Jerry Quarry vs....

Duane Bobick would be like 10-3!
the best I've found was of course Muhammad Ali (Ring 32-5 and 20 knockouts) WBA-(32-5 19 knockouts)

 

Last thing Jerry Quarry's opposition was much better than all they aforementioned bottom ten, I do not care they did better against Muhammad Ali. what does that mean?, Jerry did better against Earnie Shavers's than everyone else, And that should make him no. 3 on they alltime list? Jerry's record would be much better had he faced the opponents of the "bottom ten"

 

"ranked AT THE TIME!"

And this system simply shifts an opponent into the non-rated column--laughable in the case of Ali. But what does this prove? Is losing to a non-rated opponent better than losing to a rated opponent?

 

"Jerry Quarry's opposition was much better than all the aforementioned bottom ten"

Yes, in depth, this is reasonable. And Johnny Risko fought and beat more good men than Schmeling or Tunney, and possibly more than the two together. Does that make him better?

"I do not care they did better against Muhammad Ali"

Your privilege, but I do care how they did against the very best available competition--Ali, Frazier, and Foreman.

"Jerry did better against Earnie Shavers than everyone else"

And Turkey Thompson did better against Elmer Ray with a first round KO than Walcott or Charles ever did. Doesn't make him at the same level as Walcott and Charles though. Second-level guys like Shavers have weaknesses which can be exploited by certain fighters better than others. What seems to separate the champion level fighter is that they don't have similar exploitable weaknesses.

 

EXACTLY MY POINT, THAT TEN -THEY LOOK GOOD LOSING , BUT NEVER WINNING
SHAVERS MIGHT HAVE BEEN WEAK, YET HE WOULD HAVE KNOCKED OUT ALL TEN OF THAT "BOTTOM TEN". LIKE JERRY COULD'NT. IF YOU HAVE A BETTER WAY NOT TO GO BY TOP TEN OPPONENTS -GO FOR IT! JERRY FOUGHT TOUGH BLACK GUYS, THAT MENTIONED FOUGHT WEAK WHITE GUYS!

 

I checked The Ring annual rankings for the period 1966-1975 when both Quarry and Bonavena were prime. Adding up the top five heavyweights--the champion and top four contenders--this is the list

American black heavyweights

Muhammad Ali
Ernie Terrell
Zora Folley
Floyd Patterson
Thad Spencer
Joe Frazier
Jimmy Ellis
Leotis Martin
George Foreman
Ron Lyle
Ken Norton
Jimmy Young

Foreign heavyweights

Manuel Ramos
Oscar Bonavena
George Chuvalo

American white heavyweights

Jerry Quarry

So 16 total, and 15 possible opponents for both Quarry and Bonavena at the top of the division during their 10 year primes.

Quarry defeated Patterson, Spencer, and Lyle
Quarry lost to Ali(2), Frazier(2), Ellis, Norton, Chuvalo
Quarry also drew with Patterson

Bonavena defeated Folley, Martin, Ramos, Chuvalo
Bonavena lost to Ali, Frazier(2), Ellis, Patterson, Lyle, Folley

Quarry went 3-7-1 against these top men
Bonavena went 4-7 against these top men

Quarry fought 7 of the black Americans. Bonavena fought 7 of the black Americans.
Quarry fought 8 of the possible top 15 opponents. Bonavena fought 9 of the possible top 15 opponents.

Quarry beat 3 of these men, lost to 5, and didn't fight 7.
Bonavena beat 4 of these men, lost to 6, and didn't fight 6.

*bottom line is when it came to fighting the really top level guys, Bonavena matches Quarry.

**this is as tight as it is because of the close fights with Patterson for Quarry, and Frazier and Patterson for Bonavena. Quarry was the hometown fighter and managed a win and a draw. The outsider Bonavena lost both decisions despite never being down and having Frazier down twice and Patterson once.

My scoring of the first Bonavena-Frazier fight was 5-5 in rounds with Bonavena the clear winner via the NY supplemental scoring system. Had Bonavena gotten the decision, this would not be a close call for me.

So, my conclusion. I still like Bonavena over Quarry.

 

I believe Folley was unrated when Bonavena beat him. At least by the WBA which was the official sanctioning body, not Ring. This makes sense as he hadnt defeated a contender in yrs.

 

"I believe Folley was unrated when Bonavena beat him."

Fair enough. I would think so also. But what I did on that post was list any heavyweight who was top five from 1966 to 1975 and see how Quarry and Bonavena each did against them. On this thread there has been the claim that Chuvalo was not rated when Quarry fought him. He probably was when Bonavena fought him. But going by the annual ratings counts Chuvalo for both of them and I let it go at that.

on Folley, I also counted his defeat of Bonavena, although Oscar was an 8 fight novice and Folley an experienced world rated fighter, so this was not really a fair match-up.

