Jerry Quarry vs. Vitali Klitschko

[cross_trainer]

I'm looking for serious debate of stylistic factors rather than a "this fighter is better/has a better chin/hits harder therefore he wins" kind of thing. There's plenty of Quarry and Vitali footage on Youtube...which is, by the way, a heaven-sent help to boxing fans like us.

Who wins, and why?

[The Kurgan]

It depends: if Vitali boxes on the outside and doesn't get dragged into a brawl, he could embarass Quarry (who didn't like to have to look for his opponent). On the other hand, Vitali usually went forward in a linear, plodding and predictable manner, with a very limited range of punches. He's very open to being counted.

Of course, there is the question of height, but Vitali was very good at giving up his height advantage. If Quarry uses a bit of head-movement to avoid counter-right hands (something Vitali wouldn't have really seen before), I think he would find it pretty easy to use Vitali's wide-stance/low hands means of eliminating his height advantage.

Quarry's bodypunching was very good, and I don't think Vitali had the handspeed to counter before Quarry has gotten too close. Once Quarry's in close, Vitali's vast height disadvantage would allow Quarry to dominate him in close.

If they both fight as they have in their best fights, therefore, I think Quarry would win a firm UD.

[Vantage_West]

It depends on which Quarry shows up. Is it the punching bag in 1972 who lost to Ali? Or the excellent version who dissected Mac Foster and picked Ron Lyle clean? The size difference would be enormous. But Quarry had bull-like strenghth for his size. Quarry would be faster and he was a savvy counterpuncher. He would not be afraid of Vitali. When Vitali employs his goofy staredown during the ref's instructions Quarry would have to keep his temper in check. Who fought the better competition? Just kidding of course. Well, this would be hard to predict. If Vitali used his jab consistently he could bust Quarry up and get a TKO. I don't think he would knock Quarry out even though he has an incredible kayo percentage. But knocking out the likes of Kirk Johnson and Corrie Sanders is a far cry from knocking out a guy who withstood the fearsome punching Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, Thad Spencer, etc. I have trouble however envisioning Quarry beating an elite level heavyweight like Vitaly. Quarry was at a size didsadvantage in most of his big fights. This size difference would be enormous against a guy who is a great fighter. So I say Vitali wins.

V. Klitschko TKO 9 (cuts) "Irish" Jerry Quarrywell he was a small fighter who was great at being small.

take a look at a quarry - frazier fight and you can see that he will brawl with frazier,and when he fought ali he did the same thing of mimicing and tried to box him.

if a tall fighter came to him he wins it's basicly like that. his counterpunches were what got him to top many good fiighters. he could be at a lighter cruiserwieght stop vitali on cuts vitali wanst superman and could get cut and knocked down. quarry slipped jabs very well as he would come back with a counter left hook to the body but somone like ali would just double jab and cause quarry to do a wrong move.

vitali has niether the speed or ring generalship of ali nor the brutal one shot power of frazier he has little defence except lean back which is perfect for the classic quarry overhand right.

for some reason im going for quarry he was quick deceptivly powerful was a better skill set and cold maul and take alot of punishment

BUT vitali if he plays it smart and jabs and moves and doesnt let him slef get inside or near jerry then he has the choice of not playing to the rules though this style change is odd for his jab jab cross style which could be very messy if he tires quarry out...but he aint he's gonan come foreward throw a jab and wham.right hand on the chin and then a pummeling body combo. jerry is also able to be small enough not to get tangled up like lewis or soon to be mcCline

[Mendoza]

Unless Vitali injures his shoudler, he easily defeats a game, but over matched Quarry.

[KTFO]

Vitlay KO1 Quarry

[jhar26]

Quarry had lots of courage but Vitali would totally overpower him IMO and get Jerry out of there in six or seven rounds. Vitali is just too big and strong. Great left hook though and he might have more of a punchers chance against Wlad than against Vitali.

[brooklyn1550]

Klitschko TKO

[KobeIsGod]

Vitail Klitschko doesnt get enough credit for how intelligent he fights. Quarry seemed to never have that problem. It would probably take on the same tenor as Vitali vs. Williams.

[Bummy Davis]

Klitschko outboxes Quarry and tko's him in the 9th

[Duodenum]

It depends: if Vitali boxes on the outside and doesn't get dragged into a brawl, he could embarass Quarry (who didn't like to have to look for his opponent). On the other hand, Vitali usually went forward in a linear, plodding and predictable manner, with a very limited range of punches. He's very open to being counted.

Of course, there is the question of height, but Vitali was very good at giving up his height advantage. If Quarry uses a bit of head-movement to avoid counter-right hands (something Vitali wouldn't have really seen before), I think he would find it pretty easy to use Vitali's wide-stance/low hands means of eliminating his height advantage.

Quarry's bodypunching was very good, and I don't think Vitali had the handspeed to counter before Quarry has gotten too close. Once Quarry's in close, Vitali's vast height disadvantage would allow Quarry to dominate him in close.

If they both fight as they have in their best fights, therefore, I think Quarry would win a firm UD.This assessment was astute and enjoyable to read. My take on this pairing may be slightly different, but read on.

I've just scrutinized footage of both, and see another Loughran/Baer type boxing lesson in store for the ungainly rootfooted robotic one.

Jerry would easily outmanuever him en route to a lopsided unanimous decision. Size and strength would be no kind of asset against a veteran who blew out Shavers within a round, knocked Foreman on his keister in sparring, and showed Ron Lyle what great ring generalship looked like.

Quarry would be salivating in anticipation of beating tattoos into the flesh of that huge upright torso, moving side to side, in and out, slipping and countering off the ropes with ridiculous ease of quickness, spinning his prey around constantly in the clinches, getting under his gangly victim's long ineffectual swings and ponderous thrusts.

The Bellflower Belter would give Dr. Rustfist a boxing lesson along the lines of Tommy Loughran's schooling of Max Baer. He'd enjoy the easy pickings of an upright, mechanical, impotent target, landing three or four punches to every one the haplessly automatonic giant attempted.

Vitalis would learn, as Shavers and Frazier discovered, that Jerry was no slow starter. Later he would discover, as Spencer and Lyle did, that Quarry was also a strong finisher. He'd also learn that height and reach might prove most ineffectual against a foe with a lower center of gravity who can change his position in the ring quickly and continually.

Irish Jerry demonstrated what he could do to a big man with his ridiculously lopsided domination of Buster Mathis.

Ali was at the relaxed best of his second career for an emotionally drained and psyched out Quarry in their rematch. But for this one, Jerry wouldn't be facing The Greatest primed for a marquee performance. Quarry would lure him into the corners, then have Viagra spun around and pinned in the corners himself, before realizing what Jerry was doing.

With Gil Clancy as Jerry's second, Velveeta would be lucky to win four or five rounds. He'd think he was facing a nest of machine guns from both sides. Rustfist, meet Triggerfist.

Science and statistics be damned. The human element is all in Quarry's favor.

Jerry Quarry UD 15 Klitschko (either one).

[The Kurgan]

This assessment was astute and enjoyable to read.

I take such praise gladly for a poster of your stature. :good

My take on this pairing may be slightly different, but read on.

I've just scrutinized footage of both, and see another Loughran/Baer type boxing lesson in store for the ungainly rootfooted robotic one.

Jerry would easily outmanuever him en route to a lopsided unanimous decision. Size and strength would be no kind of asset against a veteran who blew out Shavers within a round, knocked Foreman on his keister in sparring, and showed Ron Lyle what great ring generalship looked like.

Quarry would be salivating in anticipation of beating tattoos into the flesh of that huge upright torso, moving side to side, in and out, slipping and countering off the ropes with ridiculous ease of quickness, spinning his prey around constantly in the clinches, getting under his gangly victim's long ineffectual swings and ponderous thrusts.

The Bellflower Belter would give Dr. Rustfist a boxing lesson along the lines of Tommy Loughran's schooling of Max Baer. He'd enjoy the easy pickings of an upright, mechanical, impotent target, landing three or four punches to every one the haplessly automatonic giant attempted.

Vitalis would learn, as Shavers and Frazier discovered, that Jerry was no slow starter. Later he would discover, as Spencer and Lyle did, that Quarry was also a strong finisher. He'd also learn that height and reach might prove most ineffectual against a foe with a lower center of gravity who can change his position in the ring quickly and continually.

Irish Jerry demonstrated what he could do to a big man with his ridiculously lopsided domination of Buster Mathis.

Ali was at the relaxed best of his second career for an emotionally drained and psyched out Quarry in their rematch. But for this one, Jerry wouldn't be facing The Greatest primed for a marquee performance. Quarry would lure him into the corners, then have Viagra spun around and pinned in the corners himself, before realizing what Jerry was doing.

With Gil Clancy as Jerry's second, Velveeta would be lucky to win four or five rounds. He'd think he was facing a nest of machine guns from both sides. Rustfist, meet Triggerfist.

Science and statistics be damned. The human element is all in Quarry's favor.

Jerry Quarry UD 15 Klitschko (either one).

All very good points, none of which I disagree with, except from your final statement. While I think Vitali is a fairly sure bet for a peak Quarry to defeat, Wladimir is a very different prospect. Wladimir, like Lewis, is far better than Vitali at keeping his height and has a much better defense. He also has a surprisingly compact right hand and a quick left hook, while would leave him less vulnerable to in-and-out tactics from Quarry.

On the other hand, I think Quarry's body attack and power pose a lot of problems for Wlad. His vastly superior stamina would also give him a very good chance at a Puritty-like late rally.

Wlad-Quarry is more or less a 60/40 fight in favour of Wlad, in my opinion. I've rated Wlad as the superior brother ever since Stewart began to reform him into a more mobile and cautious boxer, and certainly give him a vastly better shot at beating Quarry that Vitali.

[red cobra]

Vitali would have had a very good chance of beating Jerry because of his size, his long arms, his style and the fact that he takes a pretty good punch. If he played it cautious, that is. Just havinh height and long arms didn't always mean a guy could beat Quarry. Ron Lyle, Larry Middleton, Buster Mathis to name a few couldn't do it. Patience and a constant jab might have worked for Vitali.

[Duodenum]

I take such praise gladly for a poster of your stature. :goodHuh? You're very welcome, but stature? Me?All very good points, none of which I disagree with, except from your final statement. While I think Vitali is a fairly sure bet for a peak Quarry to defeat, Wladimir is a very different prospect. Wladimir, like Lewis, is far better than Vitali at keeping his height and has a much better defense. He also has a surprisingly compact right hand and a quick left hook, while would leave him less vulnerable to in-and-out tactics from Quarry.

On the other hand, I think Quarry's body attack and power pose a lot of problems for Wlad. His vastly superior stamina would also give him a very good chance at a Puritty-like late rally.

Wlad-Quarry is more or less a 60/40 fight in favour of Wlad, in my opinion. I've rated Wlad as the superior brother ever since Stewart began to reform him into a more mobile and cautious boxer, and certainly give him a vastly better shot at beating Quarry that Vitali.I'll defer to your greater familiarity with and knowledge about Wlad, as I'm admittedly deficient in my awareness of more recent competitors.

[The Kurgan]

Huh? You're very welcome, but stature? Me?

Forced to name the best poster on this site, I'd go for you. Your posts are well-thought out and refer to lots of sources/fighters that I later look up and learn from. You also post REASONS for your opinions, which is something that is both rare and beneficial on this site.

I'll defer to your greater familiarity with and knowledge about Wlad, as I'm admittedly deficient in my awareness of more recent competitors.

For all his flaws, Wlad is actually a very good boxer, in my opinion. He's one of my favourite fighters today, if only because he reminds me of the heroes of my youth (Frank Bruno, Lennox Lewis and Larry Holmes). Like them, he has a jab-orientated nature while still throwing power shots and being a hard working fighter.

I can see Wlad boxing on the back foot against Quarry, but such subtle and cautious boxing has never really been a feature of Vitali's career. For tall boxers, it pays to have a weaker chin, because it teaches them to be more respectful of the punching power of shorter fighters.

[KTFO]

Vitlay has a weight advantage of 50lbs and a hight advantage of 7". Plus he has some pretty good tactics. Anyone who sees Quarry winning this one must be a fucked up drug addict.

[Sakura]

Jerry Quarry was in his prime 6'0, 198 lb and Vitali Klitchko is 6'8, 250 lb there is now match

[ChrisPontius]

This assessment was astute and enjoyable to read. My take on this pairing may be slightly different, but read on.

I've just scrutinized footage of both, and see another Loughran/Baer type boxing lesson in store for the ungainly rootfooted robotic one.

Jerry would easily outmanuever him en route to a lopsided unanimous decision. Size and strength would be no kind of asset against a veteran who blew out Shavers within a round, knocked Foreman on his keister in sparring, and showed Ron Lyle what great ring generalship looked like.

Quarry would be salivating in anticipation of beating tattoos into the flesh of that huge upright torso, moving side to side, in and out, slipping and countering off the ropes with ridiculous ease of quickness, spinning his prey around constantly in the clinches, getting under his gangly victim's long ineffectual swings and ponderous thrusts.

The Bellflower Belter would give Dr. Rustfist a boxing lesson along the lines of Tommy Loughran's schooling of Max Baer. He'd enjoy the easy pickings of an upright, mechanical, impotent target, landing three or four punches to every one the haplessly automatonic giant attempted.

Vitalis would learn, as Shavers and Frazier discovered, that Jerry was no slow starter. Later he would discover, as Spencer and Lyle did, that Quarry was also a strong finisher. He'd also learn that height and reach might prove most ineffectual against a foe with a lower center of gravity who can change his position in the ring quickly and continually.

Irish Jerry demonstrated what he could do to a big man with his ridiculously lopsided domination of Buster Mathis.

Ali was at the relaxed best of his second career for an emotionally drained and psyched out Quarry in their rematch. But for this one, Jerry wouldn't be facing The Greatest primed for a marquee performance. Quarry would lure him into the corners, then have Viagra spun around and pinned in the corners himself, before realizing what Jerry was doing.

With Gil Clancy as Jerry's second, Velveeta would be lucky to win four or five rounds. He'd think he was facing a nest of machine guns from both sides. Rustfist, meet Triggerfist.

Science and statistics be damned. The human element is all in Quarry's favor.

Jerry Quarry UD 15 Klitschko (either one).

Vitali is not comparable to Baer. First of all, Vitali is to Baer what Liston is to Marciano. Vitali is 6'7 1/2 250 lb, not 6'2 1/2 and 210 lb.

Second, Vitali rarely lost rounds. Baer did so very often, he managed to lose a decision to a past his prime Braddock for crying out loud. The two natural sub-200 pound fighters that Vitali fought lasted one round and two rounds.
Vitali has an ugly style just like Max, but he is very effective with it and no one really solved it. He also has an iron chin and can fight on the backfoot (see the Sanders fight) or on the front foot (most of his fights).

Ali had Quarry completely befuddled by a long jab and movement and Ali didn't have nearly the size that Vitali does. Ali wasn't as fast as he was at his peak anymore either. You're giving all excuses for Quarry emotionally drained and what not, but the fact is that he was at the peak of his powers whereas Ali had a full three year layoff and no warmup fight at all. Everything was in his favor yet he only lasted 3 rounds.

You're bringing up the Mathis fight to show him against a big guy, but Vitali is to Mathis what Ali is to Frazier in height, a huge difference. Mathis was mostly a fat guy who lost every time he stepped up. Vitali wasn't a glass chinned, staminaless fighter like Shavers either.


I take Vitali by late TKO.

[Duodenum]

Vitlay has a weight advantage of 50lbs and a hight advantage of 7". Plus he has some pretty good tactics. Anyone who sees Quarry winning this one must be a fucked up drug addict.You mean like the idiots who gave Dempsey a chance against Willard, and Walker a chance against Uzcudun?

