Jimmy Ellis vs. Jerry Quarry

I watched that fight on youtube, and had Ellis up by one or two points at the end. It was a fascinating bout in terms of action, strategy, contrasting styles, and tactics.

Although Ellis was a deserving winner on this occasion, I'm not so sure that he would have beaten Quarry 8 out of 10 times, as you indicate. The action was so closely contested throughout that I could easily imagine these guys splitting their matches 50/50 if they fought multiple times.

Note that Quarry appeared to have Ellis seriously hurt in the final rounds (or at least in one of the final rounds). That in itself shows how close this fight was.

Jimmy proved himself to be the superior lead boxer, operating effectively with a sharp jab and jolting right hand, which he threw nicely as a lead punch or as part of a 1-2 combo. Ellis also showed that he could move well, and when necessary, stand up to a heavy shot (he took a few bombs that night). Ellis's counterpunching was impressive, too.

I liked Quarry's furious combo punching. I also thought his footwork and handspeed were impressive. I don't downgrade Quarry's power based on this showing: it's important to remember that Ellis had a great chin.

 

I watched this fight not long ago... I had Ellis completely neutralizing Quarry and making him look very ordinary...

Seems like Quarry just could never get into the fight. I had Ellis by a total landslide... I think I gave Quarry 4 or 5 rounds... Ellis set the pace and was the boss. Plain and simple.

I wasn't sure if it was Quarry misfiring that night or that Ellis was that bad of a matchup style-wise... On reflection, I think Ellis was more physical, hit harder (earning respect from Quarry), and better overall at controlling a fight than was Jerry.

To my surprise, the opposite was true (the tables were turned) when I studied Patterson vs Ellis not too long after...

 

Patterson vs Ellis vs Quarry is an interesting "round robin" of who can beat who.

 

Arguably that handful of rounds that were won easily and widely -- and I emphasize that there weren't many such rounds -- were taken by Ellis. Possibly those rounds stand out in the memory of people who perceive Ellis as winning wide. But the rest of the rounds (the majority) were more tightly contested.

Also, those stretches of time in the fight which were most obviously dominated (at least in a way which is easy for observers to glean) were won by Ellis. He did this by staying at long range and making his jab-jolting right combos work. But there was much more to the fight than just those moments dominated by Ellis.

It looked to me as if Quarry had many winning moments...particularly when he let both hands go with lightning-quick counterpunches.

Didn't you notice the times late in the fight when Ellis was clearly hurt and in trouble?

It was a nice, well deserved win for Jimmy, but by no means was it easy. He was pushed nearly to his limits by Quarry's speed, power, and durability.

 

Ellis bossed him, pushed, won the exchanges, and was much more physical than I expected him to be... He won most rounds very clearly... And no, I didn't think Ellis was in trouble at any point.

The fight had enough action that it would be worth revisiting, but I scored along and was really surprised at how assertive and dominant Ellis was; I expected the controversy I always read about.

I'm actually biased towards Quarry... Even with my mindset before hand thinking Quarry would lose a decision he should have won, I scored the fight overwhelmingly for Ellis.

 

I give it another look myself. Of one thing I am convinced: there was nothing controversial about the decison. In my mind, it was close and tightly contested, but Ellis was a very clear winner.

 

When Quarry was on his game he was tough to beat, but he had consistency issues.

 

I thought a past it Patterson acquitted himself best, among the three of them. He would have gone undefeated against this level of opponents had he less mileage on him, in my view.

 

I agree. In his last fight (I think), he whipped Bonavena and it wasn't close. He bossed him and looked the stronger of the two, to my astoundment... Just totally kicked his ass.

I recently did a study of all aforementioned fighters, and its clear Patterson was a level above all of them.

Makes you appreciate how much ahead of the pack Frazier and Ali were in comparison.

 

I thought Floyd was very unlucky not to have gotten the nod against Quarry both times. I had Floyd winning the first fight by a narrow margin, and thought he deserved no less than a draw in the rematch.

Either way, both fights were razor close in terms of action.

 

I heard that Bonavena was very much sub-par when he fought Patterson in '72. As I understand it, Bonavena was inactive for much of the early '70s due to fractured hand/wrist problems, and hadn't yet shaken off the ring rust when he fought Floyd.

 

I hadn't heard that, but my point was that was Patterson's last fight, and he totally manhandled the tough and strong Bonavena.

 

Amen and well said.

Joe and Muhammad were like the trunk of the tree and everyone else was pretty much the 3rd or 4th branch out. Nevertheless, they were still pretty good fighters that certainly did not benefit from timing and having to go through those guys.

I always thought it was no coincidence the older 60's type heavies really didn't sign contracts to fight the up and coming Foreman either. Not a whole lot of $$$ and George was not going to take it easy on anybody.

Another old guy from that earlier generation I actually like is Ernie Terrell. He hasn't stood the test of time well, but I think some different matchmaking and perhaps he gets the nod over an old Liston. Or goes the distance w/ Smoking Joe. Then again, we kind of got Joe Bugner a little bit later he seemed to kind of take over that Terrell type role--another guy just not quitegood enough but still good.