Jerry Quarry vs David Haye for Hvywt Title

Raging B(_)LL · Nov 14, 2009

Quarry would have knocked Haye out, I would bet the house on it. When on form and in shape Quarry was very dangerous, and especially so if he was put into the role of the underdog going in a fight. The Quarry who dominated Ron Lyle and who dismantled the highly regarded Mac Foster would have been a bridge too far for David to overcome.

Jerry could have either outboxed him or outfought him, he had the punch to flatten Haye and the chin to take his best shots as well, and since I can easily see this fight turning into a war I`d favour Jerry in a tear up. In a boxing match Quarry wins going away, Haye is not in his class as far as boxing ability is concerned.

The Kurgan · Nov 14, 2009

Better training techniques, better nutrition, improvements in boxing skills and much greater size all favour Haye.

It's all very fun to imagine athletes from the old days competing with modern athletes, but not very realistic. Haye would be a BIG heavyweight in Quarry's day; he's roughly the same size as Muhammad Ali and George Foreman.

Just compare athletic/weightlifting records from the 1960s with today. The same is true in boxing. Boxing has evolved and there's no reason to think that oldtimers like Quarry could be competitive today.

joe33 · Nov 14, 2009

The Kurgan said: ↑

Better training techniques, better nutrition, improvements in boxing skills and much greater size all favour Haye.

It's all very fun to imagine athletes from the old days competing with modern athletes, but not very realistic. Haye would be a BIG heavyweight in Quarry's day; he's roughly the same size as Muhammad Ali and George Foreman.

Just compare athletic/weightlifting records from the 1960s with today. The same is true in boxing. Boxing has evolved and there's no reason to think that oldtimers like Quarry could be competitive today.
Click to expand...

Mate please, at times last week both men landed a combinded 3 punches on each other per rounds, yeah thats really evolved :-(

Raging B(_)LL · Nov 14, 2009

The Kurgan said: ↑

Better training techniques, better nutrition, improvements in boxing skills and much greater size all favour Haye.
Click to expand...

I don`t see how they favour him to be honest, its clear to see that Haye isn`t as skilled and capable a boxer as Quarry was nor as durable. And better nutrition ain`t gonna help Haye when he gets slammed in the face by Jerry`s short left hook, not unless he eats something that will suddenly enable him to take a good shot without seeing tweety birds.

And this claim of yours that modern fighters are on the whole more skilled than their contemporarys from previous eras I totally disagree with, if anything todays generation on the whole has regressed as far as solid boxing ability and technique is concerned, and this partly due to a lack of quality trainers who know the ins and outs of the sport and who can teach them properly to young up and comers.

It's all very fun to imagine athletes from the old days competing with modern athletes, but not very realistic. Haye would be a BIG heavyweight in Quarry's day; he's roughly the same size as Muhammad Ali and George Foreman.
Click to expand...

How is it unrealistic to think that heavyweights from the seventies would have been cannon fodder in todays era? What leads you to believe this? Because as far as I`m concerned todays heavyweight era is abysmal and clearly lacking in talent, I don`t see how this is even debatable. Quarry had no trouble handling heavier men than himself, and Haye wouldn`t have been an exception just because he has a quick pair of mitts on him, you need more than fast hands to beat a motivated and in shape Jerry Quarry.

Just compare athletic/weightlifting records from the 1960s with today. The same is true in boxing. Boxing has evolved and there's no reason to think that oldtimers like Quarry could be competitive today.
Click to expand...

So your saying the heavyweights from the seventies couldn`t compete with heavyweights from the last ten years? If you are I totally disagree. And those improvements you speak of today aren`t readily apparent from what I have seen as far as heavyweights goes, the current crop of heavys must be the worst the sport has seen in over fifty years if not longer, it truly is wasteland sadly.

Haye has speed, athleticism and size over Jerry, but that is where it ends. The Irishman showed that he had a cast iron chin and the ability to take shots from some of the hardest hitters of his era along with showing solid boxing skills (much better than Hayes by far) and that at his best he had the ability to hold his own with just about anyone at heavyweight.

Haye has yet to demonstrade he can even withstand and survive a heavyweight punch, especially landed with pinpoint accuracy such as Jerry could land when he went into counterpuncher mode. But even so the real difference here and deciding factor in the outcome of this fight comes down to mindset imo.