"the WBA was the official sanctioning body, not Ring."

Well, not the only one, or else Frazier wouldn't have been recognized as champion. And how seriously am I supposed to take Jimmy Ellis as an "official" champion versus Ali or Frazier. An official sanctioning body once had Lee Savold as champion. The Ring wasn't official, or faultless, but I don't believe their recognized champions were ever as political or bizarre as those of the boxing politicians sometimes have been.

That said, I am quite willing to use the WBA ratings if they are available. Do you know where they are online?

 

I might wonder why anyone cares about "official" sanctioning bodies. Being the best boxer is not a political matter so I don't exactly understand why folks think politicians should have the final say.

For me it is sort of like what is the "official" best movie of any given year. The one that won the Academy Award? The Golden Globe? The National Board of Review selection? What about the one that is most popular with the public? All opinion with movies, but in boxing the best is the one who wins in the ring, so the man who beat the man always has the strongest claim.

 

Then whose rankings are you inclined to use? You werent using the NYSAC rankings because theirs werent published, which itself is an issue, and Ring magazine was interested first and foremost with SELLING its own magazines, not establishing the best ratings. Ive said it before and Ill say it again, Nat Loubet himself who was managing the Ring during the era we are discussing told me point blank and unapologetically, that Ring Magazine regularly throughout its history rated and covered fighters that didnt earn or deserve the ink in order to sell magazines. So if a fighter had a following, particularly in somewhere like Britain, Germany, etc Ring would often rate that guy or do stories on him just to give their magazine greater interest in those countries. It was a smart practice but it calls into question the idea that Rings ratings were a paragon of virtue. Thos is beyond the fact that during this era the magazine made all kinds of weird decisions with its rankings that skewed their entire system (ignoring junior divisions, continuing to call Ali champion even years after he hadnt defended which violated the Rings own policy, sympathy ratings for fighters such as Napoles who was highly rated in a division he never fought in (WW) lpng before his title shot simply because he was ignored at LW etc. No, I have far less faith in Ring ratings than I do in the WBA for most of the history of their duel ratings.

The WBA ratings were published in newspapers once a month so you can peruse any online newspaper archive and quickly get the ratings.

In regards to your specific point that you listed any fighter in the top from 1966 etc. It shouldnt matter that Folley was rated in 1967 because he lost to Bonavena much later and as we all know fighters can fall apart over night. Its not "what have you done for me" but "what have you done for me lately". I actually agree in essence with your point that Oscar and Quarry were evenly matched and Oscar presented big problems for Quarry. I was just pointing out that Folley, when Oscar beat him, was largely a spent bullet. You can reverse that argument though and say that when Folley beat Oscar Oscar was super green.

 

Fair enough, and I generally am on the same page with what you are saying, but a couple of comments--

1--Ring supporting Ali--well, Ali was prevented from defending his title. It was not like he refused to defend against his challengers. Ali had won the title in the ring and I support The Ring on this one for backing Ali as the man who had won the title in the ring and should rightfully hold it until beaten.

2--Ring ratings--it might help to give an obvious example of a fighter who didn't deserve his Ring rating. But granting that The Ring ratings reflected economic corruption, how does this actually differ from the political corruption of the sanctioning bodies. The Ring might have rated a "German" fighter because he was a local draw to sell magazines, but the WBA might rate the same guy because of the pull of the German boxing officials.

3--"Paragon of virtue"--nothing and no one in this world is that. But I would like examples of when the WBA actually did better than The Ring in ratings. Having Ernie Terrell and Jimmy Ellis as champions over Ali are not examples I would point at with pride.

4--Folley fell apart and was past it when Bonavena beat him? And Thad Spencer was at his ratings and career peak. But Spencer never won another fight after his loss to Quarry. I might ask why I should consider Spencer this great scalp and dismiss Folley who had a much better overall career?

I just went by stats drawn from the ratings.

Bottom line for me--I still pick Bonavena, and for me the relative performances of Bonavena and Quarry against the best--Ali and Frazier--does matter.

 

I agree. I think we are close in our opinions.

I see the point here and Im not totally opposed to it however Ali had, at the time, been found in violation of the law. It wasnt until almost 4 years later that he was found not guilty. It was three years that he didnt fight/defend. With the rules (agreed by pretty much everyone) that the champ had to defend once a year or vacate what do you do? What if he had murdered someone and got sent away? Do you just keep claiming this guy who got twenty years in the pen is champion? That was the very real situation that everyone was dealing with. So I cant blame the WBA for reacting. I also think the Ring's continued recognition of Ali for years after his last defense, in violation of their own policies, was a weak politically motivated stance and it was made more so when Ali announced he would vacate simply to allow his stablemate a chance to promote his fight as a championship in New York, where surprise surprise the Ring was based.