[ChrisPontius]

You mean like the idiots who gave Dempsey a chance against Willard, and Walker a chance against Uzcudun?

What he probably means is that Vitali actually has skill, lost very few rounds and was in great shape, whereas Willard was 37 years old, out of shape, had barely fought in three years, had a non existent defense and would've never beaten an old Johnson had it been a 12, 15 or 20-rounder.

[KTFO]

You mean like the idiots who gave Dempsey a chance against Willard, and Walker a chance against Uzcudun?



:cannabis :cannabis



You forgot to mention Primo Carnera.

[Duodenum]

Vitali is not comparable to Baer. First of all, Vitali is to Baer what Liston is to Marciano. Vitali is 6'7 1/2 250 lb, not 6'2 1/2 and 210 lb.

Second, Vitali rarely lost rounds. Baer did so very often, he managed to lose a decision to a past his prime Braddock for crying out loud. The two natural sub-200 pound fighters that Vitali fought lasted one round and two rounds.
Vitali has an ugly style just like Max, but he is very effective with it and no one really solved it. He also has an iron chin and can fight on the backfoot (see the Sanders fight) or on the front foot (most of his fights).

Ali had Quarry completely befuddled by a long jab and movement and Ali didn't have nearly the size that Vitali does. Ali wasn't as fast as he was at his peak anymore either. You're giving all excuses for Quarry emotionally drained and what not, but the fact is that he was at the peak of his powers whereas Ali had a full three year layoff and no warmup fight at all. Everything was in his favor yet he only lasted 3 rounds.

You're bringing up the Mathis fight to show him against a big guy, but Vitali is to Mathis what Ali is to Frazier in height, a huge difference. Mathis was mostly a fat guy who lost every time he stepped up. Vitali wasn't a glass chinned, staminaless fighter like Shavers either.


I take Vitali by late TKO.No modern heavyweight has anything resembling the skills possessed by a veteran Quarry. Witness how fat old Larry Holmes schooled the peaking 1988 Olympic HW Gold Medalist. That's representative of how much the art of boxing has declined from Quarry's era to Klitschko's. A peak Larry Holmes would have shut out Mercer 150-135 over 15 rounds with the least possible trouble, and the modern sport has devolved so much that Chuck Wepner would look like SRR against today's heavyweights. Oh, and Carnera boxes Klitschko's ears off in sweeping the championship rounds. After 12 rounds, Quarry had decisioned Lyle handily. This was the same Lyle who was actually leading a prime experienced Ali in the scoring after ten rounds.

No, Vitali is not comparable to Baer. Maxie dominated King Levinski over the 20 round distance. Gee, I wonder what Klitschko would look like after trying to go 20 with Baer, cause he sure as heck isn't going to be able to land an opponent who took Galento's best with six ounce gloves. (Aren't today's wimps using ten and twelve ounce pillows?) Just check out Baer/Carnera on youtube for the visual of what Baer (either Buddy or Max) might look like against Klitschko (either Vitali or Wlad).


ps: It's about time Chris. I can't spend all my sparring time against good old JT. I've come to rely on your antagonism, as it's become part of my comfort zone on ESB Classic. (When you agree with anything I post, I panic.)

[mcvey]

This assessment was astute and enjoyable to read. My take on this pairing may be slightly different, but read on.

I've just scrutinized footage of both, and see another Loughran/Baer type boxing lesson in store for the ungainly rootfooted robotic one.

Jerry would easily outmanuever him en route to a lopsided unanimous decision. Size and strength would be no kind of asset against a veteran who blew out Shavers within a round, knocked Foreman on his keister in sparring, and showed Ron Lyle what great ring generalship looked like.

Quarry would be salivating in anticipation of beating tattoos into the flesh of that huge upright torso, moving side to side, in and out, slipping and countering off the ropes with ridiculous ease of quickness, spinning his prey around constantly in the clinches, getting under his gangly victim's long ineffectual swings and ponderous thrusts.

The Bellflower Belter would give Dr. Rustfist a boxing lesson along the lines of Tommy Loughran's schooling of Max Baer. He'd enjoy the easy pickings of an upright, mechanical, impotent target, landing three or four punches to every one the haplessly automatonic giant attempted.

Vitalis would learn, as Shavers and Frazier discovered, that Jerry was no slow starter. Later he would discover, as Spencer and Lyle did, that Quarry was also a strong finisher. He'd also learn that height and reach might prove most ineffectual against a foe with a lower center of gravity who can change his position in the ring quickly and continually.

Irish Jerry demonstrated what he could do to a big man with his ridiculously lopsided domination of Buster Mathis.

Ali was at the relaxed best of his second career for an emotionally drained and psyched out Quarry in their rematch. But for this one, Jerry wouldn't be facing The Greatest primed for a marquee performance. Quarry would lure him into the corners, then have Viagra spun around and pinned in the corners himself, before realizing what Jerry was doing.

With Gil Clancy as Jerry's second, Velveeta would be lucky to win four or five rounds. He'd think he was facing a nest of machine guns from both sides. Rustfist, meet Triggerfist.

Science and statistics be damned. The human element is all in Quarry's favor.

Jerry Quarry UD 15 Klitschko (either one).
Vitali could beat Quarry by just using the jab and countering,though plodding and predictable Klitschko can box a bit and certainly hit ,Quarry was mobile with good power ,and fast hands ,but prone to cuts and fighting emotionally,getting off his game plan if he did this against the Russian he loses.Jimmy Ellis beat Quarry by countering him ,I thinkVitali could do the sameKlitschko by dec or late TKO,on cuts.

[Duodenum]

Vitali could beat Quarry by just using the jab and countering,though plodding and predictable Klitschko can box a bit and certainly hit ,Quarry was mobile with good power ,and fast hands ,but prone to cuts and fighting emotionally,getting off his game plan if he did this against the Russian he loses.Jimmy Ellis beat Quarry by countering him ,I thinkVitali could do the sameKlitschko by dec or late TKO,on cuts.When it came to cuts, Jerry wasn't exactly Wepner or Antuofermo. Four of his nine defeats were due to cuts, and he had 66 professional bouts in all, so I'm not sure he was the bleeder he's been stereotyped as.

Most cuts are inflicted by a clash of heads, an unlikely scenario with the height disparity involved here. Quarry's 12 rounder with Lyle was a masterpiece of ring generalship, and Lyle was a better tactician than I believe Klitschko was. Quarry performed very poorly against Ellis, but Jimmy probably had the better sparring partner in training to help him prepare for Jerry. Again, Klitschko was probably not in Ellis's league as a strategist, but a good rudimentary stand-up stylist with substantial height and reach. Quarry would not be facing Ali, Ellis or Frazier, but a stiff, semi-mobile adversary.

I don't think Klitschko would be doing the countering in this one. Jerry was able to make Lyle move the way Quarry wanted, and I simply don't understand how Klitschko could possibly possess the level of ring savvy Lyle did, let alone Jerry. Nor would he be able to get inside Quarry's head the way Ali did.

[mr. magoo]

When it came to cuts, Jerry wasn't exactly Wepner or Antuofermo. Four of his nine defeats were due to cuts, and he had 66 professional bouts in all, so I'm not sure he was the bleeder he's been stereotyped as.

Most cuts are inflicted by a clash of heads, an unlikely scenario with the height disparity involved here. Quarry's 12 rounder with Lyle was a masterpiece of ring generalship, and Lyle was a better tactician than I believe Klitschko was. Quarry performed very poorly against Ellis, but Jimmy probably had the better sparring partner in training to help him prepare for Jerry. Again, Klitschko was probably not in Ellis's league as a strategist, but a good rudimentary stand-up stylist with substantial height and reach. Quarry would not be facing Ali, Ellis or Frazier, but a stiff, semi-mobile adversary.


I don't think Klitschko would be doing the countering in this one. Jerry was able to make Lyle move the way Quarry wanted, and I simply don't understand how Klitschko could possibly possess the level of ring savvy Lyle did, let alone Jerry. Nor would he be able to get inside Quarry's head the way Ali did.

I agree with most of what you're saying. Quarry was definately the more skilled and savvy of these two fighters, and had a better list of quality wins at that. Don't you feel, however that Vitali's enormous size and strength advantage would be a major factor here though? I mean, I wouldn't be so concerned if Jerry were taking on a 6'7" 240 pound tomato can, but Klitschko was hardly of that description.

What do you think?

[ChrisPontius]

No modern heavyweight has anything resembling the skills possessed by a veteran Quarry. Witness how fat old Larry Holmes schooled the peaking 1988 Olympic HW Gold Medalist. That's representative of how much the art of boxing has declined from Quarry's era to Klitschko's. A peak Larry Holmes would have shut out Mercer 150-135 over 15 rounds with the least possible trouble, and the modern sport has devolved so much that Chuck Wepner would look like SRR against today's heavyweights. Oh, and Carnera boxes Klitschko's ears off in sweeping the championship rounds. After 12 rounds, Quarry had decisioned Lyle handily. This was the same Lyle who was actually leading a prime experienced Ali in the scoring after ten rounds.


I disagree with that decline. One fight does not prove an entire group of fighters being weaker. YI may just as well single out Tyson or Holyfield vs Holmes and say how he was dominated. You bring up Wepner but i will remind you that Wepner was a top10 ranked contender in the 70's.

However, i don't think one particular era is stronger than another; there are always Wepners, Rodriguezes, Wilsons, and contenders and one, two or three greats.

Carnera lacks the speed and skill to box Klitschko's ears off. Klitschko is way more athletic. Carnera came in a time when 6'6 was a huge exception. Today, that height is still high, but much less rare and as a consequence there's more talent for such big fighters as we've seen in Bowe, Lewis and both Klitschko's, during the last ten years.

I also don't see as much in Lyle as you do. He lost all his big fights: a badly aging Ali, against Foreman (a close one, i'll admit), to Quarry and twice befuddled by Young. He did beat Bonavena (who incidentally, also lost all of his big fights) Jimmy Ellis who was so badly past his prime that he lost to Kirkman.

You speak of him being ahead after 10 against a prime experienced Ali. Ali prime experienced in 1975? He had to beat Frazier (who was also declined) a few months later on pure heart and determination instead of his great reflexes and speed. The reason Lyle was ahead was not because he was a good boxer but because Ali was addicted to the ropes after he beat Foreman, and was hoping for Lyle to just fall down after hitting him. Which didn't happen obviously. The fact that Lyle was out on his feet after a single punch from Ali speaks very bad for him. Ali has very little power compared to other heavyweights; in fact this is the only fight in his entire career that he turned around with a single punch (not counting the Liston rematch for obvious reasons).



No, Vitali is not comparable to Baer. Maxie dominated King Levinski over the 20 round distance. Gee, I wonder what Klitschko would look like after trying to go 20 with Baer, cause he sure as heck isn't going to be able to land an opponent who took Galento's best with six ounce gloves. (Aren't today's wimps using ten and twelve ounce pillows?) Just check out Baer/Carnera on youtube for the visual of what Baer (either Buddy or Max) might look like against Klitschko (either Vitali or Wlad).


Yes i saw Baer/Carnera, and he managed to lose a lot of the middle rounds and not finishing Carnera after several knockdowns. I also saw how very limited he was outside of his right hand.
By the way, are we talking about the same Levinsky who lost to almost anyone with a pulse as well as many journeymen? He had two good wins in 1931 but outside of that, his record is that of a journeyman.


ps: It's about time Chris. I can't spend all my sparring time against good old JT. I've come to rely on your antagonism, as it's become part of my comfort zone on ESB Classic. (When you agree with anything I post, I panic.)

I know, you wouldn't have it any other way. :D

[Duodenum]

I agree with most of what you're saying. Quarry was definately the more skilled and savvy of these two fighters, and had a better list of quality wins at that. Don't you feel, however that Vitali's enormous size and strength advantage would be a major factor here though? I mean, I wouldn't be so concerned if Jerry were taking on a 6'7" 240 pound tomato can, but Klitschko was hardly of that description.

What do you think?How would Klitschko cope with Jerry's enormous strength, low center of gravity, and quickness in close? Bruce Lee had a well known saying, "Strength is good, but if you can't use it quickly it's of no avail." Jerry would have a pretty easy time getting underneath Klitschko's arms, and moving side to side under his jabs and crosses.

As for the old saying, "Don't hook with a hooker," that's entirely in Quarry's favor. For two rounds, Jerry actually outhooked and outworked Frazier on the inside, especially to the body, and this wasn't against a slow starting version of Smoke, but one who was coming off a single round dismantling of Zyglewicz. Klitschko is a headhunter, and a long range headhunter at that. Unlike Frazier, he's no 15 round fighter.

Quarry boxed in an era of eight ounce gloves. How's Klitschko going to hurt him with ten ounce pillows when Shavers and Lyle couldn't faze him with the lighter equipment? We can see how big Klitschko is, but Quarry showed how strong he was at the very beginning of his rematch with Ali, when he effortlessly picked up Muhammad without the use of his gloved hands, only his arms, and deposited him in a corner.

I wasn't even convinced the Klitschko's could prevail over James "Buddha" Toney (who recently tested positive for Geritol and prune juice through carbon 14 dating).

Klitschko may be bigger and stronger than Jerry, but I agree with those who posit that the size advantage is all Quarry's.

[mr. magoo]

How would Klitschko cope with Jerry's enormous strength, low center of gravity, and quickness in close? Bruce Lee had a well known saying, "Strength is good, but if you can't use it quickly it's of no avail." Jerry would have a pretty easy time getting underneath Klitschko's arms, and moving side to side under his jabs and crosses.

As for the old saying, "Don't hook with a hooker," that's entirely in Quarry's favor. For two rounds, Jerry actually outhooked and outworked Frazier on the inside, especially to the body, and this wasn't against a slow starting version of Smoke, but one who was coming off a single round dismantling of Zyglewicz. Klitschko is a headhunter, and a long range headhunter at that. Unlike Frazier, he's no 15 round fighter.

Quarry boxed in an era of eight ounce gloves. How's Klitschko going to hurt him with ten ounce pillows when Shavers and Lyle couldn't faze him with the lighter equipment? We can see how big Klitschko is, but Quarry showed how strong he was at the very beginning of his rematch with Ali, when he effortlessly picked up Muhammad without the use of his gloved hands, only his arms, and deposited him in a corner.

I wasn't even convinced the Klitschko's could prevail over James "Buddha" Toney (who recently tested positive for Geritol and prune juice through carbon 14 dating).

Klitschko may be bigger and stronger than Jerry, but I agree with those who posit that the size advantage is all Quarry's.

The only possible way for Quarry to take this one is by a decision. Kltschko was unable to finish a fight on but two occasions in his career, one by stoppage on cuts, while the other came from a torn rotator cuff. His chin was never in question. Quarry would have to out maneuver Vitali for at least 12 rounds, or 10 if there was no title on the line. He had great boxing ability, but I doubt he'd go the whole fight without being subjected to getting hit with some ferocious shots. As for your comment about him surviving Shavers, keep in mind that Earnie rarely if ever had a chance to land flush on Jerry, as the fight was over with in the first round. Quarry would not be able to dispatch of Klit in such a fashion. I believe you also stated once that you no longer follow boxing and that most of your knowledge is on fighters pre 12 round championship days, which falls around 1986? That being the case, have you viewed much footage of Vitali Klitschko?

[mcvey]

When it came to cuts, Jerry wasn't exactly Wepner or Antuofermo. Four of his nine defeats were due to cuts, and he had 66 professional bouts in all, so I'm not sure he was the bleeder he's been stereotyped as.