Jerry was absolutely fearless and would have been hell bent on punishing Haye for his inevitable trash talking before their fight, and a pissed off and motivated Jerry Quarry was a formidable opponent for damn near anybody. Haye would have been dragged into deep waters and drowned by Quarry who could take his best punches and then retaliate with his own heavy artillery which Haye would not able to withstand for twelve rounds.

Haye makes a fight of it for a few rounds, but then Jerrys superior boxing pedigree will shine thru and take over the contest en route to a mid to late rounds stoppage imo. Quarry would have been competitive in ANY era, and to claim otherwise is indicative of a lack of knowledge on how boxing has devolved rather than evolved over the last twenty years.

There has been some great fighters since then don`t get me wrong, but on the whole we have seen a decrease instead of an increase in quality fights/fighters being produced during that time, and if your claim of modern boxers being faster,bigger and stronger with better skills being taught then the opposite would be the case, which sadly it is not.
Click to expand...

The Kurgan · Nov 14, 2009

Raging B(_)LL said: ↑

I don`t see how they favour him to be honest, its clear to see that Haye isn`t as skilled and capable a boxer as Quarry was nor as durable. And better nutrition ain`t gonna help Haye when he gets slammed in the face by Jerry`s short left hook, not unless he eats something that will suddenly enable him to take a good shot without seeing tweety birds.

And this claim of yours that modern fighters are on the whole more skilled than their contemporarys from previous eras I totally disagree with, if anything todays generation on the whole has regressed as far as solid boxing ability and technique is concerned, and this partly due to a lack of quality trainers who know the ins and outs of the sport and who can teach them properly to young up and comers.
Click to expand...

Would you pick a football team from the 1960s to be competitive in the modern NFL?

Raging Bull said:

How is it unrealistic to think that heavyweights from the seventies would have been cannon fodder in todays era? What leads you to believe this? Because as far as I`m concerned todays heavyweight era is abysmal and clearly lacking in talent, I don`t see how this is even debatable. Quarry had no trouble handling heavier men than himself, and Haye wouldn`t have been an exception just because he has a quick pair of mitts on him, you need more than fast hands to beat a motivated and in shape Jerry Quarry.
Click to expand...

The 1970s is nearly 30 years ago. How could boxing not advance in 30 years?

Ranging Bull said:

So your saying the heavyweights from the seventies couldn`t compete with heavyweights from the last ten years? If you are I totally disagree. And those improvements you speak of today aren`t readily apparent from what I have seen as far as heavyweights goes, the current crop of heavys must be the worst the sport has seen in over fifty years if not longer, it truly is wasteland sadly.
Click to expand...

The current crop is full of bigger, more athletic and more well-trained superheavyweights. How many boxers who were as big as Haye did Quarry beat?

Raging Bull said:

Haye has yet to demonstrade he can even withstand and survive a heavyweight punch,
Click to expand...

Why is that relevant against a cruiserweight like Jerry Quarry?

Raging Bull said:

Haye makes a fight of it for a few rounds, but then Jerrys superior boxing pedigree will shine thru and take over the contest en route to a mid to late rounds stoppage imo. Quarry would have been competitive in ANY era, and to claim otherwise is indicative of a lack of knowledge on how boxing has devolved rather than evolved over the last twenty years.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously saying that it's arbitrary to pick someone from the 1970s to beat someone from the turn of this century and indeed someone from the 1940s to beat someone from the 1970s?

Raging Bull said:

There has been some great fighters since then don`t get me wrong, but on the whole we have seen a decrease instead of an increase in quality fights/fighters being produced during that time, and if your claim of modern boxers being faster,bigger and stronger with better skills being taught then the opposite would be the case, which sadly it is not.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. If you took that idea seriously, you'd pick Muhammad Ali to beat Vitali Klitschko, a man who has never lost a decision, never been knocked out, has an ATG comeback, has the highest KO percentage of any heavyweight champion, has never lost more than 2 rounds in a fight by consensus and IS TALL.

Raging B(_)LL · Nov 14, 2009

The Kurgan said: ↑

Would you pick a football team from the 1960s to be competitive in the modern NFL?
Click to expand...

Since I don`t follow football I couldn`t say, but I can tell you I have no qualms about favouring some of the earlier Montreal Canadians hockey dynasties for example to obliterate some of the more highly regarded teams from modern eras, you have to take into account skill level in such instances not just the size of the opponents which can only take you so far.

The 1970s is nearly 30 years ago. How could boxing not advance in 30 years?
Click to expand...