I can find WAY more examples of bad Ring Ratings than I can WBA. Ive given you one example of Napoles being rated at WW long before he beat a WW contender. Another off the top of my head was Papp, he was rated at MW by Ring long before he ever fought a contender and then continued to rise in the rankings despite not beating ranked fighters on the way up that rise. I can go down the Ring rankings from the 1930s through the 1960s/70s and find examples in every published ranking. What are the examples of corruption you speak of? Until the late 60s/early 70s the WBA had a great track record. In the late 60s and early 70s you had a push by Latin American countries to assume a greater more influential role in the organization. They claimed descrimination and as a result the WBA gave these members a more prominent role. What happened was within a few short years these countries completely took over and now the sanctioning bodies are run like banana republics and tinpot dictatorships. You cant let the corruption you saw which began in the mid 1970s and continues to this day bleed into the earlier era when the WBA was a tight ship and run above board.

I think the only criticism here is that WBA followed a rigid set of rules. I agree with that though. I have never subscribed to the idea that a champion is a dictator of his class and write his own ticket and pick and choose who, when, where, and how he fights. Thats the entire reason why the WBA existed. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

Again, because of the context. In hindsight its easy to say this fighter was better than that fighter. But in reality what matters is what that fighters standings were at the time. If Anthony Joshua beat Wilder tomorrow that would be a much more impressive win than if Joshua beat Wilder two years from now with four losses, a draw, and two wins over hobos in the interim. Context is everything, even in the argument you give. You are correct that Spencer totally fell apart after Quarry and never won another fight. I dont really rate that win as an all time great win BUT when Quarry beat Spencer Spencer was a real threat who was actually favored to win the WBA tournament, which itself shows how highly he was regarded by most. When Bonavena beat Folley Folley wasnt rated and hadnt beat anyone of note in years. You could argue that Quarry ruined Spencer. Maybe he did, maybe he didnt but Spencers decline started with Quarry. Folley's decline was in evidence long before Bonavena got to him so to me thats a weaker scalp. But, all of that is besides the point because I was just pointing out that the criteria you used was slightly skewed in light of the fact that Folley was unrated.

I dont have a problem with this. Its a 50/50 fight for me. I could see scenarios where both guys win and I would have a real hard time picking a winner. If you put a gun to my head right now Id probably pick Oscar as well. However if you went back and searched my posts youd probably find at some point I picked Quarry, which is evidence of how much of a nip/tuck affair I see this as.

 

I know Quarry had that freakish loss to Chuvalo but he should beat all of those guys, the challenge coming from Bonavena (who was strong) I still think Quarry could beat Ringo but that one could also go in Ringo's favor depending if Jerry used his ring smarts and picked his shots or went head to head with Ringo like he did with Frazier & Frazier did with Ringo.

Ringo was a bull and you neede to be a matador. A fit JJWalcott could handle Ringo with pin point power shots but if you let him bull you he was hard to match for strength

 

I have to take issue with your choices of Napoles and Papp as instances of bad Ring Magazine ratings.

"I've given you one example of Napoles being rated at welter long before he beat a WW contender."

???--Napoles entered The Ring Ratings in 1962 as the #10 Junior Welter. He moved up to #4 in 1963, and to #1 in 1964 & 1965. His rise in the ratings was due I think to victories over champions Carlos Hernandez and Eddie Perkins. In 1966 he fell to #6 following a KO loss to L. C. Morgan. In 1967 he moved to the welterweight division at the #4 place, becoming #1 contender in 1968 and winning the championship in 1969.

I honestly don't understand your point about Napoles.

Laszlo Papp broke into the middleweight rankings at #7 in 1962 after winning the European championship. He rose to the #4 position in 1963 & 1964 before being forced to retire after signing to fight Giardello. Well, one can criticize his opposition, I suppose, but Papp was a three time Olympic gold medal winner, was undefeated as a pro, and defeated two fighters who held victories over Sugar Ray Robinson, three fighters who had beaten Joey Giardello, plus fighters who had beaten D-ck Tiger, Emile Griffith, Kid Gavilan, Johnny Bratton, and Billy Graham among others. I don't see Papp being rated where The Ring rated him as clearly unjustified.

"Folley"

It is all subjective. You prefer the overrated hot shot to the proven veteran. I go the other way.

"WBA"

Seriously, the WBA stripped Ali of his title for signing for a rematch with Liston. How many fans out there were howling for Ali to match Terrell instead of Liston? I remember the whole nation holding its breath waiting for the Terrell-Machen "championship" fight. (yes, sarcasm) It shows the dilemma. Ruling out rematch clauses might in theory be a good thing, but stripping the obvious champion created a worse problem, with their anointed one never amounting to being more than a paper champion. Sort of like dealing with alcoholism via prohibition.