Most cuts are inflicted by a clash of heads, an unlikely scenario with the height disparity involved here. Quarry's 12 rounder with Lyle was a masterpiece of ring generalship, and Lyle was a better tactician than I believe Klitschko was. Quarry performed very poorly against Ellis, but Jimmy probably had the better sparring partner in training to help him prepare for Jerry. Again, Klitschko was probably not in Ellis's league as a strategist, but a good rudimentary stand-up stylist with substantial height and reach. Quarry would not be facing Ali, Ellis or Frazier, but a stiff, semi-mobile adversary.

I don't think Klitschko would be doing the countering in this one. Jerry was able to make Lyle move the way Quarry wanted, and I simply don't understand how Klitschko could possibly possess the level of ring savvy Lyle did, let alone Jerry. Nor would he be able to get inside Quarry's head the way Ali did.
I agree Quarry looked terrific against Lyle ,mobile and countering with 3 and 4 punch combos ,but Lyle wasnt that versatile,and I would question that he had any more ring savy than Vitali,Lyle was a late starter only a few months behind Ali in age but well deficient in experience,I think Klitschko keeps his composure well and is durable enough to get the job done,Ive just watched Quarry against Lyle ,Bodell, Shavers,Miteff,and Alexander,so the impressions are fresh in my mind,ps,Alexander dropped Quarry like a sack of spuds in the 1st round with a beautiful rising left hook,Jerry was dazed and hurt when he got up,still a bit wobbly in the 2nd ,he regrouped and dropped Alexander with right hand counters to force a stoppage,really I think this fight could go either way so I wont argue too strongly against your scenario,which as allways is astute and objective.

[Duodenum]

I disagree with that decline. One fight does not prove an entire group of fighters being weaker. YI may just as well single out Tyson or Holyfield vs Holmes and say how he was dominated. You bring up Wepner but i will remind you that Wepner was a top10 ranked contender in the 70's.Yes, but Mercer was the 1988 Olympic HW Gold Medalist, and that's the difference. Old Grandad was taking on he who was supposed to represent the very best of amateur boxing in 1988. What does that say for all the amateurs who did not win Olympic Gold, and became professional?However, i don't think one particular era is stronger than another; there are always Wepners, Rodriguezes, Wilsons, and contenders and one, two or three greats.Most of the great trainers are falling by the wayside, with very few exceptions left. We've never had a situation in boxing where so many geezers were prominent in competition. Assuming everybody is taking performance enhancing substances, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that these old farts were better schooled than the currently youthful crop.Carnera lacks the speed and skill to box Klitschko's ears off. Klitschko is way more athletic. Carnera came in a time when 6'6 was a huge exception. Today, that height is still high, but much less rare and as a consequence there's more talent for such big fighters as we've seen in Bowe, Lewis and both Klitschko's, during the last ten years.Primo fought several rounds against Baer with a fractured ankle. He was plenty tough. He was also athletically active until diabetes got the best of him. Yes, he may well have had the slowest hands of any heavyweight champion, but he used his reach and jab extremely well. There is no footage of him tripping over his own feet. He was no clutz. And Klitschko lacks the endurance to outlast Primo.I also don't see as much in Lyle as you do. He lost all his big fights: a badly aging Ali, against Foreman (a close one, i'll admit), to Quarry and twice befuddled by Young. He did beat Bonavena (who incidentally, also lost all of his big fights) Jimmy Ellis who was so badly past his prime that he lost to Kirkman.He retired Buster Mathis (before The Empty Refrigerator turned 30), and Greg Peralta, scored a fine SD win over Bugner, came off the deck late in his career to decision a surging Scott LeDoux, and recorded a classic knockout win over Shavers. As for Bonavena, many would argue that he should have been awarded the decison in the first Frazier contest. He posted wins over Chuvalo, Peralta, was the last one to defeat Leotis Martin, Mildenberger (only Ali had managed that in the previous five years), and Zora Folley. If Charlie Goldman had remained healthy and active in his career, who knows what he might have done.You speak of him being ahead after 10 against a prime experienced Ali. Ali prime experienced in 1975? He had to beat Frazier (who was also declined) a few months later on pure heart and determination instead of his great reflexes and speed. The reason Lyle was ahead was not because he was a good boxer but because Ali was addicted to the ropes after he beat Foreman, and was hoping for Lyle to just fall down after hitting him. Which didn't happen obviously. The fact that Lyle was out on his feet after a single punch from Ali speaks very bad for him. Ali has very little power compared to other heavyweights; in fact this is the only fight in his entire career that he turned around with a single punch (not counting the Liston rematch for obvious reasons).No, you've forgotten the left hook he wrecked Bonavena with. His left hook knockdown of Folley also turned around a match where he'd lost two of the previous three rounds. Ali hardly looked addicted to the ropes against Wepner and Bugner. Ron boxed him smartly, having learned well from Muhammad's ambush of Foreman. Lyle withstood 46 unanswered punches when the referee stepped in, and he still protested the stoppageYes i saw Baer/Carnera, and he managed to lose a lot of the middle rounds and not finishing Carnera after several knockdowns. I also saw how very limited he was outside of his right hand.Check out his jabbing against Schmeling, and also his left hook in the first round against Louis.By the way, are we talking about the same Levinsky who lost to almost anyone with a pulse as well as many journeymen? He had two good wins in 1931 but outside of that, his record is that of a journeyman.Yes, and Baer later destroyed him quickly in an exhibition after Levinski made him angry by playing rough with him. (A mad Baer is a deadly Baer. Fortunately, it didn't happen often.) The point here is that Maxie was able to go 20 rounds, and dominate from start to finish (winning boxing's last 20 round decision).I know, you wouldn't have it any other way. :DThanks for indulging me.:bbb

[mcvey]

Yes, but Mercer was the 1988 Olympic HW Gold Medalist, and that's the difference. Old Grandad was taking on he who was supposed to represent the very best of amateur boxing in 1988. What does that say for all the amateurs who did not win Olympic Gold, and became professional?Most of the great trainers are falling by the wayside, with very few exceptions left. We've never had a situation in boxing where so many geezers were prominent in competition. Assuming everybody is taking performance enhancing substances, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that these old farts were better schooled than the currently youthful crop.Primo fought several rounds against Baer with a fractured ankle. He was plenty tough. He was also athletically active until diabetes got the best of him. Yes, he may well have had the slowest hands of any heavyweight champion, but he used his reach and jab extremely well. There is no footage of him tripping over his own feet. He was no clutz. And Klitschko lacks the endurance to outlast Primo.He retired Buster Mathis (before The Empty Refrigerator turned 30), and Greg Peralta, scored a fine SD win over Bugner, came off the deck late in his career to decision a surging Scott LeDoux, and recorded a classic knockout win over Shavers. As for Bonavena, many would argue that he should have been awarded the decison in the first Frazier contest. He posted wins over Chuvalo, Peralta, was the last one to defeat Leotis Martin, Mildenberger (only Ali had managed that in the previous five years), and Zora Folley. If Charlie Goldman had remained healthy and active in his career, who knows what he might have done.No, you've forgotten the left hook he wrecked Bonavena with. His left hook knockdown of Folley also turned around a match where he'd lost two of the previous three rounds. Ali hardly looked addicted to the ropes against Wepner and Bugner. Ron boxed him smartly, having learned well from Muhammad's ambush of Foreman. Lyle withstood 46 unanswered punches when the referee stepped in, and he still protested the stoppageCheck out his jabbing against Schmeling, and also his left hook in the first round against Louis.Yes, and Baer later destroyed him quickly in an exhibition after Levinski made him angry by playing rough with him. (A mad Baer is a deadly Baer. Fortunately, it didn't happen often.) The point here is that Maxie was able to go 20 rounds, and dominate from start to finish (winning boxing's last 20 round decision).Thanks for indulging me.:bbb
The Kingfish ate Baers porridge,and had to pay!

[Duodenum]

The only possible way for Quarry to take this one is by a decision. Kltschko was unable to finish a fight on but two occasions in his career, one by stoppage on cuts, while the other came from a torn rotator cuff. His chin was never in question. Quarry would have to out maneuver Vitali for at least 12 rounds, or 10 if there was no title on the line. He had great boxing ability, but I doubt he'd go the whole fight without being subjected to getting hit with some ferocious shots. As for your comment about him surviving Shavers, keep in mind that Earnie rarely if ever had a chance to land flush on Jerry, as the fight was over with in the first round. Quarry would not be able to dispatch of Klit in such a fashion. I believe you also stated once that you no longer follow boxing and that most of your knowledge is on fighters pre 12 round championship days, which falls around 1986? That being the case, have you viewed much footage of Vitali Klitschko?I've stated several times when I stopped following boxing, and why. (Having stated that, I'm also an amateur historian on some subjects who frequently fools people into thinking I'm much older than I am through my expressed knowledge of various subjects. Being able to apply a little practical insight to what little I know may have something to do with that.)

Admittedly, what I've watched of more recent boxing since hitching a ride on ESB Classic has been off of youtube, myspace, metacafe, and other on-line services. What I've seen of Klitschko is a classically European style of boxing. Upright, decent jab, cross, fair hook, rather stiff in his motions, good fundamentals, little fluidity, spontaneity, or generalship. It's the same tired old story, bigger is always better. The problem with being that big is that defense and quickness get compromised.

No, Quarry didn't give Shavers much of a chance to land on him, but Earnie has said he connected solidly on Jerry, while Quarry said Shavers never hit him immediately after the fight. Ron Lyle had lots of chances to connect on Jerry though, and only Ron got wobbled.

I do expect that Quarry would go in anticipating a time limit event, and would prepare accordingly. It's a fact that some boxers have had impervious chins, and some of them have been kickboxers who couldn't be dazed by a hard foot to the head. (Tex Cobb heads up that list). Even the hardest punches from Shavers aren't likely to measure up to the force of a typical skilled kick.

However, Jerry would certainly apply a dedicated body attack inside. He had early success doing that against the supreme bodypuncher of all time in Frazier, and Klitschko has a tremendous amount of body for Jerry to work over. That would begin to wear on the bigger man after several rounds. Quarry would be inside his arms an awful lot, and outwork him in close.

[Duodenum]

The Kingfish ate Baers porridge,and had to pay!Indeed he did. He was deathly afraid of Louis, but didn't have enough sense to be afraid of Maxie until after his lights went out.

[mcvey]

Indeed he did. He was deathly afraid of Louis, but didn't have enough sense to be afraid of Maxie until after his lights went out.
Maxie had the sense to be afraid of Louis ,and no one ever let him forget it!

[Mendoza]

I've stated several times when I stopped following boxing, and why. (Having stated that, I'm also an amateur historian on some subjects who frequently fools people into thinking I'm much older than I am through my expressed knowledge of various subjects. Being able to apply a little practical insight to what little I know may have something to do with that.)

Admittedly, what I've watched of more recent boxing since hitching a ride on ESB Classic has been off of youtube, myspace, metacafe, and other on-line services. What I've seen of Klitschko is a classically European style of boxing. Upright, decent jab, cross, fair hook, rather stiff in his motions, good fundamentals, little fluidity, spontaneity, or generalship. It's the same tired old story, bigger is always better. The problem with being that big is that defense and quickness get compromised.

No, Quarry didn't give Shavers much of a chance to land on him, but Earnie has said he connected solidly on Jerry, while Quarry said Shavers never hit him immediately after the fight. Ron Lyle had lots of chances to connect on Jerry though, and only Ron got wobbled.

I do expect that Quarry would go in anticipating a time limit event, and would prepare accordingly. It's a fact that some boxers have had impervious chins, and some of them have been kickboxers who couldn't be dazed by a hard foot to the head. (Tex Cobb heads up that list). Even the hardest punches from Shavers aren't likely to measure up to the force of a typical skilled kick.

However, Jerry would certainly apply a dedicated body attack inside. He had early success doing that against the supreme bodypuncher of all time in Frazier, and Klitschko has a tremendous amount of body for Jerry to work over. That would begin to wear on the bigger man after several rounds. Quarry would be inside his arms an awful lot, and outwork him in close.

Vitali has some stiff movements curtsey of some old kick boxing and boxing injures that have required surgery; however this doesn’t mean he can’t swiftly move around the ring.
Vitali can cover a lot of ground quickly.

Vitlai’s defense is hardly text book. Usually non-text book defenses aren’t very good, but in Vitali’s case it is. Vitlai defense is built around a good understanding of distance, good punch anticipation, towerining height and relitvely quick reflexes. The result is Vitali is hardly ever hit with more than one punch at a time. In fact, Vitlai makes fighter miss clean more often than James Toney did at heavyweight. It’s true.

I don’t think Quarry matches up well in this one at all.

[janitor]

Vitally Klitschko never genuinely proved himself at world level.

He is esentialy a latter day Gerry Cooney with a good knockout ratio against grade C opposition but no serious wins.

Fifty years from now we will still be talking about Wladamir Klitschko and Vitally will be the forgotten Klitschko whose main claim to fame is being Wladamir's brother.

And we will still be talking about Jerry Quarry.

[Vantage_West]

Very true Vantage thanks. An advantage in sheer size could well mean a disadvantage in skills. This is hard to predict. Quarry knocked out a tall English guy with one punch in 1971. Maybe he would nail Vitali with a punch he never sees coming. Vitali just seems really strong and sturdy despite his gangly appearance. I gues it is hard for a guy 6-8, 250 to look graceful in the ring. Vitali sure was effective though. Even though I really like Quarry (he was my father's favorite fighter) I have a hard time envisioning him defeating Vitali.well even george foreman was staying away from him becuase his reputation of knocking big guys out...he was a typical david to goliath

[KTFO]

Vitally Klitschko never genuinely proved himself at world level.



After that sentence I stopped reading. Genuine bullshit.

[The Kurgan]

After that sentence I stopped reading. Genuine bullshit.

If you look at his record against boxers who were at the time in a reasonable top 5, they are both stoppage losses. One defeat was against an overweight champion at the end of his career, the other was against a feather-fisted boxer whom he dwarfed.

[mcvey]

If you look at his record against boxers who were at the time in a reasonable top 5, they are both stoppage losses. One defeat was against an overweight champion at the end of his career, the other was against a feather-fisted boxer whom he dwarfed.
Quarrys opposition was better,he fought anyone who would fight him,apart from Lewis,Vitaly hasnt fought anyone special imo.

[The Kurgan]

Quarrys opposition was better,he fought anyone who would fight him,apart from Lewis,Vitaly hasnt fought anyone special imo.

He's fought one "special" boxer: Lennox Lewis, who was (a) at the end of his career and (b) victorious.

[ChrisPontius]

Yes, but Mercer was the 1988 Olympic HW Gold Medalist, and that's the difference. Old Grandad was taking on he who was supposed to represent the very best of amateur boxing in 1988. What does that say for all the amateurs who did not win Olympic Gold, and became professional?


Correction: Mercer was the heavyweight olympic winner. i.e. sub 200lb. While Quarry is in this category, the better ones competed at Superheavyweight.
The superheavyweight olympic champion of 1988 was Lennox Lewis and the runner up was Riddick Bowe. Foreman made no secret about it that he refused to fight either of them, and just about anyone here will pick them to easily beat that Foreman. So i don't think your point is a valid one.
In addition to that, amature talent need not translate in a good professional fighter as we've seen several times. Harrison is a great amature but a shitty pro. Nick Wells knocked Holmes out twice as amaturebut couldn't make it as pro. Henry Tillman twice beat Tyson, eliminating him of the olympics, but in the pro's, Tyson knocked Tillman out with a single punch the 1st round. Again, Tyson was not an amature olympic champion yet he layed Holmes out cold, who you claim to be superior.


