he was bigger than (which I find an odd argument) or not does not correlate to the idea that Bivins was some terror at HW, because he wasnt. The question isnt whether Bivins fought better P4P fights or whether those fights were tougher (and again, he almost always held an advantage in those fights, fighting at home, being bigger, etc) The question originally started as his merits vs Quarry as a HEAVYWEIGHT CONTENDER and I dont believe that a bunch of mixed results against guys weighing 30 pounds less than Quarry directly paint Bivins as this guy who was so much better than Quarry.

In regards to Quarry-Norton Ive never seen anyone dispute that Quarry didnt give Norton some rocky moments. And frankly thats neither here nor there to me because I dont rate Norton. Im record numerous times on this forum (and you can search this) that Norton is wildly overrated based on one win over Ali and that he should not be in the HOF. His entire record is smoke and mirrors outside of that one win. He was incredibly protected and his "championship" is the only example I can think of where a guy who never won a championship fight in his life was literally given a title based on what myself and a lot of others considered a gift decision over Young and then he couldnt even defend it. Quarry was a coked up drunken fat shot fighter when he took on Norton. He had sparred Norton in California years earlier and beat the **** out of him. Don Chargin and Aileen Eaton had extended numerous offers to Norton over the years for an all-California showdown and Norton wanted no part of it until he saw how bad Quarry looked in the rematch to Frazier. And like I said, even then Quarry managed to buzz Norton and set him on his heels. Those are facts, you may not see them that way but thats exactly what happened. I never said that Quarry won that fight. Thats a nice way to spin or misconstrue my words as youve repeatedly done here. The point was that even when totally shot Quarry was dangerous against top HW contenders. You cant say that about Bivins who had no problem running for hills at the first sign of trouble when danger reared its ugly head later in his career.

I completely stand by my argument. There is no doubt in my mind that Quarry was more accomplished as a HW (despite Bivins bogus title which was so fake it always has to be encapsulated in quotation marks) and was a more dangerous HW and would have had no problem ranking in the top during the 1940s.

 

Thanks for the balanced and thoughtful reply.

"I never said that" concerning Quarry beating Louis, Walcott, Charles, etc. Not Louis, but the others, in posts.

I can tell you where I think we really disagree. You seem to think being better than Bivins at heavy makes one better than anyone but Louis in the 1940's. I don't put Bivins in the top five for certain, (Louis, Charles, Walcott, Moore, Ray) and I think he has a shaky case for top ten (Conn, Pastor, Bettina, Baksi, Nova, and Maxim all have good cases for being as good or better). I'm sure folks will sneer at Nova, but his two stoppage wins over Baer are not only more impressive than anything Bivins did, but more impressive to me than any Quarry wins. These weren't decisions that many disagreed with, but unquestioned victories. Not that to me Quarry is a strong pick over Bivins. I see that match as a toss-up. And I think Quarry rates higher among 1965 to 1975 heavies than Bivins does among 1940's heavies.

As for losing to the best, we just disagree about that. Garth Panter fought Robinson, Olson, Fullmer, and Giardello, the middle champions for most of the 1951 to 1965 era. So? He lost to all of them. All it really proves is that he had enough stature to get into the ring with the best. So with Quarry, but Quarry wasn't the guy who gave Ali or Frazier nearly their toughest outings. Not being competitive doesn't prove anything to me regardless of how great the opponent is.

Ellis--the fact remains a guy ordinary at middle ran through these "golden age" heavies. It makes one wonder about the general level of competition.

Quarry's competition--yes, there are the great fighters he lost to, and a number of wins over good fighters, but it is also part of his record that over 40% of his competition either had a losing record or hadn't yet won ten fights. Generally Bivins was in with better competition over the long haul.

Norton--I don't disagree about Norton being perhaps overrated, but it doesn't alter the fact that he destroyed Quarry.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.