Jerry Quarry vs....

klompton2

I don't know what exactly happened, but on the above, hit expand and you will get my response concerning Napoles and Papp.

The bottom line is you seem to be judging Papp on whether he deserves to be considered an ATG. But the issue is whether The Ring was on point in putting him somewhere in their top ten ratings from 1962 to 1964 when he was the European champion. A sweeping dismissal of European champions as frauds does not cut it with me. Was Nino Benvenuti a fraud? Was Duilio Loi? Sandro Mazzinghi? Ingemar Johansson? Papp seems more like them than a mere fraud.
You are correct that questions hang over Papp concerning his professional stature. Had the title fight against Giardello come off these questions might have been answered, but it was not to be. Still, off his performances from the ages of 35 to 38, he wasn't an obvious fraud either. Lack of proof is not proof of the opposite.

 

"The WBA stripping Ali"

One thing I must say. This is a case in which one must separate the gravy from the meat and potatoes. One doesn't see the real food under all the gravy, but it is the meal. In this case I think Ali was stripped because he converted to Islam (not acceptable in that day) and the return bout clause was an excuse and not the reason.

But I will pass on that and give the WBA credit for sincere concern about return bout clauses.

"because the return bout clauses were tying up the title between a small group of fighters"

Patterson, Johansson, Liston, and Ali.

And who should have been fighting for the title. Machen? He lost to Johansson, Liston, and Patterson. Folley? Besides being KO'd by Liston, he was also stopped by Lavorante and Jones. Williams? KO'd twice by Liston. Who else? Jones? KO'd by Chuvalo. Chuvalo? The problem with your argument is that the it comes down to the four best men were tying up the title, so someone like George Logan didn't get a shot.

And your answer to that is stripping the champion? and having a joke "championship" fight between Terrell and Machen?

"That's crazy."

I don't know if the four best out there fighting for the title is crazier than second raters fighting for a political title.

"How do you have a healthy division if the championship is held hostage by a few guys with mandatory rematches."

It is a problem, but at least the best were fighting each other during this period. The "frozen out" guys never proved and would never prove themselves the equals of the four tying up the title. Having the boxing politicians anoint champions led to the current situation in which they are several champions who often don't fight each other because they don't have to beat the best to be a champion.

A cure which proved worse than the disease.

This situation reminds me of Ambrose Bierce and his distinction between a conservative and a liberal, which goes something like this:

"A conservative is a man enamored with the evils of the past. A liberal is a reformer who wants to replace them with all new evils."

For me, the evils of the past were the lesser of the two evils.

 

From the given list, I would pick Bonavena over Quarry. His ruggedness and awkward style I believe would frustrate Quarry. While Quarry was having things go his way in a fight, he looked great. When things didn't, he could become frustrated, demoralized, and wilt. On a really good night he might be able to outbox Oscar for a decision, but he would have to be on his "A" game.

Along those same lines, Bugner could be a difficult opponent for Quarry. Skill-wise Quarry has the edge and should win. But like Bonavena, Bugner's durability could work against Jerry. Most top, elite fighters that faced Bugner defeated him, but not many looked good in doing so. A Quarry-Bugner fight would be Quarry's fight to lose and if the fight doesn't go Jerry's way, he just may find a way to lose it.

I would favor Quarry over the others on the list. I cannot add any more to the Quarry-Chuvalo discussion than what has been said. A Quarry-Mildenberger fight could have been interesting but I would give the edge to Quarry with his sharper punching.

 

(BRING YOUR WALLET)
Take Ramos off that list, he was not ranked vs Bonavena, and certainly not a top heavyweight for the timeline. He made like number 4 contender OK, not for long ,-Jerry knocked him cold when he was 18!

 

CORRECTION, Sir Henry Cooper Vs top ten Ring, was 5-3 (2ko) -No neither Johansson, nor Patterson were ranked when they fought Cooper, I go by the day of the fight, Patterson had been expelled due to inactivity. I do not go by the annual ratings, thats just one month, of that particular year.-And people do not either, want or can do the research.

 

Patterson was indeed rated when he fought Cooper. He was rated 8th. Cooper was 9th. After he beat Cooper so impressively, and spencer and johnson (who were rated 6 and 7) had lost he moved up to six.

