Jersey Joe Walcott vs. Jerry Quarry

Yeah, I can see that too.

I'm just objecting to the idea that Walcott is so many leagues above Quarry that merely picking Quarry over him must indicate some sort of glorification of the 1970s.

Quarry's record and ability stacks up pretty well for a guy who never won the championship, and puts him above the likes of Rex Layne in my opinion at least, and this is all regardless of the era he fought in.

The good fighters of the 60s and 70s were good fighters - Quarry was one of them, and he beat a fair few of the others. This isn't over-rating.

Likewise, I have no problem accepting that Walcott, Charles, Joe Baksi, Elmer Ray and old Joe Louis were good fighters too.

 

Just had a quick count-up. Since we've been back, well over forty direct 'vs.' matchup threads have been created. Most involve heavyweights.

Yawn.

 

The criticism is not directed to you, I have also no problem when someone pick Quarry here and back it up with good and logical arguments. But when you look for example at Clay´s post, than you know why some of us are a bit peeved...

 

You are quite correct on this point. To clarify how I see things I will outline how I would manage each fighter in the other's era to get them a shot at the title.

Walcott in Quarry's era
I would target the punchers like Quarry Lyle Shavers, Foster and Bonavena to build up Walcotts reputation as a slayer of ogres.

Fighters that I would steer clear of on the way up are Jimmy Ellis, Floyd Patterson and Jimmy Young (slicksters and pressure fighters). I would only take on these fighters when it was necesary to move up the pecking order.

Quarry in Walcotts era
I would try to avoid sthe slicksters as far as I could while still moving my man allong. I would keep him clear of Roland La Straza and would only go after Charles or Walcott if I needed to to close the deal.

Fighters I would see as potential stepping stones to a title shot include Nino Valdez, Bob Baker, Rex Layne and Bob Satterfield.

 

People claim Quarry would have been champ in any other era, well I dont by it, outside of say holding it during the Burns or early 30's. and even today. I dont see Quarry holding the title OFTEN(If he was imortal or something)

In the 1880's, he would have been beating by John L and Peter Jackson. Both were beast. Also the other top contenders like Paddy Ryan and Jake Kilrain would be a hand full for Quarry. I see him falling short of John L. And I dont belive he get by Jackson either.

In the 1890's, He has Fitz, Corbett and a sort of used up Peter Jackson. Again in this time Jackson was still great. He had his 61 battle with Corbett. And I do belive Corbett is a style problem for Qurrey. He may take it when Fitz got the title. But Fitz was a master useing the short gloves and the rules of that era. Again I see Quarry falling short of his goal.

In the 1900's we had Jim Jeff, Tom Sharkey, Jim Corbett, and Jeff was nearly unbeatable under the 45 round rules of that era. Quarry may be able to outlast the other guys, but fall short with Jeff and Sharkey. He may beat a over the hill Corbett and Fitz, but once again fall short, because Jim was such a great fighter. He would have a shot vs Burns. But once Johnson comes

Sorry, I dont see Quarry beating Jack Johnson, He would relly mess Quarry up in the clichings of that era. I also see him falling short vs Sam Langfang, McVey and the rest of that bunch. OVer All I dont think Quarry could do it. He chance is when Jess Willard took the title. But a in shape Willard in a 45 round fight would be a hard task to over come. I make Willard the favor there.
1910's era of couse.

The 1920's was Dempsey and Tunney. And Quarry stands little chance of beating Dempsey. Quarry would perhaps get that title shot in 1922, and fail. Dempsey would party for the rest of the 20's, Quarry would get a 2nd chance vs Tunney and fail. I think Quarry would be the 3rd or 4th best, assumeing he can beat Greb and Tommy Gibbions.

He have a shot in the early 1930's when the title was flip flopping around. But once Louis hit the scene. Quarry would be left in the cold.
Same goes for the 40's as well.

In the 1950's, He have to contend with Walcott, Charles, Moore and Marciano. I dont see Quarry beating Walcott, or even Charles. I even take the Rock over him. In the late 50's he has Patterson. and than Liston.

Than we go into the 1960's with Ali. Ali prove it in the 70's. So I dont see Quarry winning here.

The 1980's had Holmes and Tyson. again falling short, though he could win a alpha title. but thats not the point imo.

the 1990's had Holyfiled and Lewis. And I pretty sure again he win a alpha title, but falling short vs Lewis and Holyfiled. Though he could chance Evander on a bad night like Moore did.

 

Walcott would definitely win this some people serious underrate him the only reason he has so many losses is due to poor management in the beginning of his career didn't Archie Moore say something like he would have been one of the greatest if he had proper management.

 

And you took the bait hook, line, and sinker!:rofl Notice how you're the only one who responded to my post. Everyone else knew I was joking.

Anyway, Walcott's handspeed, and boxing ability would be the difference. If a guy like Jimmy Ellis could outslick Quarry, then Walcott definetely would. Quarry would only ave a punchers chance, but that is about it. alcott would win a clear UD 10-5.

Jersey Joe Walcott UD 15 Jerry Quarry:good

Get a life Luigi. Get a girl. Get some friends. Get a dog. Get something! Surely you have better things to do then to carry on like the demented fool you appear to be. Once you identify the problem, that is the first step to recovery.:good

 

YOU ARE A TROLL:blood

 

I think he was kidding/being deliberately provocative to people with opposing opinions in this instance. I doubt he actually thinks Quarry would knock out Walcott in three rounds.

 

I would like to note that I agree with Sonny's Jab that picking Quarry over Walcott is by no means inherently ridiculous or insane. However, I still go the other way, as would most fans and historians.

 

AGREED

 

See, even someone who has Marciano in their username can plainly see that I wasn't serious. How come Luigi couldn't?:huh

Notice how Luigi hasn't even responded to this post? He knows I've just made a fool of him, and he's scared to even show his face!

 

So you agree with sombody who is joking?

 

I can usually discriminate irony and sarcasm from reality, but you unfortunately showed in the past that you favour fighters from the 70s against other great fighters where it´s really ridiculous, so I thaught you would be serious here,too.

 

I have a life, I have not a girl, I have even some girls, in the past I had dogs when I was a child, but right now I have no time to care for them... I don´t know why you forum clown came with that stuff, but if you feel better now...