Boxing has stopped evolving some time ago, the skills learned by fighters today are not being thought to them by astute trainers for the most part, I can`t begin to count the amount of times I hear a lot of modern trainers not give sound advice to their charges between rounds today. And what has advanced the sport of boxing? Multiple needless weight classes? Multiple belts and organizations? Day before weigh ins allowing fighters to balloon dramatically come fight time? Reducing championship bouts from 15 to 12 rounds? Fighters fighting less often at the top level and being allowed to cherry pick their opposition on a regular basis? If you think any of these things have helped make our sport better then I sorely disagree.

The current crop is full of bigger, more athletic and more well-trained superheavyweights. How many boxers who were as big as Haye did Quarry beat?
Click to expand...

So athleticism trumps boxing ability and conditioning now? And how do you figure todays men are better trained and conditioned than the heavyweights from Quarry`s era? How then do you explain a quality fighter like Buster Mathis being dominated outright by Quarry?

Mathis was 6`3 and weighed in at around 240lbs for the Quarry fight and Jerry used him as a punching bag, and Buster was a skilled big man, much moreso than fighters such as Povetkin, Arreola, Chagaev and Haye to name a few modern ones. And for a fighter of his physique Mathis sure had a lot more stamina than many modern fighters with chiseled physiques carved out of stone, how do you explain that?

And since you ask Quarry faced his share of hard punching bonafide heavyweights, just look at his record and you will see the names that meet your criteria.

Why is that relevant against a cruiserweight like Jerry Quarry?
Click to expand...

Because that cruiserweight had enough power in his fists to flatten genuine heavyweights who outweighed him by twenty-thirty pounds, combined with his accuracy and boxing ability Quarry had enough power to get his opponents respect if he landed cleanly on them. Haye has shown he can get stunned by lesser fighters than Jerry, so I really don`t see how Jerry`s size is a factor against him in this matchup, its not as of we are pitting a former middleweight against a heavyweight now is it? Jerry was a solidly built 195-200 pound man, since when does a man of that size who packs a good wallop not have the ability to hurt and potentially stop an opponent bigger than himself?

Are you seriously saying that it's arbitrary to pick someone from the 1970s to beat someone from the turn of this century and indeed someone from the 1940s to beat someone from the 1970s?
Click to expand...

We were disscussing if a fighter from the seventies could compete with a fighters from todays era, and to that my answer is unequivocally yes. Hell guys from the forties as well could have easily competed with modern fighters, you gonna tell me someone like Ike Williams or Henry Armstrong would to name two would have been outclassed in todays era? Because if you are then again I strongly disagree.

However if we are going to go further back in time then yes at some point guys like John L Sullivan and would be outmatched by more modern fighters, but even that is more due to advances in technique really then outright advantages in size enjoyed by modern heavyweights.

Ridiculous. If you took that idea seriously, you'd pick Muhammad Ali to beat Vitali Klitschko, a man who has never lost a decision, never been knocked out, has an ATG comeback, has the highest KO percentage of any heavyweight champion, has never lost more than 2 rounds in a fight by consensus and IS TALL.
Click to expand...

Has it occured to you that the reason the K bros are as succesful today is because they are simply the best out of bad crop of fighters? Not to say the brothers are bad fighters because they clearly aren`t, but I daresay they would have had a harder time keeping such nice and tidy resumes had they been fighting in Ali`s era or even in the mid 80s-90s when there was better opposition to be met and faced.

And for the record Ali would have beaten Vitaly imo, but not without some difficulty. I actually do think Vitaly is underrated to an extent and that the man could have held his own in any era, but I am not blinded either by the fact that he is clearly benefitting from fighting in a wasteland of a heavyweight division and era which is allowing him to accumulate such a spotless and impressive record, to deny this is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

The Kurgan · Nov 14, 2009

Just kidding.

Well argued, by the way.

Raging B(_)LL · Nov 14, 2009

The Kurgan said: ↑

Just kidding.
Click to expand...

Good to know, although you had me fooled as I thought you were dead serious.

Well argued, by the way.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
Click to expand...

BUDW · Nov 15, 2009

Jerry in a demolition

Log in or Sign up

Jerry Quarry vs David Haye for Hvywt Title

Raging B(_)LL KAPOW!!! Full Member

The Kurgan Boxing Junkie banned

joe33 Guest

Raging B(_)LL KAPOW!!! Full Member

The Kurgan Boxing Junkie banned

Raging B(_)LL KAPOW!!! Full Member

The Kurgan Boxing Junkie banned

Raging B(_)LL KAPOW!!! Full Member

BUDW Boxing Addict Full Member