 

You are looking at the annual ratings on boxrec which dont reflect their month to month publishings. You can track Ring's month to month ratings in their magazines and see they were rating Napoles at Welterweight before he had ever fought anyone at WW. You can say thats a bad example in hindsight but thats my point exactly. Ratings should never be about what you THINK a fighters POTENTIAL is. It should be about what theyve proven in the Ring.

Papp is absolutely a perfect example. The guy fought NOBODY rated to justify not just his entry in the ratings but his continued climb. Being an Olympic champion has no bearing on your professional standing. Why should merely being an Olympic champion leap frog you ahead of men who accomplished far FAR more as professionals over 10, 12, and 15 3 minute rounds as opposed to 3 rounds against other amateurs. It doesnt work like that. You can say he beat guys that beat Robinson or Giardello but again, in a ratings system context is everything. When did those guys beat Robinson and Giardello and when did Papp beat those guys? Did those guys beat Robinson and Giardello, gain a rating, and then Papp beat them? Or did they get a rating only to lose it shortly lately. I can give you examples based on your own example. Mick Leahy somehow broke into the Ring ratings with a win over Robinson in 1964. Robinson hadnt defeated a contender in 3 years. Papp defeated Leahy immediately after Leahy got his rating by Ring but Papp was already rated over Leahy so there is no context or justification there for Papp being rated off his win over Leahy. Papp defeated Sandy in 1963, who did indeed have a win over Tiger. The problem with that is that his win over Tiger was over four years earlier and in the meantime Tiger had avenged that loss and Sandy had only won two fights in the previous four years: 1. to a very green welterweight Emile Griffith who had 12 fights and the other to a completely unknown. So why, based on a win over Tiger four years earlier with absolutely nothing on your resume in the intervening years including no rating, would that justify a jump into the top 10? Another example is Peter Muller. Yes Muller had beaten Giardello under controversial circumstances in Germany in 1960. However by the time Muller fought Papp a year later he had lost 3 fights (one being changed to a no contest). Two of those were to LHWs so those might not affected any standing he had but the other was to a 12 fight nobody in which he got his ass kicked and quit. This fight immediately preceded his bout with Papp, so had he been rated by anyone (which I doubt) he would have been bounced out of the ratings by that point meaning Papps win over him shouldnt have propelled him to a rating anywhere. Another example is Tiger Jones, who did beat Giardello in 1959 but it wasnt until three years later that Papp fought Tiger who at the time was unrated and had won only 5 of his last 12 fights. Again, context is everything. Its not "what have you done for me?" its "what have you done for me lately?" You can go on down the list of his victims but the bottom line is Papp wasnt fighting anyone even remotely worthy of bumping him into the ratings much less having him climb those ratings. The secret to this, and how Ring justified it, was that they gave special consideration to European champions. This is a nice "out" for them but the problem is that their ratings "board" had never seen most of these fighters and several of the European champions who got a top ten rating would have been beaten by many top American amateurs and dozens of professionals because the competition simply wasnt there at that time. It was all just a nice justification for Nat and his cadre to be able to rate these guys and write about them because they sold magazines abroad. I dont criticize the business model, it was very smart, but you have to understand that when you hold Ring ratings up to this high standard that it never once in its entire run achieved. Nat was great at selling Ring as being above the reproach but thats all bull**** smoke and mirrors.

I guess you and I see how ratings should be justified differently but Ring, which often came up with lame excuses to justify some of its ratings in its editorials often broke its own criteria to justify such ratings. If you have no integrity or consistency and basically operate on whims then thats not really much of an argument for impartiality or any kind of structure which the sport did and does desperately need.

There was an excellent reason for the WBA stripping Ali for signing to fight Liston. Because rematch clauses were tying the titles up between a very small group of fighters. For instance. Patterson and Johannson tied the title up with rematches for three years. Then Patterson and Liston tied it up for two years. Now Liston and Ali would tie it up for another two years. From 1959 to 1966 you had 8 HW title fights that featured Patterson, Johannson, Liston, Ali, and McNeeley (who wasnt rated). That means out of all of the possible top ten ratings changing from month to month you basically had four guys tie up the title for 7 years. Thats crazy. Thats why the WBA stepped in and I agree with it. How do you have a healthy division if the title is held hostage by a few guys with mandatory rematches? You dont and thats what the WBA was fighting against to their credit. It doesnt really matter what the people want. Its not a popularity contest. If you go that route and judge everything in the court of public opinion youd have chaos. You have rules in place for the betterment of the sport for a reason.

I think the only thing proven about Folley at that point in his career was that he was shot. I will take a young guy on the rise over an old shot vulnerable fighter any day of the week. In fact, if you put Bonavena in Quarry's place in the tournament I would not only pick him to beat Spencer but I would consider it a better win on his resume than the shot, unrated Folley he rematched.