Most of the great trainers are falling by the wayside, with very few exceptions left. We've never had a situation in boxing where so many geezers were prominent in competition. Assuming everybody is taking performance enhancing substances, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that these old farts were better schooled than the currently youthful crop.


It is not just performance enhancers, though. All people have become larger. Not just taller but also wider. A guy at my gym is near Carnera's size and he's barely an amature, i strongly doubt he's on the juice. There's simply more talent in that category now as there are more people in it.


Primo fought several rounds against Baer with a fractured ankle. He was plenty tough. He was also athletically active until diabetes got the best of him. Yes, he may well have had the slowest hands of any heavyweight champion, but he used his reach and jab extremely well. There is no footage of him tripping over his own feet. He was no clutz. And Klitschko lacks the endurance to outlast Primo.


I never doubted Carnera's toughness, whos chin is not that much above Wladimir's if you ask me, by the way. Klitschko need not outlast him. He can outland him 3 to 1. His hand and footspeed is simply in another category. When he was coming up, people were already saying his handspeed is comparable to a young Tyson, which is a tremendous compliment considering he's 6'6 245lb. Wladimir would put him away rather easily with right hands, just like Baer did. Vitali will need more time but he will do the job too.


He retired Buster Mathis (before The Empty Refrigerator turned 30), and Greg Peralta, scored a fine SD win over Bugner, came off the deck late in his career to decision a surging Scott LeDoux, and recorded a classic knockout win over Shavers. As for Bonavena, many would argue that he should have been awarded the decison in the first Frazier contest. He posted wins over Chuvalo, Peralta, was the last one to defeat Leotis Martin, Mildenberger (only Ali had managed that in the previous five years), and Zora Folley. If Charlie Goldman had remained healthy and active in his career, who knows what he might have done.


Exactly as i put it: against the lesser guys he won, but when stepping in class he consistendly lost his fights.


No, you've forgotten the left hook he wrecked Bonavena with. His left hook knockdown of Folley also turned around a match where he'd lost two of the previous three rounds. Ali hardly looked addicted to the ropes against Wepner and Bugner. Ron boxed him smartly, having learned well from Muhammad's ambush of Foreman.

I said "turned fights around with a single punch". He didn't turn the Bonavena fight around as he was winning it already if memory serves me well. I will admit that the Zora Folley fight is one that i overlooked. I was actually suprised that Folley was winning rounds despite him being old and very slow. But to be honest, it looked like to be more a matter of when Ali would turn up the heat. Ali was not always concerned about winning rounds. By the way, what a terrible chin on Folley. I'm suprised he went 6 with a peak Liston.

Lyle withstood 46 unanswered punches when the referee stepped in, and he still protested the stoppage


Which pretty much shows my point. 46 punches did not hurt him, he was just overwhelmed. I guess that one punch showed that every heavyweight can be dangerous.


Check out his jabbing against Schmeling, and also his left hook in the first round against Louis.


I have, and i still think he's very limited. A 30's version of Foreman if you like, only a bit smaller.


Yes, and Baer later destroyed him quickly in an exhibition after Levinski made him angry by playing rough with him. (A mad Baer is a deadly Baer. Fortunately, it didn't happen often.) The point here is that Maxie was able to go 20 rounds, and dominate from start to finish (winning boxing's last 20 round decision).


The point is that Levinsky pretty much was a journeyman. Any champion can dominate a journeyman over 20 rounds.

[janitor]

After that sentence I stopped reading. Genuine bullshit.

Who did he ever beat?

Sanders and Johnson are respectable wins but certainly nothing to sugest that he is some superheavyweight force of nature who would be too much for abybody under a certain weight.

He is no Wladamir Klitschko at this point and he is sure as hell no Lennox Lewis.

[KTFO]

If you look at his record against boxers who were at the time in a reasonable top 5, they are both stoppage losses. One defeat was against an overweight champion at the end of his career, the other was against a feather-fisted boxer whom he dwarfed



Vitlay did fight Louis. His chin was tested,his skills were tested,his heart was tested. He proved that he's no quitter, that he can fight best opposition, that he has some muddafuckin hard chin. What else do ya want? Vitlay is back from retirement, to shut your asslickin mouth once and for all. :fuckoff

[Luigi1985]

Vitlay did fight Louis. His chin was tested,his skills were tested,his heart was tested. He proved that he's no quitter, that he can fight best opposition, that he has some muddafuckin hard chin. What else do ya want? Vitlay is back from retirement, to shut your asslickin mouth once and for all. :fuckoff



He can´t lose, if he loses, everyone says that he´s old and totally shot, if he wins, he´s god...

[Mendoza]

Who did he ever beat?

Sanders and Johnson are respectable wins but certainly nothing to sugest that he is some superheavyweight force of nature who would be too much for abybody under a certain weight.

He is no Wladamir Klitschko at this point and he is sure as hell no Lennox Lewis.

Vitali’s career is not over yet. To date he has beaten a good, but not great collection of fighters in impressive fashion. Vitali was the last Ring Magazine champion which is the gold standard in the alphabet soup world of professional boxing. He owns the highest KO ratio in the history of the sport, has never been down on the cards after three rounds of action, and has never been knocked down as a professional. His two losses came under unusual circumstances because he was ahead in those fights. A torn shoulder injury or a bad cut can in theory derail just about anyone. The thing to focus on here is neither Byrd or Lewis accepted a re-match. I highly doubt Byrd would win the re-match. Lewis vs Vitali now is a blow out win for Vitali, but in 2004 it would have been a great night for boxing.

When a fighter’s career is over, historians often look for big name wins on a resume Presently Vitlai lack this, but Vitlai never choose to take advantage of past their prime names like Tyson, Holyfiled, or Moorer. Lennox Lewis was not accepted as a great fighter until he defeated Holyfield and Tyson. Smart boxing fans know that both Holyfield and Tyson were past their best when they meet a still prime version of Lewis.

If Vitlai defeats McCline next he fights the winner of Peter vs Maskev. The winner of Peter vs Maskaev will be the most accomplished heavyweight in the world besides Wlad. If Vitali wins back the WBC title, I think he will have won a big match. Not enough to completely snuff out the critics who are looking for that “ name “ win on a resume , but enough to satisfy the objective fans / historians. In truth, most great champions did not beat a hall of fame fighter in their prime years.

Who is Tyson’s best win? Who is Dempsey’s best win? Who is Liston’s best win? IMO, it’s not much better than the winner of Maskev or Peter.

My $.02

[mr. magoo]

Vitali’s career is not over yet. To date he has beaten a good, but not great collection of fighters in impressive fashion. Vitali was the last Ring Magazine champion which is the gold standard in the alphabet soup world of professional boxing. He owns the highest KO ratio in the history of the sport, has never been down on the cards after three rounds of action, and has never been knocked down as a professional. His two losses came under unusual circumstances because he was ahead in those fights. A torn shoulder injury or a bad cut can in theory derail just about anyone. The thing to focus on here is neither Byrd or Lewis accepted a re-match. I highly doubt Byrd would win the re-match. Lewis vs Vitali now is a blow out win for Vitali, but in 2004 it would have been a great night for boxing.

When a fighter’s career is over, historians often look for big name wins on a resume Presently Vitlai lack this, but Vitlai never choose to take advantage of past their prime names like Tyson, Holyfiled, or Moorer. Lennox Lewis was not accepted as a great fighter until he defeated Holyfield and Tyson. Smart boxing fans know that both Holyfield and Tyson were past their best when they meet a still prime version of Lewis.

If Vitlai defeats McCline next he fights the winner of Peter vs Maskev. The winner of Peter vs Maskaev will be the most accomplished heavyweight in the world besides Wlad. If Vitali wins back the WBC title, I think he will have won a big match. Not enough to completely snuff out the critics who are looking for that “ name “ win on a resume , but enough to satisfy the objective fans / historians. In truth, most great champions did not beat a hall of fame fighter in their prime years.

Who is Tyson’s best win? Who is Dempsey’s best win? Who is Liston’s best win? IMO, it’s not much better than the winner of Maskev or Peter.

My $.02

Nice job,

Agreed, Vitali has a good legacy, but needs a few more names.

[cross_trainer]

He's fought one "special" boxer: Lennox Lewis, who was (a) at the end of his career and (b) victorious.

Two--Byrd was one of the two or three best fighters of the early post-Lewis era.

[The Kurgan]

Vitlay did fight Louis. His chin was tested,his skills were tested,his heart was tested. He proved that he's no quitter, that he can fight best opposition, that he has some muddafuckin hard chin. What else do ya want?

Well, winning would be a start. That's what some opponent or other managed against nearly every all-time great at the end of their career.

Vitlay is back from retirement, to shut your asslickin mouth once and for all. :fuckoff

I think Vitaly will look awful and either lose or retire very quickly. :hey

[The Kurgan]

Two--Byrd was one of the two or three best fighters of the early post-Lewis era.

Good point. Replace (a) with: one of the most negative and physically handicapped boxers of his generation.

[janitor]

Vitali’s career is not over yet.

While this is true I expect that he will never recover his previous form. He will beat McCline and then what?

[QUOTE]
To date he has beaten a good, but not great collection of fighters in impressive fashion. Vitali was the last Ring Magazine champion which is the gold standard in the alphabet soup world of professional boxing. He owns the highest KO ratio in the history of the sport, has never been down on the cards after three rounds of action, and has never been knocked down as a professional. His two losses came under unusual circumstances because he was ahead in those fights. A torn shoulder injury or a bad cut can in theory derail just about anyone. The thing to focus on here is neither Byrd or Lewis accepted a re-match. I highly doubt Byrd would win the re-match. Lewis vs Vitali now is a blow out win for Vitali, but in 2004 it would have been a great night for boxing.


This is all verry true and I don't doubt that he could and perhaps should have been the heir to Lewis's throne.

I am approaching this from an angle of trying to justify his performence against other great fighters based on what he actualy achieved in the ring. The bottom line is that he left certain questions unanswered.

If Vitlai defeats McCline next he fights the winner of Peter vs Maskev. The winner of Peter vs Maskaev will be the most accomplished heavyweight in the world besides Wlad. If Vitali wins back the WBC title, I think he will have won a big match.

I agree. Depending on how this fight unfolds it will answer a lot of questions. We have to asume for the time being that he could theoreticaly loose.


Who is Tyson’s best win? Who is Dempsey’s best win? Who is Liston’s best win? IMO, it’s not much better than the winner of Maskev or Peter.


I have to disagree there.

The significance of a win over Peter/Maskaev would depend on how he wins. A dominant win would go a long way towards suporting the claims made by the pro Vitally camp. A controvertial win would leave him prety much where hi is now.

[Duodenum]

Correction: Mercer was the heavyweight olympic winner. i.e. sub 200lb. While Quarry is in this category, the better ones competed at Superheavyweight.
The superheavyweight olympic champion of 1988 was Lennox Lewis and the runner up was Riddick Bowe.Shit, a superheavyweight division was created after I stopped following boxing? How many weight classes have been made up beyond the classic eight anyways? (What's next, a pintweight division? Midget boxing? Dwarf pugilists? Pregnant boxers? Sumo class?)The point is that Levinsky pretty much was a journeyman. Any champion can dominate a journeyman over 20 rounds.Wow, you've put it on the line the way I usually do with that claim, especially in the 12 round era. The reason the 20 round distance was eventually discarded in favor of 15 rounds is precisely because endurance performers with superior toughness and inferior skill were prevailing. (Granted, Jeffries/Corbett I and Johnson/Willard went beyond that, but I consider the losers in those matches to be superior to the winners by how they were faring after 15 rounds. In the case of Gans/Nelson I, and most matches that went beyond 15 rounds, the identity of the superior competitor was established by the end of 15.)

King Levinski wasn't exactly a journeyman at his best. He recorded wins over Slattery, Loughran and Uzcudun shortly before meeting Baer, and at just 21 years of age had over 60 matches with much quality experience behind him, was yet to lose by stoppage, would go on to post a decision verdict over Jack Sharkey, and go on a tear between mid 1934 and mid 1935 (when Louis destroyed him). His performance in an exhibition against Dempsey convinced Jack not to pursue a comeback, so he had some skill and abilities. While a champion in the 15 round era might be able to dominate a tough opponent over 20 rounds, I have reservations about any champion from the 12 round era being able to do that. (Rosario is my poster boy on that score, as he originally became a champion exclusively because of the abolition of the 15 round distance.) To claim that any champion can dominate a journeyman over 20 rounds is the sort of irrationally sweeping statement I'm supposed to make, not you!

[janitor]

The point is that Levinsky pretty much was a journeyman. Any champion can dominate a journeyman over 20 rounds.

Levinsky was a top 4 contender over a period of years. By no stretch of the english language could he be called a journeyman.

[Duodenum]

Levinsky was a top 4 contender over a period of years. By no stretch of the english language could he be called a journeyman.I should just sit back, relax, and let you take over the case for Quarry. You're more concise, articulate and well modulated than I over this issue. (Becides, going back and forth with good ole CP is wearing me out:!: .)

[Cojimar 1945]

Vitali has not beaten much highly ranked oppossition. It would be interesting to look at the rankings of the guys he beat. Sanders was ranked quite high by some when Vitali beat him but Johnson, Danny Williams and others were lower in the rankings.

[Vantage_West]

Vitlay has a weight advantage of 50lbs and a hight advantage of 7". Plus he has some pretty good tactics. Anyone who sees Quarry winning this one must be a fucked up drug addict.:rasta yeh mon

but really joe louis beat max baer
ruslan chagaev beat valuev


actually no point naming them all the big guys small guy is a myth if yo can fight small very well you can win any fight at any wieght sam langford shown that qawi showed that even underachievers like kelvin davis was a fight you stayed well away from

[Cojimar 1945]

The Tyson fight does not help Lewis's legacy much. Lewis's failure to face prime versions of Holyfield and Tyson hurts his stature a bit but Holyfield is still a good win because Holyfield was still rated highly when Lewis beat him.

[ChrisPontius]

Wow, you've put it on the line the way I usually do with that claim, especially in the 12 round era. The reason the 20 round distance was eventually discarded in favor of 15 rounds is precisely because endurance performers with superior toughness and inferior skill were prevailing. (Granted, Jeffries/Corbett I and Johnson/Willard went beyond that, but I consider the losers in those matches to be superior to the winners by how they were faring after 15 rounds. In the case of Gans/Nelson I, and most matches that went beyond 15 rounds, the identity of the superior competitor was established by the end of 15.)

King Levinski wasn't exactly a journeyman at his best. He recorded wins over Slattery, Loughran and Uzcudun shortly before meeting Baer, and at just 21 years of age had over 60 matches with much quality experience behind him, was yet to lose by stoppage, would go on to post a decision verdict over Jack Sharkey, and go on a tear between mid 1934 and mid 1935 (when Louis destroyed him). His performance in an exhibition against Dempsey convinced Jack not to pursue a comeback, so he had some skill and abilities. While a champion in the 15 round era might be able to dominate a tough opponent over 20 rounds, I have reservations about any champion from the 12 round era being able to do that. (Rosario is my poster boy on that score, as he originally became a champion exclusively because of the abolition of the 15 round distance.) To claim that any champion can dominate a journeyman over 20 rounds is the sort of irrationally sweeping statement I'm supposed to make, not you!

Levinsky had a few good wins but he also had tons and tons of losses.

Anyway, i don't really see the relevance of going 20 rounds when we're discussing Vitali vs Quarry in a 12 or 15 rounder. Vitali was an extremely hard wear-you-down puncher so i really wonder whether 15 rounds would favor Quarry. Especially with his tradition of getting cut.

[ChrisPontius]

I should just sit back, relax, and let you take over the case for Quarry. You're more concise, articulate and well modulated than I over this issue. (Becides, going back and forth with good ole CP is wearing me out:!: .)

