Even though they were about the same age,Quarry was fading at the time they fought while Ken was still at his peak. Some think that Jerry would have won if they'd both been at their best. I disagree. While it would have been a lot more competitive,Norton's style was all wrong for Quarry. Norton takes it in the late rounds,with the referee stepping in to save Jerry from any more punishment.
It's difficult to say for sure, and primarily due to the fact that I don't exactly know how far gone Quarry was, nor even for that matter if Norton was truly at his peak when the fight occurred. Although age doesn't always necessarily reflect at what stage a fighter is in ( prime, past prime, etc. ) I believe Quarry was around 29 while Ken was something like 31. Norton of course, was visibly in better shape and would continue to maintain top conditioning for years following this match. Jerry was basically in the last signature match of his career. Norton showed up weighing 218 lbs, which I suppose was generally a decent weight for him, while Jerry weighed in at 207, a tad higher than what he usually carried in his prime. Quarry was perhaps a year and a half to two years removed from what many believe to be the best streak of his career. In 1973, Quarry beat Lyle, Shavers, and a few respectable journeyman. Norton on the otherhand, was about to embark on the best streak of his career, which would extend to around 1978 when he'd lose to Larry Holmes.. My guess is that they were both at a cross roads in terms of how good they still were. From a stylistic standpoint, Norton possesed little in common with some of the best men Quarry defeated, while Quarry may well have been the best counterpuncher that Norton ever faced. I think its fair to say that Jerry, despite his being two years younger, was more diminished than Ken was. He had taken a lot of beatings by this point, his conditioning was not quite on Norton's level, and his lifestyle choices outside the ring made for an abrupt ending to an otherwise great career..... Prime for prime, I think Jerry had a very good chance of beating Norton due to the fact that he did very well against skilled men who were often bigger, stronger, and more athletic in appearance. The one thing that makes me hestitant to pick him however, is that in order to beat Norton, you either had to be an all time great boxer like Ali or Holmes, or a world class puncher like Foreman or Shavers. Quarry was neither to be truthful. I could be going out on a limb here, but I think I'm still going to take Norton via stoppage, only a bit later and after receiving a more competitive effort from Quarry..
Pretty much the same thing that Magoo said but I think Norton would unfortunatly more than likely knock Jerry out. I hate to say that because I friggin' love Quarry . I see Ken maybe even destroying Jerry like he did Bobick if Jerry fights sraight up but Jerry would at least bob and weave and make it somewhat of a fight. Who knows he could beat Norton as well, Jerry did beat Shavers and he probably hit harder than Norton .
I think Jerry pulls the upset over Ken. He fought better comp, and would know what do to in a prime vs prime scenario.
I think the JQ of the Spencer and Mathis fights would have the best shot at beating Ken, but he'd likely have to stop Norton to do it. Kenny was a pain in the ass to try outscoring, and Jerry's counter punching wouldn't be at all favorable to his odds of winning a decision. However, Jerry had the power necessary to spring a trap where Norton wouldn't know what hit him, and he carried that power in both hands. He'd need to slip, or duck, and counter like he did when he dropped Spencer late, and put Bodell's lights out. Ken would need to keep things at long range, and opt for a drawn out affair, maintaining concentration at all times. Head to head, I think Norton would have to be favored, but the puncher's chance belongs to Jerry, not Ken, who failed to drop Quarry despite hitting him with everything in 1975. Spencer did keep his right foot in the bucket like Norton, and Jerry's mobility made Thad pay dearly for it. Ken's footwork wasn't all that much better than Spencer's. (Of course Norton's reach and cross armed defense set him considerably apart from Spencer.)
Quarry is an enigma for sure. He could be brilliant if properly motivated or he could lose focus (Chuvalo), be undertrained (Machen), or fight while being seriously injured (Ellis). The Quarry who was on against Spencer, Mathis, Foster, was a smart, mobile, granite-chinned counter puncher who would have a shot against any version of Norton. I think by 1973, Quarry was clearly past his best but he still the chin and moxie to beat vaunted sluggers like Lyle and Shavers. The 1967-70' version of JQ who was well-conditioned and focused could have possibly beaten Norton. Later on I would take Norton pretty much everytime.
I disagree with your opinion about a prospective fight between any version of Jerry with Norton,but I think he'd have probabbly beaten Ellis,closely,if his back had been ok. He should have postponed that fight.