Jerry Quarry wins and pretty much every time. Chuck was slow and clumsy about walking into punches , and that wouldn't bode well when facing a master counter puncher. Jerry was also faster, busier and overall much more skilled and well rounded.. It generally took a world class fighter to beat Quarry and sometimes even THAT wasn't enough as men like Patterson, Lyle and Shavers discovered.. Chuck had a pretty good run where around 1975 he might have qualified as being a fringe guy briefly., had he faced a declining Quarry at that time and used his size advantage to the best of his ability, he might upset him. But even then I'm not so sure.
Quarry could be inconsistent, but I can't for the life of me see how he could possibly lose this fight. Quarry was a top contender, Wepner a journeyman. It's almost a mismatch. Quarry cuts hum up and stops him, but it will take him a few rounds, Wepner was a tough man.
Quarry would tear brave Wepner to pieces,it would be a systematic beat down with snot ,and blood everywhere.
Wepner would have one advantage: size. Chuck would dwarf Jerry. But it wouldn't matter. Wepner would be competitive for a few rounds, but his face would get busted up even worse than Quarry's, and Jerry would eventually stop in on cuts or by some other TKO.
Yep, Jerry all the way. On an historical note, it is interesting that Wepner, who was six years older than Quarry, probably achieved his career high point in his title fight with Ali on the same night that Ken Norton finished Jerry as a serious top contender.
Jerry Quarry was an exiting counter punching left hooker with unlimited amounts of bottle, but was on the smallish side when Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Norton were in there pomp. Never the less he put bangers like Mac Foster, Lyle and Shavers in their place. I can't see the tough but limited Wepner being anything else but a bloody mess after Quarry had hammered him for a few rounds.