Not a 15 round poster huh. :D

[Vantage_West]

Vitlay did fight Louis. His chin was tested,his skills were tested,his heart was tested. He proved that he's no quitter, that he can fight best opposition, that he has some muddafuckin hard chin. What else do ya want? Vitlay is back from retirement, to shut your asslickin mouth once and for all. :fuckoffhis chin is not as good as people say, he was bodypopping in the ring when a british bum landed a weak right ahnd on his feeble chops...

i think he just was luckjy to not fight a big puncher in the primes lewis could of koed him a few years before,tua could of had a good mash up on him in his prime.even bowe would of been a good fight in 99

[Duodenum]

Not a 15 round poster huh. :DWell, it's been a long absence from the sport, and I'm kind of rusty and punchy:nut . (And to my eternal shame and embarrassment:oops:, it would seem I'm not capable of going the distance at this time.:verysad :| :tired)

[KTFO]

Vitlay's chin is great. No chin in the world would've taken Louis' uppercut,period.

[janitor]

Vitlay's chin is great. No chin in the world would've taken Louis' uppercut,period.

While I happen to think that Vitally did have a prety solid set of whiskers I don't think they have been fully tested at world level.

Sure he took some bombs against Lewis but I could show you a fight where Audley Harrison took a terific uppercut and shrugged it off.

You cannot certify that a fighter has an all time chin on the basis of a single punch.

[KTFO]

While I happen to think that Vitally did have a prety solid set of whiskers I don't think they have been fully tested at world level.




OK,everybody please listen!...........Lennox Lewis is NO high class world level!

[janitor]

OK,everybody please listen!...........Lennox Lewis is NO high class world level!

He is but he hapened to beat Klitscko.

In any event it is only a single fight. You need multiple fights against world class punchers to demonstrate an all time chin.

[Mendoza]

While I happen to think that Vitally did have a prety solid set of whiskers I don't think they have been fully tested at world level.

Sure he took some bombs against Lewis but I could show you a fight where Audley Harrison took a terific uppercut and shrugged it off.

You cannot certify that a fighter has an all time chin on the basis of a single punch.

I don't think you can say Lewis and Sanders were not world class punchers. They clearly are. Each man landed their best on Vitali and he did not go down. Lewis has absolutely destroyed some durable fighters with shocking ease. See Ruddock, Golota, or Botha. Each man had at least a good chin.

Harrsion was stunned by blown up cursier weights early in his career, and completely starched by a top 20-30ish Mike Sprott, who doesn't hit in Lewis's zip code.

The only conclusion that makes sense is that Vitlai has a top chin. The proof is in the pudding. Vitlai has never been down as a professional and his chin has been tested genuine chin checking shots from big punchers. In my estimation the blows that Lewis or Sanders landed would have at the very least knocked down 90% of the other heavyweights, and lead to a KO / TKO over the majority of them. Hide landed his best right too and it had no effect. The basis for the conclusion is not a single punch, rather several.

[janitor]

I don't think you can say Lewis and Sanders were not world class punchers. They clearly are. Each man landed their best on Vitali and he did not go down. Lewis has absolutely destroyed some durable fighters with shocking ease. See Ruddock, Golota, or Botha. Each man had at least a good chin.

Harrsion was stunned by blown up cursier weights early in his career, and completely starched by a top 20-30ish Mike Sprott, who doesn't hit in Lewis's zip code.

The only conclusion that makes sense is that Vitlai has a top chin. The proof is in the pudding. Vitlai has never been down as a professional and his chin has been tested genuine chin checking shots from big punchers. In my estimation the blows that Lewis or Sanders landed would have at the very least knocked down 90% of the other heavyweights, and lead to a KO / TKO over the majority of them. Hide landed his best right too and it had no effect. The basis for the conclusion is not a single punch, rather several.

I agree that Lewis and Sanders are tremendous punchers but two fights is still a verry small sample to test a chin over.

Lennox Lewis for example took similar punishment in several of his fights against top punchers but he also got knocked out twice with a single punch. If his only fights against world class punchers were the Tua fight and the Bruno fight there would be people here arguing that he had one of the best chins of all time.

I feel that the jury is still out on Vitallys chin. He simply hasnt had enough fights against ranked punchers to start comparing it to a fighter like Quarry.

[Mendoza]

I agree that Lewis and Sanders are tremendous punchers but two fights is still a verry small sample to test a chin over.

Lennox Lewis for example took similar punishment in several of his fights against top punchers but he also got knocked out twice with a single punch. If his only fights against world class punchers were the Tua fight and the Bruno fight there would be people here arguing that he had one of the best chins of all time.

I feel that the jury is still out on Vitallys chin. He simply hasnt had enough fights against ranked punchers to start comparing it to a fighter like Quarry.

Not so. The difference here is Vitali was only shaken up by two HUGE punches his entire career. Everyone could see that Bruno had Lewis in a bad way. Same with Briggs and Tucker. Based on these fights alone, suspicion should arise. And when you factor in two one punch Ko losses, I beleive Lewis durability was defiantly suspect to power punchers. In truth most fighters are. Tua didn't land much to test Lewis. Lewis won the fight on skills and size rather easily. The Tua example is not valid in the contest of the conversation of being hit and taking it.

Chins are best tested when someone lands something serious on them. I listed three ( Lewis, Sanders, and Hide ) big punchers who landed their best on Vitlai and he did not go down. Many others couldn't even phase Vitlai when they landed that were " solid punchers ". This is a big sample. In fact it’s bigger than most heavyweights who had a reputation for taking punches. If you examine guys like Foreman, he was floored by lesser punchers than Lewis or Sanders for sure. The same could be said for Tyson, and Marciano! I feel you are not giving this a fair apples to apples comparison. But the forum is yours of course to debate if you think fighters like Lyle, Young, Ali, Douglas, Holyfield, Moore and Walcott hit harder than Lewis, or Sanders. In fact Hide likely hit harder than the fighters who put Foreman and Marciano down, save Lyle who is debatable.

Quarry lost via TKO to some non huge punchers. Twice to Ali, and once to Norton. Neither man hits as hard as Vitali does.

[KTFO]

He is but he hapened to beat Klitscko.


Who cares? We talk about Klit's qualities and a fight vs Quarry.


In any event it is only a single fight. You need multiple fights against world class punchers to demonstrate an all time chin.


There are no such opponents left. Lewis was the best of the best to test his chin and heart.

[Duodenum]

Levinsky had a few good wins but he also had tons and tons of losses.

Anyway, i don't really see the relevance of going 20 rounds when we're discussing Vitali vs Quarry in a 12 or 15 rounder. Vitali was an extremely hard wear-you-down puncher so i really wonder whether 15 rounds would favor Quarry. Especially with his tradition of getting cut.I rely on posters like you to bring me back to the issue at hand whenever I start going off on tangents. (C'mon, you know all too well how I tend to ramble. I need reminders to stay on track.)

As I previously stated, I don't consider Quarry to be any more of a bleeder than Klitschko. In 66 fights, he was really stopped on cuts only twice, in the first match with Ali, and in the first match with Frazier.

He took a knee after getting decked by Chuvalo in a contest he was winning handily, and lost the count. In the rematches with Ali and Frazier, he was getting battered when the referee intervened. (Joe Louis was the third man for Frazier/Quarry II.) He was also rescued by the referee while getting battered by Norton.

In the first battle with Frazier, he was cut by being butted and elbowed. (He didn't begrudge Smoke this, admitting that it was part of the game, and that he wasn't guiltless of these tactics either. Early in the Norton fight, there was again a clash of heads, which they touched gloves in apology for, as Kenny was actually boxing shorter than Jerry was.

Klitschko would not be boxing shorter than Jerry, so I doubt a clash of heads would occur that resulted in a cut to either fighter. With the butting of heads eliminated as a likely scenario, Quarry is the one with greater experience going longer distances. His fatigue in the Ali rematch was more of a mental issue than a physical one, as Jerry admitted in the interview immediately following that defeat. He started out all hyped up (as promptly demonstrated by how he started in picking Ali off the floor to begin the first round), and his uncontrolled surge of adrenaline exhausted him quickly, while Ali was about as relaxed as he ever was for a major performance.

Quarry was a fast starter, who even had some good early moments against Norton. He demonstrated against Alexander that he could get off the deck if floored early, and recover quickly to win. He finished very strongly in round 12 against both Spencer and Lyle, and matched conditioning with Patterson twice. He won ten rounds against Lyle, and also won ten rounds against Mathis.

In his last significant win, he spotted Lorenzo Zanon a seven round lead before coming back to take him out. Jerry may have looked dreadful at that stage of his career, but he was the last one to beat Zanon before Lorenzo challenged Holmes, and everybody else who defeated the admittedly chinny Zanon was a champion at the Italian national (Cane), European (Gardner, Rodriguez) or world (Norton, Holmes) level. Zanon may not have been considered world class, but it was necessary to be world class in order to beat him. Quarry won matches in every way it was possible to. He nearly shut out some world class opponents, blew out others early, took others out in the middle and late rounds, and recovered from slow starts to win coming from behind.

The version of Quarry I'm considering here is the one who showed up for Spencer, Foster, Lyle, Shavers, Bodell and Mathis. Vitalis, Viagra, Venereal, Valvoline, Vagina, Vermin, Vulva, or whatever the hell his name is, had better watch it, if he found himself sharing a ring with a well honed Jerry Quarry.

[janitor]

[quote=Mendoza]Not so. The difference here is Vitali was only shaken up by two HUGE punches his entire career. Everyone could see that Bruno had Lewis in a bad way. Same with Briggs and Tucker.

If Klitschko were to be knocked out by a single punch from Jamile McCline (unlikley of course) then I could imagine people saying in hindsight that Lewis and Sanders obviously had him hurt and in a bad way.

If all you had seen of Lewis was him soaking up multiple shots to the chin from Tua and you had not seen the Ramhan fight then I can imagine people saying that he must have had an all time chin to take that kind of punishment.

A chin can only really be proven over the course of a career.

Chins are best tested when someone lands something serious on them. I listed three ( Lewis, Sanders, and Hide ) big punchers who landed their best on Vitlai and he did not go down. Many others couldn't even phase Vitlai when they landed that were " solid punchers ". This is a big sample.

But it is not really a big sample. Joe Louis was never off his feet before the first schmeling fight despite having fought punchers like Max Baer and having taken their best. Before the bell rang to start the first Schmeling fight you could have argued that his chin was well tested and must have been an all time great chin for him to have taken those monster shots from Baer.

But the forum is yours of course to debate if you think fighters like Lyle, Young, Ali, Douglas, Holyfield, Moore and Walcott hit harder than Lewis, or Sanders.

I don't believe they did. There are other factors at work however.

It should be noted that men like Tyson, or Marciano had many more fights against ranked contenders in which to get knocked down.

A cutie like Walcott or Young will hit well above his weight when he catches you with a sneak punch because you don't see it coming. Lewis and Sanders were not cuties.

I am not saying that Vitallys chin is not granite because it likley is but I do think that it is a little early to pronounce upon it. His next two fights should be verry instructive.

[KTFO]

The version of Quarry I'm considering here is the one who showed up for Spencer, Foster, Lyle, Shavers, Bodell and Mathis. Vitalis, Viagra, Venereal, Valvoline, Vagina, Vermin, Vulva, or whatever the hell his name is, had better watch it, if he found himself sharing a ring with a well honed Jerry Quarry.



Quarry should watch how Vitali easily destroys,dismantles,decapitates,demoralizes,owns,hands ass to Herbie Hide,Ed Mahone,Orlin Norris,Larry Donald,Kirk Johnson,Corrie Sanders and Danny Williams.


Quarry would be a walk in the park.

[Cojimar 1945]

Lewis has good credentials as a puncher but Hide lacks wins that would establish him as a threat to the divisons elite.

[janitor]

Quarry should watch how Vitali easily destroys,dismantles,decapitates,demoralizes,owns,hands ass to Herbie Hide,Ed Mahone,Orlin Norris,Larry Donald,Kirk Johnson,Corrie Sanders and Danny Williams.


Quarry would be a walk in the park.

Quarry would be an order of magnitude better than anybody Vitally ever beat. Much better than anybody he ever fought outside of Lewis.

Quarry beat people who were themselves arguably better than VK.

[KTFO]

Quarry would be an order of magnitude better than anybody Vitally ever beat. Much better than anybody he ever fought outside of Lewis.



Quarry is, was and will ever be.............a Journeyman.

[ChrisPontius]

Quarry would be an order of magnitude better than anybody Vitally ever beat. Much better than anybody he ever fought outside of Lewis.

Quarry beat people who were themselves arguably better than VK.

How is Quarry much better than Byrd?

[janitor]

How is Quarry much better than Byrd?

He beat better oposition. He was in the 70s what Byrd was in the 90s.

[janitor]

Quarry is, was and will ever be.............a Journeyman.

A man who beats most of the best contenders of his era is not a journeyman.

[KTFO]

He beat better oposition.



Beating Shavers doesn't make him superman. It was more like Journeyman beat Journeyman. Even Bob Stallings beat Shavers. :lol:

[janitor]

Beating Shavers doesn't make him superman. It was more like Journeyman beat Journeyman. Even Bob Stallings beat Shavers. :lol:

Who said anything about Shavers?

You must have a verry low opinion of the fighters of the 70s if you think that a Journeyman was able to do what Quarry did to them.

[ChrisPontius]

He beat better oposition. He was in the 70s what Byrd was in the 90s.

In the 90's, Byrd was still fighting his way up to contender level untill he ran into a monster called Ike Ibeabuchi.

Byrd's best wins:
Vitali Klitschko (flukish, but a win is a win)
David Tua
Evander Holyfield (aging but is fighting for a title 5 years after)
Andrew Golota (aging but capable)
Fres Oquendo
Jameel McCline
DaVarryl Williamson


Quarry's best wins:
Floyd Patterson (aging, argubly lost one to him as well)
Buster Mathis
Mac Foster
Ron Lyle
Ernie Shavers

Edge: Even.
I think Byrd's wins are a little bit better but it's very close so let's call it even.

Now, on to their losses:

Byrd's losses:
Ike Ibeabuchi, TKO by 5
Wladimir Klitschko, UD12
Wladimir Klitschko, TKO by 7


Quarry's losses:
Eddie Machen, UD10
Jimmy Ellis, MD15
Joe Frazier, TKO by 7
George Chuvalo, KO by 7
Muhammad Ali, TKO by 3
Muhammad Ali, TKO by 7
Joe Frazier, TKO by 5
Ken Norton, TKO by 5

Edge: Byrd. Wladimir Klitschko has an offensive arsenal at least as good as Frazier's, in my opinion better. He lacks an uppercut but Frazier lacks a straight right hand. Ali didn't carry much pop but stopped him twice. Ibeabuchi stopped Byrd but he, like Klitschko, was a huge man at 6'2 240lb with little body fat, with handspeed & power the likes of Quarry has never faced.
You will also often hear the claim "Quarry only lost to greats, Ali and Frazier" but this is clearly not true.
Say Ali and Frazier didn't exist. Even then, losses to Ellis, Machen (who was halfway into retirement and went 1-3 in his next fights), Norton and Chuvalo are most definitly worse losses than only losing to Ibeabuchi, and W. Klitschko twice.


Edge in overal resume: Byrd. He has equally if not better wins and less worse losses.


Sidenote: Byrd is fighting Povetkin next october. If he beats Povetkin, this would add a win similar to the Mac Foster one on his resume, or even better if Povetkin does not flop afterwards like Foster did.



You claimed Quarry was "much better than Byrd". Even if you think all heavyweights in the 70's are supermans like some do here, there is no reasonable argument to be made that he was "much" better. At the very least, they're on par.