 

urtain was the biggest lie ever and i am spanish. This guy was a stone lifter and was inflated like hell and fought truck drivers.he got schooled by an ancient henrry Cooper. Quarry would **** urtain.(rest in peace)

 

Klompton2 we're going by Ring Magazine, 9/20/66 Cooper #8 -Patterson unranked.
notes:
Jerry Quarry was #2 when he fought Ali the second time, and 8 months later he was not ranked at all vs 3rd ranked Ron Lyle ( Jerry had a tendacy retirement speech and got pulled from the ratings.) With or without the layoff, Quarry should have been ranked no lower than #6 for that bout!

 

I dont go by Ring magazine. Why would I? Ring wasnt a sanctioning body, it was a magazine whose primary purpose was to sell magazines. The official, most widely recognized sanctioning body was the NBA/WBA. In their rankings Patterson was rated and thats all that matters. If Ring magazine dumped Floyd for inactivity they violated their standards. At that time a champion or contender had one year to defend his title or fight another, preferranly ranked contender to maintain their rating. The idea that Ring dumped Patterson for inactivity when he was signed to fight Cooper less than one year after challenging for the title and suffering an injury and did indeed fight Cooper within that year just shows how arbitrary the Ring rankings were and why its folly to use them as gospel or petend they were the last word on rankings. The NBA was the only organization that had any real power to strip or mandate fights and contenders. Ring had zero power to do anything. Outside of the NBA you had a handfull of states, primarily New York, whose power to dictate had been whittled down to almost nothing over the last 50 years and frankly they usually had a self serving agenda as New York in particular garnered a huge tax revenue from boxing and wanted to maintain that control and that gravy train. Those states didnt publish any kind of rankings so you still fall back on the only official and widest circulated rankings. Frankly, as Ive said on this forum a million times, I dont understand the faith put in Ring magazines rankings. People act like they were so great but if you dive deep into and look at the context they are all over the place.

 

"Jerry knocked him cold when he was 18"

Was that in the amateurs? Just curious.

But Ramos probably did not have the background Quarry had. He actually had a losing record though 13 fights--5 wins, 6 losses and 2 draws. Then he went on a 13 bout winning streak which included a win over Machen one month before Machen beat Quarry, and a win over Terrell. He was rated above Quarry in 1966 and 1967, and rated #4 in 1967. So he meets my criteria.

 

"neither Johansson, nor Patterson were ranked when they fought Cooper"

So. Johansson was ranked #7 in the 1956 yearly rankings and had a fight in December. By May he was out of the rankings? But what does any of this prove? He would go on to KO the #1 ranked Machen and the champion Patterson, and his KO victim Cooper beat Folley and Harris and another KO victim, Erskine, beat Pastrano. Those were the Americans ranked in the top five so I see no good argument for Johansson not being rated.

The bottom line for me is that considering champions like Johansson and Patterson "unranked" fighters only undercuts the whole "rated on the day they fought" argument, as these (and the "unranked" Ali) were clearly much better fighters than your ranked guys.

 

No i'm not a huge fan of Ring Ratings, they had their discrepancies just like anyone else, But who are you going to go by? I've asked and asked who was the sanctioning Ratings body was of Boxing many times, with no reply, I too believe the promoters and newspapers went by NBA/WBA. they Did not take pride in their ratings like Nat Fleischer did -(Ring) they stripped fighter's of titles at the drop of a hat, Moved Unbeaten Joe frazier from #2 to #9 for not entering the Elimination Tournament. to name another, And god help the WBC!

One thing i'm very pleased about Ring and decided to go with, you can find their monthly ratings much easier, (I say EZ?-I had to buy all their Magazines).

WBA I'VE ACTUALLY CONTACTED TO GET THEIR MONTHLY 1960's 70's Lists.
And they stated they were burned up in a fire! I've since just about researched them down (Still missing months), -It has not been ez!

 

That too tough top ten listed, none of those birds could have beaten Floyd Patterson, talk about overrated including Ringo, At least Quarry's bums SHAVERS, LYLE -could beat everyone of that aforementioned. Jerry was a pro's pro, who not only beat better fighter's. he only lost to the best as well.

 

"none of those birds could have beaten Patterson"

Johansson?

"Shavers"

Ron Stander stopped him and also beat Thad Spencer.

"he only lost to the best"

Was the 1966 Eddie Machen coming off a loss to Ramos the best? What about Chuvalo?

Lyle beat an older Bonavena--in Denver where Lyle was 18-0 with 14 KO's during his career. He was far less imposing when not fighting in Denver. Being acclimated to the altitude might explain this.