[KTFO]

Who said anything about Shavers?



He's the only one you could mention. :smooch

[janitor]

In the 90's, Byrd was still fighting his way up to contender level untill he ran into a monster called Ike Ibeabuchi.

Byrd's best wins:
Vitali Klitschko (flukish, but a win is a win)
David Tua
Evander Holyfield (aging but is fighting for a title 5 years after)


Verry fine wins


Andrew Golota (aging but capable)


Probably should have been a loss



[QUOTE]
Quarry's best wins:
Floyd Patterson (aging, argubly lost one to him as well)
Buster Mathis
Mac Foster
Ron Lyle
Ernie Shavers

Edge: Even.
I think Byrd's wins are a little bit better but it's very close so let's call it even.


On paper Floyd Patterson is the best that either of them beat though as you say it might have been a loss. Taking circumstances into acount I think the Lyle win is the best that either fighter ever posted.


Now, on to their losses:

Byrd's losses:
Ike Ibeabuchi, TKO by 5
Wladimir Klitschko, UD12
Wladimir Klitschko, TKO by 7


Quarry's losses:
Eddie Machen, UD10
Jimmy Ellis, MD15
Joe Frazier, TKO by 7
George Chuvalo, KO by 7
Muhammad Ali, TKO by 3
Muhammad Ali, TKO by 7
Joe Frazier, TKO by 5
Ken Norton, TKO by 5


Edge: Byrd.


I think you have to take into acount the number of fights they both had against ranked contenders. I think Quarry had a lot more.

Wladimir Klitschko has an offensive arsenal at least as good as Frazier's, in my opinion better.

I will take some convincing of this.


Ibeabuchi stopped Byrd but he, like Klitschko, was a huge man at 6'2 240lb with little body fat, with handspeed & power the likes of Quarry has never faced.


He certainly fought fighters who hit as hard as Ibeabuchi.


You will also often hear the claim "Quarry only lost to greats, Ali and Frazier" but this is clearly not true.
Say Ali and Frazier didn't exist. Even then, losses to Ellis, Machen (who was halfway into retirement and went 1-3 in his next fights), Norton and Chuvalo are most definitly worse losses than only losing to Ibeabuchi, and W. Klitschko twice.



Having made these criticisms you do make a compeling case for Byrd. I think historians will rate him highly in years to come.

Where your argument principaly falls down is that Klitschko lost to Byrd so it hardly matters whether he was better than Quarry or not.


Sidenote: Byrd is fighting Povetkin next october. If he beats Povetkin, this would add a win similar to the Mac Foster one on his resume, or even better if Povetkin does not flop afterwards like Foster did.


Big if.


You claimed Quarry was "much better than Byrd". Even if you think all heavyweights in the 70's are supermans like some do here, there is no reasonable argument to be made that he was "much" better. At the very least, they're on par.


I do think he was better and I will tell you why. I probably rate the 70s fighters lower than most here but Quarry was a fighter who had a huge number of fights against the best of his era. While Byrd was typicaly fighting oponents reckoned to be bellow his level and somtimes stepping up for a huge challenge Quarry was frequently taking on an oponent who was even money against him and in some cases he was the canon fodder. When he fought Lyle for example he was the sacrificial lamb being handed out as an easy win to the up and coming contender

[janitor]

He's the only one you could mention. :smooch

Shavers is certainly not the best opponent Quarry ever beat.

Patterson and Lyle were of a higher calibre.

[ChrisPontius]

Verry fine wins



Probably should have been a loss



On paper Floyd Patterson is the best that either of them beat though as you say it might have been a loss. Taking circumstances into acount I think the Lyle win is the best that either fighter ever posted.



I think you have to take into acount the number of fights they both had against ranked contenders. I think Quarry had a lot more.


I will take some convincing of this.


He certainly fought fighters who hit as hard as Ibeabuchi.


Having made these criticisms you do make a compeling case for Byrd. I think historians will rate him highly in years to come.

Where your argument principaly falls down is that Klitschko lost to Byrd so it hardly matters whether he was better than Quarry or not.


Big if.


I do think he was better and I will tell you why. I probably rate the 70s fighters lower than most here but Quarry was a fighter who had a huge number of fights against the best of his era. While Byrd was typicaly fighting oponents reckoned to be bellow his level and somtimes stepping up for a huge challenge Quarry was frequently taking on an oponent who was even money against him and in some cases he was the canon fodder. When he fought Lyle for example he was the sacrificial lamb being handed out as an easy win to the up and coming contender

It's nice that Quarry had many fights against the best of his era. You pointed out how he faced many top contenders.

But why does Quarry's win list not clearly exceed Byrds if he fought so often? Why are his losses, even if you exclude the ones against Frazier and Ali, still a step below Byrd's losses? That he was a sacrificial lamb against Lyle but pulled out the win is a nice story, but in the end it's the resume that matters. And if Quarry was as good as you claim him to be, why did they consider him to be a sarcificial lamb?

And you say Byrd was regularly having fights below his level. Sometimes indeed he did. But Ibeabuchi and all three of his fights against the Klitschko brothers certainly weren't. His upcoming fight with Povetkin isn't. McCline was quite good when they fought. He tried to make a fight with Lennox Lewis but Lewis refused, you can hardly blame Byrd for that.

Byrd was a natural cruiserweight, fighting heavyweights and superheavyweights (W. Klitschko, V. Klitschko, McCline, Golota, Ibeabuchi) for the better part of his career. They was certainly not seen as opponents below his level, Byrd was given not all that much chance in most of them.



I find your reasoning as to why Quarry is "much" better to be quite strange actually. I just compared to their resumes and now you bring up some circumstances, Quarry being cannon fodder, fighting often and what not. Why do wins and losses not count anymore?

[mcvey]

Quarry is, was and will ever be.............a Journeyman.
Are you serious or a fool?

[mcvey]

Quarry should watch how Vitali easily destroys,dismantles,decapitates,demoralizes,owns,hands ass to Herbie Hide,Ed Mahone,Orlin Norris,Larry Donald,Kirk Johnson,Corrie Sanders and Danny Williams.


Quarry would be a walk in the park.
None of those mentioned are anything but average fighters,Klitchko s resume has only Lewis on it,and he lost that one.

[Mendoza]

janitor

If Klitschko were to be knocked out by a single punch from Jamile McCline (unlikley of course) then I could imagine people saying in hindsight that Lewis and Sanders obviously had him hurt and in a bad way.


Let's go on what we know. McCline doesn't hit in Lewis or Sanders league. Not in Hide's or K. Johnson's either. Secondly, when a fighter is older and inactive, I don't hold it against him if he goes down. They way I see it, it is highly unlikely for McCline to score a knockdown.


A chin can only really be proven over the course of a career.


Right, and for Vitali I mentioned a career of never going down, and a career where his chin was tested by three certifed knockout artists. What more can you ask?


But it is not really a big sample. Joe Louis was never off his feet before the first schmeling fight despite having fought punchers like Max Baer and having taken their best. Before the bell rang to start the first Schmeling fight you could have argued that his chin was well tested and must have been an all time great chin for him to have taken those monster shots from Baer.

Louis was knocked down often as an amatuer. The thing is his offense was too much early for him to be tested, much like Wlad's was. Schemling badly hurt Louis with one right hand, and the effects lingered the entire match. Max Bear hardly landed on Louis. Louis blew him out. However a few other fighters that did land on Louis knocked him down, and several others shook him up. While this is not a Louis thread, his chin should be viewed among the best.


It should be noted that men like Tyson, or Marciano had many more fights against ranked contenders in which to get knocked down.

I don't think Marciano faced a puncher in Lewis, Sanders or Hide's class. Many of the men Marciano fought were older curiser weight sized fighters. A high ranked contenders does not mean a fighter can test your chin. Tyson fought a few good punchers. His chin to me was very good, yet he was knocked down and KO'd by punches from Lewis, Holyfield and Douglas.


I am not saying that Vitallys chin is not granite because it likley is but I do think that it is a little early to pronounce upon it. His next two fights should be verry instructive.

Here's where we disagree. Vitlai has proven this already. In fact, he has proven to take hard shots and not go down, which means his ability to take a punch is better than Foreman's, Marciano's, and Tyson's because these fighters were down or out from a group of lesser punchers. I think accepting these facts at face value is the key. You mentioed Wlacott and Young being tricky. So was Donald and Bean.

[Mendoza]

In the 90's, Byrd was still fighting his way up to contender level untill he ran into a monster called Ike Ibeabuchi.

Byrd's best wins:
Vitali Klitschko (flukish, but a win is a win)
David Tua
Evander Holyfield (aging but is fighting for a title 5 years after)
Andrew Golota (aging but capable)
Fres Oquendo
Jameel McCline
DaVarryl Williamson


Quarry's best wins:
Floyd Patterson (aging, argubly lost one to him as well)
Buster Mathis
Mac Foster
Ron Lyle
Ernie Shavers

Edge: Even.
I think Byrd's wins are a little bit better but it's very close so let's call it even.

Now, on to their losses:

Byrd's losses:
Ike Ibeabuchi, TKO by 5
Wladimir Klitschko, UD12
Wladimir Klitschko, TKO by 7


Quarry's losses:
Eddie Machen, UD10
Jimmy Ellis, MD15
Joe Frazier, TKO by 7
George Chuvalo, KO by 7
Muhammad Ali, TKO by 3
Muhammad Ali, TKO by 7
Joe Frazier, TKO by 5
Ken Norton, TKO by 5

Edge: Byrd. Wladimir Klitschko has an offensive arsenal at least as good as Frazier's, in my opinion better. He lacks an uppercut but Frazier lacks a straight right hand. Ali didn't carry much pop but stopped him twice. Ibeabuchi stopped Byrd but he, like Klitschko, was a huge man at 6'2 240lb with little body fat, with handspeed & power the likes of Quarry has never faced.
You will also often hear the claim "Quarry only lost to greats, Ali and Frazier" but this is clearly not true.
Say Ali and Frazier didn't exist. Even then, losses to Ellis, Machen (who was halfway into retirement and went 1-3 in his next fights), Norton and Chuvalo are most definitly worse losses than only losing to Ibeabuchi, and W. Klitschko twice.


Edge in overal resume: Byrd. He has equally if not better wins and less worse losses.


Sidenote: Byrd is fighting Povetkin next october. If he beats Povetkin, this would add a win similar to the Mac Foster one on his resume, or even better if Povetkin does not flop afterwards like Foster did.


You claimed Quarry was "much better than Byrd". Even if you think all heavyweights in the 70's are supermans like some do here, there is no reasonable argument to be made that he was "much" better. At the very least, they're on par.

Excellent post.

[Duodenum]

That he was a sacrificial lamb against Lyle but pulled out the win is a nice story, but in the end it's the resume that matters. And if Quarry was as good as you claim him to be, why did they consider him to be a sarcificial lamb?Because "they" kept forgetting how good Quarry was. Jerry wasn't only a sacrificial lamb against Lyle, he was a sacrificial lamb against the favorite to win the WBA Tournament, Thad Spencer. Then, he was the sacrificial lamb against the second coming of Joe Louis, 24-0 (24 kayos) Mac Foster. He was a sacrificial lamb against new BBB of C and EBU HW southpaw champion Jack Bodell (fresh off a 15 round win over Bugner), and destroyed his career in 64 seconds. He was a sacrificial lamb for Buster Mathis, and sent Mathis into a tailspin he never recovered from. He was a sacrificial lamb against 21-1-1 Larry Middleton, and also sent him into a tailspin he never recovered from. He came back repeatedly from defeats which would have destroyed a lesser competitor, a Rasputin of the division.

If Byrd/Klitschko was flukish, what does that make Chuvalo/Quarry? (Jerry was clearly better.) It is only in retrospect that Lyle and Shavers have come to be regarded as his best wins. But at the time they took place, Spencer and Foster were something else. Quarry dumped Foster in six rounds, and was the only one to ever stop Big Mac.

[janitor]

Because "they" kept forgetting how good Quarry was. Jerry wasn't only a sacrificial lamb against Lyle, he was a sacrificial lamb against the favorite to win the WBA Tournament, Thad Spencer. Then, he was the sacrificial lamb against the second coming of Joe Louis, 24-0 (24 kayos) Mac Foster. He was a sacrificial lamb against new BBB of C and EBU HW southpaw champion Jack Bodell (fresh off a 15 round win over Bugner), and destroyed his career in 64 seconds. He was a sacrificial lamb for Buster Mathis, and sent Mathis into a tailspin he never recovered from. He was a sacrificial lamb against 21-1-1 Larry Middleton, and also sent him into a tailspin he never recovered from. He came back repeatedly from defeats which would have destroyed a lesser competitor, a Rasputin of the division.

If Byrd/Klitschko was flukish, what does that make Chuvalo/Quarry? (Jerry was clearly better.) It is only in retrospect that Lyle and Shavers have come to be regarded as his best wins. But at the time they took place, Spencer and Foster were something else. Quarry dumped Foster in six rounds, and was the only one to ever stop Big Mac.

The truth has been spoken.

Most of Vitalys best wins are on a par with wins that are trivialised on Quarrys record by modern observers.

Boxing geeks of the future will look over Vitallys record on boxrec and say-

Vitally who?

He beat nobody.

Of course that will be unfair but it is the deal that any contender pre 1950s who never quite made it gets.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]It's nice that Quarry had many fights against the best of his era. You pointed out how he faced many top contenders.

But why does Quarry's win list not clearly exceed Byrds if he fought so often? Why are his losses, even if you exclude the ones against Frazier and Ali, still a step below Byrd's losses?


They are also a step below Vitally Klitschko's losses and Frank Brunos losses. That is because their average opposition quality was verry low.

Not that either guy deserves to be mentioned in the same breat as Byrd.


That he was a sacrificial lamb against Lyle but pulled out the win is a
nice story, but in the end it's the resume that matters. And if Quarry was as good as you claim him to be, why did they consider him to be a sarcificial lamb?


Because he was believed to be washed up.

And you say Byrd was regularly having fights below his level. Sometimes indeed he did. But Ibeabuchi and all three of his fights against the Klitschko brothers certainly weren't.

And crucialy he certainly lost them.


His upcoming fight with Povetkin isn't. McCline was quite good when they fought. He tried to make a fight with Lennox Lewis but Lewis refused, you can hardly blame Byrd for that.


None of these fights have taken place at time of writing.



I find your reasoning as to why Quarry is "much" better to be quite strange actually. I just compared to their resumes and now you bring up some circumstances, Quarry being cannon fodder, fighting often and what not. Why do wins and losses not count anymore?


They count alright. The bottom line is that Quarry had more fights against more good fighters and that is reflected in his loss register.

You criticise him for loosing controvertialy to Chuvalo but forgett that Chuvalo is better than anybody Vitally ever beat.

[ChrisPontius]

Because "they" kept forgetting how good Quarry was. Jerry wasn't only a sacrificial lamb against Lyle, he was a sacrificial lamb against the favorite to win the WBA Tournament, Thad Spencer. Then, he was the sacrificial lamb against the second coming of Joe Louis, 24-0 (24 kayos) Mac Foster. He was a sacrificial lamb against new BBB of C and EBU HW southpaw champion Jack Bodell (fresh off a 15 round win over Bugner), and destroyed his career in 64 seconds. He was a sacrificial lamb for Buster Mathis, and sent Mathis into a tailspin he never recovered from. He was a sacrificial lamb against 21-1-1 Larry Middleton, and also sent him into a tailspin he never recovered from. He came back repeatedly from defeats which would have destroyed a lesser competitor, a Rasputin of the division.

If Byrd/Klitschko was flukish, what does that make Chuvalo/Quarry? (Jerry was clearly better.) It is only in retrospect that Lyle and Shavers have come to be regarded as his best wins. But at the time they took place, Spencer and Foster were something else. Quarry dumped Foster in six rounds, and was the only one to ever stop Big Mac.

It's cool that guys like Larry Middleton, Jack Bodell and Mathis were favored over him, but we have all the knowledge about them now and can assem them as they are: mediocre fighters.


I ask again, how does Quarry being cannon fodder for these fighters refute the earlier post i made when comparing their wins and losses?



They are also a step below Vitally Klitschko's losses and Frank Brunos losses. That is because their average opposition quality was verry low.


But i pointed out that besides Ali and Frazier, Quarry also lost to some average fighters. Now you are saying that Vitali Klitschko and Frank Bruno don't have losses to average fighters, because..... their average opposition quality was very low? That doesn't make sense.

Quarry losing to Chuvalo and an old Machen would be like Byrd losing to Oquendo and an old Golota. But he didn't.

[janitor]

[quote=Mendoza]Let's go on what we know. McCline doesn't hit in Lewis or Sanders league. Not in Hide's or K. Johnson's either. Secondly, when a fighter is older and inactive, I don't hold it against him if he goes down. They way I see it, it is highly unlikely for McCline to score a knockdown.


Just warning you that you are making yourself a hostage to fortune.


Right, and for Vitali I mentioned a career of never going down, and a career where his chin was tested by three certifed knockout artists. What more can you ask?


A lot more.

A career with muliple fights against ranked contenders and a number of known punchers.

Louis was knocked down often as an amatuer.

So was David Tua.

The thing is his offense was too much early for him to be tested, much like Wlad's was.

Not at all. His style put him in the danger zone and required him to get hit often.

Schemling badly hurt Louis with one right hand, and the effects lingered the entire match.

Hard to say after 50+ flush right hands.

Max Bear hardly landed on Louis. Louis blew him out.

He landed several flush right hands on Louis's chin. By your logic that would give Louis an all time chin.


However a few other fighters that did land on Louis knocked him down, and several others shook him up. While this is not a Louis thread, his chin should be viewed among the best.


When Vitally has fought literaly dozens of ramked contenders we will see how his chin has held up.


I don't think Marciano faced a puncher in Lewis, Sanders or Hide's class. Many of the men Marciano fought were older curiser weight sized fighters. A high ranked contenders does not mean a fighter can test your chin. Tyson fought a few good punchers. His chin to me was very good, yet he was knocked down and KO'd by punches from Lewis, Holyfield and Douglas.


A chin checker is not necisarily a big fighter or a hard puncher. Jersey Joe Walcott was a much more serious test of chin than Shanon Briggs for example.vv


Here's where we disagree. Vitlai has proven this already. In fact, he has proven to take hard shots and not go down, which means his ability to take a punch is better than Foreman's, Marciano's, and Tyson's because these fighters were down or out from a group of lesser punchers. I think accepting these facts at face value is the key. You mentioed Wlacott and Young being tricky. So was Donald and Bean.


Bottom line is that Vitallys chin was only checked by has beens and never were's. This is not a body of oposition that justifies comparing his chin to Marciano's or Tyson's based on the results.

If I fight the entire womens institute and am never knocked down do I have an all time chin?

[KTFO]

None of those mentioned are anything but average fighters,Klitchko s resume has only Lewis on it,and he lost that one.



On cuts. Don't forget that. That loss has nothing to say about Klit's qualities as a boxer.


Are you serious or a fool?


You must be a fool if you consider Quarry anything else than a journeyman.


Shavers is certainly not the best opponent Quarry ever beat.

Patterson and Lyle were of a higher calibre.


Patterson was shot already when he faced Quarry (losses to Johansson,Liston,Ali). Quarry should've faced Patterson in the 50's and Quarry would've been decapitated.

Some other fighters:
Shavers?.....lol
Mathis?........double lol
Lyle?...........triple lol

[janitor]

On cuts. Don't forget that. That loss has nothing to say about Klit's qualities as a boxer.


You see the problem here.

If we are justifying Muhamad Ali's reputation we don't have to say-

"He would have beat Joe Frazier but he was stoped on cuts"

If we are justifying Jack Sharkey's reputation we don't have to say-

"He would have beat George Godfrey but he was stoped on cuts"

Vitally Klitschkos resume is based on what if.

[janitor]

[quote=KTFO]Patterson was shot already when he faced Quarry (losses to Johansson,Liston,Ali). Quarry should've faced Patterson in the 50's and Quarry would've been decapitated.


Patterson did go on to beat a few of top contenders and in his last fight gave Ali a verry tough argument. He was ahead on the score cards when the fight was stopped on cuts.


Some other fighters:
Shavers?.....lol


One of the best 3 Holmes ever beat.


Mathis?........double lol


A solid contender.


Lyle?...........triple lol

Foreman didn't lol.

[KTFO]

You see the problem here.




There is no problem. This bout proofed many things. One of them was that Klit can box highest comp. Fullstop.

[Bummy Davis]

I like Vitali in this fight, I can see a TKO victory, Quarry could hurt Vitali with a sustained body attack but the jab, reach and awkward power of Vitali would allow him to dominate. I have seen Vitali take solid shots from Lennox and Sanders and early in the fights when both were fresh,Vitali has a solid chin and is fit,condition has a lot to do with it. Quarry could take Vitali's punch but I see him getting battered along the ropes and the RSC

[Mendoza]

janitor

Just warning you that you are making yourself a hostage to fortune.

Hostage of fortune? Perhaps. I think soothsayer of correct news is more likely. Vitlai will defeat MCcline. The odds of McCline scoring a knockdown are long.


A career with muliple fights against ranked contenders and a number of known punchers.

Again, Lewis and Sanders are big punchers. H. Hide, K. Johnson, and D Williams can definitely hit. In 37 fights, Vitlai has yet to go down. The fact that he was hit and tested by punchers is all the proof you need.


So was David Tua.

Tua was knocked down multiple times as an amateur? In what fight besides Savon? Names pro favor.


Not at all. His style put him in the danger zone and required him to get hit often.

Louis offensive style did not put him in the danger zone as operated behind his jab. It was his defense and lack of balance that made him hittable.


He landed several flush right hands on Louis's chin. By your logic that would give Louis an all time chin.

Schmeling hurt Louis with one the second or third flush right hand in the fight. I own the match. This logic proved that other punchers could do the same and knock Louis down when they landed. History proves this.


When Vitally has fought literaly dozens of ramked contenders we will see how his chin has held up.

Dozens of ranked contenders? If you include the McCline fight, Vitlai has fought 13 fighters who fought for one of the four major world title belts.
He also fought 4-5 fighters who fought for the European Heavyweight championship belt.


A chin checker is not necisarily a big fighter or a hard puncher. Jersey Joe Walcott was a much more serious test of chin than Shanon Briggs for example..

I would much rather be hit by Walcott's bomb then Briggs bomb. Briggs certainly hits harder.


Bottom line is that Vitallys chin was only checked by has beens and never were's. This is not a body of oposition that justifies comparing his chin to Marciano's or Tyson's based on the results.

If I fight the entire womens institute and am never knocked down do I have an all time chin?

Now this is silly. A professional heavyweight at any level competition should not be compared to a woman institute of boxing. I'll close with the following point which I once again invite you to dispute.

Vitali has taken hard shots from Lennox Lewis, Corrie Sanders, and Herbie Hide. He has not gone down from a punch in 37 pro fights, which include 12 matches vs men who fought for world title belts, and 4-5 who fought for European title belts. You would be hard pressed to name ten better punchers than Lennox Lewis who landed his best uppercuts and hook on Vitali.

I'll list the following fighters who have very good to great chins who have been dropped by punches. I might miss a few...

Holyfield: Down from Toney, Cooper, and Bowe....none hit as hard as Lewis or Sanders.

Tyson: Down from Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis.

Holmes: Down from Tyson, Shavers, Snipes, and Issac.

Foreman: Down from Ali, Young, and Lyle.

Ali: Down from Banks, Cooper, Frazier, and Wepner.

Liston: Down by Marshal, Ali, and Martin.

Marciano: Down by Walcott and Moore.

Dempsey: Down by Sudenberg, Flynn, Fripo and Tunney

Vitali: Down by no man. In fact he was in trouble far less often without going down than anyone on the list.

I do not understand why you're fighting this tooth and nail. Perhaps Vitlai just isn't your cup of tea. If that is the case, then Howard Cossell said it best. " What's right is not always popular, and what's popular is not always right. " -Howard Cosell.

[Cojimar 1945]

I thought Sanders only beat one heavyweight ranked in the top 10 his entire career. Aside from Wladimir, who did Sanders ever beat that was ranked highly?

[cross_trainer]

I thought Sanders only beat one heavyweight ranked in the top 10 his entire career. Aside from Wladimir, who did Sanders ever beat that was ranked highly?

This touches upon a serious disconnect when ranking guys from different eras. When we're talking about resumes in the 90's and 00's, we tend to think of more of the fighters as legitimate contenders because we remember them better. Shannon Briggs, for instance, who is considered a feather in Lewis's cap despite being (comparatively) awful. Jameel McCline is another example of a fighter who had a little bit of success and then walked off into the sunset.

On the other hand, when we talk about 70's "contenders", we're really talking about the contenders who amounted to something--not mere contenders, but the BEST contenders the era produced. Norton, Quarry, Patterson, and company are a very different breed from Ibragimov, Briggs, Lyakhovich...even though both groups are considered "contenders".







That's why, instead of just rattling off the "names" each guy fought, we should list the number of Ring-ranked top 5 and top 10 contenders they fought. These rankings are a little more objective, because "names" vary depending on how well you can remember them, but Ring rankings are fairly stable from era to era.

[Mendoza]

I thought Sanders only beat one heavyweight ranked in the top 10 his entire career. Aside from Wladimir, who did Sanders ever beat that was ranked highly?
Are we talking about punchers here or ranked opponents? They are two different conversations. Sanders should rate high as a puncher. He can hit, and he has excellent hand speed. That was a point of mine with Janitor when I mentioned Sanders name. The key point was Vitlai has never been down, and taken hard shot from punchers, while just about everyone else has come up short in this department.

As for Sanders rank, Ring Magaizne had Sanders #3 in the world after he beat Wlad. Asside from the Wlad, Sanders defeated some former cursier weight champs who fought at heavy ( Nelson, Cole and Czyz ) and fringe contenders at heavyweight in Duplooy, Sprott, and Cooper.

No one is calling Sanders an all time great here. I am only calling him a dangerous puncher.

[Duodenum]

It's cool that guys like Larry Middleton, Jack Bodell and Mathis were favored over him, but we have all the knowledge about them now and can assem them as they are: mediocre fighters.Gee, you don't suppose the fact of Jerry's getting his fists on them in the first place had something to do with that, do you?

[Duodenum]

There's plenty of Quarry and Vitali footage on Youtube...which is, by the way, a heaven-sent help to boxing fans like us.And that leads me to wonder how much of a case could be made for Quarry without the availability of services like that. We no longer have to take Foreman's word for how good Quarry was, we can see some of his benchmark wins for ourselves. ]

Incompetent or corrupt organizations like ESPN no longer have the power to act as the gatekeepers of such footage, spinning our opinions about these historic performers to suit their own prejudiced or ignorant agendas, and only broadcasting Quarry's rematch with Ali, showing Muhammad at his best and Jerry at his worst.

At least ESPN usually broadcasts Foster/Mike Quarry first, so we can see what disturbed Jerry so much before heading out to try doing battle with Ali. ESPN would probably prefer to ignore that devastating win by Foster, but Jerry compells them to show that earlier bout it by referring to it in his post-fight interview. Thanks to that, we get to see Foster broadcast on a regular basis too.

The lack of sports history knowledge possessed by these glib, pretty boy twinkies and airheaded beauty contestant bimbos, with blow dried hair and brains, on venues like ESPN is repulsive. Do they know how to read anything except teleprompters? Or can they not even do that, but just repeat what they're told on camera through their earpieces?

[janitor]

[quote=Mendoza]Hostage of fortune? Perhaps. I think soothsayer of correct news is more likely. Vitlai will defeat MCcline. The odds of McCline scoring a knockdown are long.


Hang on now. We don't even know what sort of condition Vitally is going to be in. He might have lost a lot during his layoff.


Tua was knocked down multiple times as an amateur? In what fight besides Savon? Names pro favor.


Let us take a look at the Savon fight. You have a fighter renowned for his chin as a profesional being iced by a single punch as an amateur.

Would it be fair to say that his chin improved a fair bit after that.


Louis offensive style did not put him in the danger zone as operated behind his jab. It was his defense and lack of balance that made him hittable.


But Louis did not just operate behind his jab. He took it to his oponents on the inside Henry Armstrong style at times. He also did not have the edge in reach over most of his opponents that Vitally had. This ment he had to be prepared to get hit now and again to get the job done.


Schmeling hurt Louis with one the second or third flush right hand in the fight. I own the match. This logic proved that other punchers could do the same and knock Louis down when they landed. History proves this.


But before this Louis like Vitally had fought a number of known punchers taken their best and had never been down. By your logic we could argue that he had an all time chin at this point.

Louis's number of knockdowns also have to be offset against the fact that he fought more world class fighters than most other all time greats by a ratio of 2 or 3 to 1.


Dozens of ranked contenders? If you include the McCline fight, Vitlai has fought 13 fighters who fought for one of the four major world title belts.
He also fought 4-5 fighters who fought for the European Heavyweight championship belt.


Sure but many of them had seen better days when he fought them.


I would much rather be hit by Walcott's bomb then Briggs bomb. Briggs certainly hits harder.


He hits harder but dose not have the same technique. Walcott is probably a greater threat with a single punch than Briggs.


Now this is silly. A professional heavyweight at any level competition should not be compared to a woman institute of boxing. I'll close with the following point which I once again invite you to dispute.


I was talking metaphoricaly. My point is that you start to get knocked down more when you step up to world level.


I'll list the following fighters who have very good to great chins who have been dropped by punches. I might miss a few...

Holyfield: Down from Toney, Cooper, and Bowe....none hit as hard as Lewis or Sanders.

Tyson: Down from Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis.

Holmes: Down from Tyson, Shavers, Snipes, and Issac.

Foreman: Down from Ali, Young, and Lyle.

Ali: Down from Banks, Cooper, Frazier, and Wepner.

Liston: Down by Marshal, Ali, and Martin.

Marciano: Down by Walcott and Moore.

Dempsey: Down by Sudenberg, Flynn, Fripo and Tunney

Vitali: Down by no man. In fact he was in trouble far less often without going down than anyone on the list.


You see my concearn here. These fighters were all knocked down either when they were fighting the best available challengers or while they wereovermatched early in their careers.

I could play devils advocate and say that Vitally dose not have these phases in his career.

I do not understand why you're fighting this tooth and nail. Perhaps Vitlai just isn't your cup of tea. If that is the case, then Howard Cossell said it best. " What's right is not always popular, and what's popular is not always right. " -Howard Cosell.

I have nothing against Vitally but I look at his resume and wonder if his vaunted chin and KO percentage might be something of an artefact of his opposition. A paper tiger if you like.

I think people are being a bit premature to automaticaly pick him over all time greats because they weigh less than 200lbs.

[Mendoza]

And that leads me to wonder how much of a case could be made for Quarry without the availability of services like that. We no longer have to take Foreman's word for how good Quarry was, we can see some of his benchmark wins for ourselves. ]

Incompetent or corrupt organizations like ESPN no longer have the power to act as the gatekeepers of such footage, spinning our opinions about these historic performers to suit their own prejudiced or ignorant agendas, and only broadcasting Quarry's rematch with Ali, showing Muhammad at his best and Jerry at his worst.

At least ESPN usually broadcasts Foster/Mike Quarry first, so we can see what disturbed Jerry so much before heading out to try doing battle with Ali. ESPN would probably prefer to ignore that devastating win by Foster, but Jerry compells them to show that earlier bout it by referring to it in his post-fight interview. Thanks to that, we get to see Foster broadcast on a regular basis too.

The lack of sports history knowledge possessed by these glib, pretty boy twinkies and airheaded beauty contestant bimbos, with blow dried hair and brains, on venues like ESPN is repulsive. Do they know how to read anything except teleprompters? Or can they not even do that, but just repeat what they're told on camera through their earpieces?

I hear you. In my opinion modern technology has enhanced the viewer’s access to boxing, but it has also diminished the announcers’ ability to call a fight since they rely heavy on technology. Some of the old blow by blow announcers didn't have multiple replay angles or zoom in lenses technology. They were forced to learn their craft by relying on their own eyes and ears.

I don't want to defend EPSN too much, but I do want to point out that they have a 30 minute segment on Quarry titled, “ Jerry Quarry the forgotten heavyweight. “ It shows footages of Quarry vs Ali, Frazier, and Norton. Quarry was a genuine contender who had the misfortune of being born at the wrong time as he fought Frazier and Norton at their best, and Ali near his best.

[Mendoza]

Mendoza
Hostage of fortune? Perhaps. I think soothsayer of correct news is more likely. Vitlai will defeat MCcline. The odds of McCline scoring a knockdown are long.


Janitor: Hang on now. We don't even know what sort of condition Vitally is going to be in. He might have lost a lot during his layoff.

>>You can see the current gym clips on you tube. Vitlai looks good. In additon, he has the size and power. These things are the last to go.


Mendoza: Tua was knocked down multiple times as an amateur? In what fight besides Savon? Names pro favor.

Janitor: Let us take a look at the Savon fight. You have a fighter renowned for his chin as a profesional being iced by a single punch as an amateur. Would it be fair to say that his chin improved a fair bit after that.

>>Didn't you says Tua was knocked down multiple times? Tua was a teenager when Savon, a seasoned fighter with a dangerous right hand floored him. Tua has a proven chin as a pro, same as Vitali.


Mendoza: Louis offensive style did not put him in the danger zone as operated behind his jab. It was his defense and lack of balance that made him hittable.

Janitor : But Louis did not just operate behind his jab. He took it to his oponents on the inside Henry Armstrong style at times. He also did not have the edge in reach over most of his opponents that Vitally had. This ment he had to be prepared to get hit now and again to get the job done.

>>Louis had a skill edge, a reach edge, and speed edge and in most his fights. The Baer's and Simon's of boxing had a reach edge, but neither man had skills or speed edge.


Mendoza: Schmeling hurt Louis with one the second or third flush right hand in the fight. I own the match. This logic proved that other punchers could do the same and knock Louis down when they landed. History proves this.

Janitor:But before this Louis like Vitally had fought a number of known punchers taken their best and had never been down. By your logic we could argue that he had an all time chin at this point.

Louis's number of knockdowns also have to be offset against the fact that he fought more world class fighters than most other all time greats by a ratio of 2 or 3 to 1.

>>False. Schemling was the first puncher who landed something serious on Louis. We all saw the results. Louis could not recover. He was hurt and off balance. If you can show me another puncher who tested Louis chin by landing hard shots on him before the first Schemling, I will have learned something today. Please don't say Max Baer. He hardly got in much at all.


Mendoza: Dozens of ranked contenders? If you include the McCline fight, Vitlai has fought 13 fighters who fought for one of the four major world title belts. He also fought 4-5 fighters who fought for the European Heavyweight championship belt.

Janitor: Sure but many of them had seen better days when he fought them.

>>This can be said to many fighters. Did Carnera, Shakrey, and Schmeling see better days before they meet Louis? Yes. Did Bradock have a two year lay off? Yes. Did Bradock floor Louis? Yes. Why? Louis did not have a top chin and lacked good defensive fundamentals and balance. This really is not a Joe Louis thread. Let's move on from this point, unless you can show me big punchers who tested his chin ( Like the shots Lewis and Sadners landed on Vitali ) on Louis prior to Schmeling or post Schemling with Louis not going down.

Mendoza: I would much rather be hit by Walcott's bomb then Briggs bomb. Briggs certainly hits harder.

Janitor: He hits harder but dose not have the same technique. Walcott is probably a greater threat with a single punch than Briggs.

>>True, but are we not talking about who hit harder?

Mendoza:Now this is silly. A professional heavyweight at any level competition should not be compared to a woman institute of boxing. I'll close with the following point which I once again invite you to dispute.

Janitor: I was talking metaphoricaly. My point is that you start to get knocked down more when you step up to world level.

>>Well, Quarry was down in some non-title fights too.


Mendoza: I'll list the following fighters who have very good to great chins who have been dropped by punches. I might miss a few...

Holyfield: Down from Toney, Cooper, and Bowe....none hit as hard as Lewis or Sanders.

Tyson: Down from Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis.

Holmes: Down from Tyson, Shavers, Snipes, and Issac.

Foreman: Down from Ali, Young, and Lyle.

Ali: Down from Banks, Cooper, Frazier, and Wepner.

Liston: Down by Marshal, Ali, and Martin.

Marciano: Down by Walcott and Moore.

Dempsey: Down by Sudenberg, Flynn, Fripo and Tunney

Vitali: Down by no man. In fact he was in trouble far less often without going down than anyone on the list.

Janitor :You see my concearn here. These fighters were all knocked down either when they were fighting the best available challengers or while they wereovermatched early in their careers.


>>>Ugh. Not so.

1 ) The above paragraph clearly shows other fighters with top chins were down by punchers who in many case did not hit as hard and land the type of knockout shots that Lewis and Sanders did on Vitlai.

2 ) The above paragraph shows that many top champions were knocked down from non-elite level of competition. You wrote, 'My point is that you start to get knocked down more when you step up to world level." Well-- I do not consider Bert Cooper, Ken Issac, Marty Marshall, Chuck Wepner, or Sundberg to be world level fighters, yet they floored Holyfeild, Holmes, Liston, Ali, and Dempsey!!!!!! So you see this is a fact that should be used when evaluating chins. You can not have it both ways.


Mendoza: I do not understand why you're fighting this tooth and nail. Perhaps Vitlai just isn't your cup of tea. If that is the case, then Howard Cossell said it best. " What's right is not always popular, and what's popular is not always right. " -Howard Cosell.


Janitor : I have nothing against Vitally but I look at his resume and wonder if his vaunted chin and KO percentage might be something of an artefact of his opposition. A paper tiger if you like.

I think people are being a bit premature to automaticaly pick him over all time greats because they weigh less than 200lbs.

>>Vitlai has KO'd some very hard to stop opponents. Purrity, Bean, and Donald to name a few. These guys dull Ko percentages, they do not inflate them. Vitlai in most cases has Ko'd his man quicker than the field of fighters who fought the same men. If this isn’t the sign of a puncher, I don’t know what is.

No one is automatically picking Vitali to beat all fighters less than 200 pounds. This would include Dempsey, Louis and Maricano! I have not seen that opinion here. What most are saying is Vitlai would defeat Quarry.

As a footnote Vitlai did fight two smallish heavyweights who used to be cruiser weights. They were Norris and Hide. Norris in particular had a good durability. Take a look at who he fought and you'll see. At any rate these two smallish heavyweight lasted a combined 3 rounds before getting knocked out.

I have put some time typing in a reply here. I beleive you don't dislike Vitlai, but at the same I get the hunch you never read replies that center on an apples to apples comparison on who took the better punch. I hope you now view Vitali's ability to take a punch in a new light.

[janitor]

[quote=Mendoza]
>>You can see the current gym clips on you tube. Vitlai looks good. In additon, he has the size and power. These things are the last to go.


It is one thing to look good in gym clips and another to look good against your oponent in the ring.

I will wait untill after the fight before I list it as an easy win for Vitally.


>>Didn't you says Tua was knocked down multiple times? Tua was a teenager when Savon, a seasoned fighter with a dangerous right hand floored him. Tua has a proven chin as a pro, same as Vitali.


The point is that being knocked down as a teenager and amateur dose not mean that you will have a suspect chin as a 28 year old profesional.


>>Louis had a skill edge, a reach edge, and speed edge and in most his fights. The Baer's and Simon's of boxing had a reach edge, but neither man had skills or speed edge.


The bottom line is that he was fighting oponents of similar reach and height over most of his career.


>>False. Schemling was the first puncher who landed something serious on Louis. We all saw the results. Louis could not recover. He was hurt and off balance. If you can show me another puncher who tested Louis chin by landing hard shots on him before the first Schemling, I will have learned something today. Please don't say Max Baer. He hardly got in much at all.


I suggest you go back and watch the film. Baer lands a number of flush shots on Louis's chin and Louis dose not flinch.

If you beleive that Louis had never been hit cleanly by a puncher before the Schmeling fight given the opposition he had fought at this point you are being a little niaeve.

>>This can be said to many fighters. Did Carnera, Shakrey, and Schmeling see better days before they meet Louis? Yes. Did Bradock have a two year lay off? Yes. Did Bradock floor Louis? Yes.

But they were all world class and ranked at the time. The ex champions that Vitally beat often were not.


>>>Ugh. Not so.

1 ) The above paragraph clearly shows other fighters with top chins were down by punchers who in many case did not hit as hard and land the type of knockout shots that Lewis and Sanders did on Vitlai.


How is it not so?

As far as I can see the only fights where these guys were knocked down were at a world level except in cases where they were rushed along at a speed that they would not have been today.


2 ) The above paragraph shows that many top champions were knocked down from non-elite level of competition. You wrote, Well-- I do not consider Bert Cooper, Ken Issac, Marty Marshall, Chuck Wepner, or Sundberg to be world level fighters, yet they floored Holyfeild, Holmes, Liston, Ali, and Dempsey!!!!!! So you see this is a fact that should be used when evaluating chins. You can not have it both ways.


Got to take each on a case by case basis. Wepner was at least ranked when he dropped Ali andvirtualy pushed him anyway.

Liston against Marshal was being moved along at a fast pace with little backing.


>>Vitlai has KO'd some very hard to stop opponents. Purrity, Bean, and Donald to name a few. These guys dull Ko percentages, they do not inflate them. Vitlai in most cases has Ko'd his man quicker than the field of fighters who fought the same men. If this isn’t the sign of a puncher, I don’t know what is.


There may be something in that but lets not go to town here. It is at the top level that your KO credentials are really tested.


No one is automatically picking Vitali to beat all fighters less than 200 pounds. This would include Dempsey, Louis and Maricano! I have not seen that opinion here. What most are saying is Vitlai would defeat Quarry.


A lot of people here would pick him over Dempsey Marciano or Langford based soleley on the size differential.

Picking him over Quarry by the same logic is also premature.

As a footnote Vitlai did fight two smallish heavyweights who used to be cruiser weights. They were Norris and Hide. Norris in particular had a good durability. Take a look at who he fought and you'll see. At any rate these two smallish heavyweight lasted a combined 3 rounds before getting knocked out.


Quarry would have done exactly the same to them.


I have put some time typing in a reply here. I beleive you don't dislike Vitlai, but at the same I get the hunch you never read replies that center on an apples to apples comparison on who took the better punch. I hope you now view Vitali's ability to take a punch in a new light.


I don't dismiss his ability to take a punch but I do think there are unanswered questions about it. I think his next two fights will answer a few of them.

[Duodenum]

I hear you. In my opinion modern technology has enhanced the viewer’s access to boxing, but it has also diminished the announcers’ ability to call a fight since they rely heavy on technology. Some of the old blow by blow announcers didn't have multiple replay angles or zoom in lenses technology. They were forced to learn their craft by relying on their own eyes and ears.

I don't want to defend EPSN too much, but I do want to point out that they have a 30 minute segment on Quarry titled, “ Jerry Quarry the forgotten heavyweight. “ It shows footages of Quarry vs Ali, Frazier, and Norton. Quarry was a genuine contender who had the misfortune of being born at the wrong time as he fought Frazier and Norton at their best, and Ali near his best.Well, isn't that revealing in itself, that it shows his best known defeats? (Does this segment ever show Jerry winning a match?)

Mendoza, are you in the States, and if so, are you familiar with the NFL? The reason I ask is because of something appalingly lacking in knowledge said by a host on their morning Cold Pizza program. (I stopped watching it as a result of this.) If you're not in the States, or don't give a crap about American football, I won't bother to make mention of this complaint again.

[KTFO]

What a ridiculous quote.. Quarry was NEVER KNOCKED OUT IN HIS LIFE



Now he is.

Thank you.

[ChrisPontius]

Gee, you don't suppose the fact of Jerry's getting his fists on them in the first place had something to do with that, do you?

You suggest that because of the beating Quarry gave them? That is highly speculative and i don't buy it. The fact that Middleton (to name one) stepped up in competition caused his pretty record to go, not the fact that he lost to Quarry.

[Vantage_West]

How would Klitschko cope with Jerry's enormous strength, low center of gravity, and quickness in close? Bruce Lee had a well known saying, "Strength is good, but if you can't use it quickly it's of no avail." Jerry would have a pretty easy time getting underneath Klitschko's arms, and moving side to side under his jabs and crosses.

As for the old saying, "Don't hook with a hooker," that's entirely in Quarry's favor. For two rounds, Jerry actually outhooked and outworked Frazier on the inside, especially to the body, and this wasn't against a slow starting version of Smoke, but one who was coming off a single round dismantling of Zyglewicz. Klitschko is a headhunter, and a long range headhunter at that. Unlike Frazier, he's no 15 round fighter.

Quarry boxed in an era of eight ounce gloves. How's Klitschko going to hurt him with ten ounce pillows when Shavers and Lyle couldn't faze him with the lighter equipment? We can see how big Klitschko is, but Quarry showed how strong he was at the very beginning of his rematch with Ali, when he effortlessly picked up Muhammad without the use of his gloved hands, only his arms, and deposited him in a corner.

I wasn't even convinced the Klitschko's could prevail over James "Buddha" Toney (who recently tested positive for Geritol and prune juice through carbon 14 dating).

Klitschko may be bigger and stronger than Jerry, but I agree with those who posit that the size advantage is all Quarry's.:rofl :rofl :rofl i remember correctly he just striaghten up and just lean back up and lifted ali up...one of the funniest movements in boxing

[janitor]

You suggest that because of the beating Quarry gave them? That is highly speculative and i don't buy it. The fact that Middleton (to name one) stepped up in competition caused his pretty record to go, not the fact that he lost to Quarry.

The point is that these wins were seen as being of much greater significance at the time than they are in historical context.

They are exactly the kind of wins that Vitallys admirers use to build up his record. Good wins at the time but not likley to look great in 50 years.

[ChrisPontius]

The point is that these wins were seen as being of much greater significance at the time than they are in historical context.


But should we really limit outselfs to what people knew back then? We know how well they turned out and we judge them alike.

It is interesting to note that the Quarry supporters do anything to avoid comparing resumes like i did earlier.



They are exactly the kind of wins that Vitallys admirers use to build up his record. Good wins at the time but not likley to look great in 50 years.

You keep repeating this, i don't know why.
Buddy Baer (another "brother of..") didn't really have that very significant wins either but he's not forgotten 80 years later. Unless you are talking about the normal people of course, but then i can guarantee you that they don't know who Quarry was either. Some people who followed to sport in the 70's might remember, but then again, so will a lot of people who watched Vitali Klitschko, 30 years from now. He has a huge fanbase in Germany and eastern Europe, where he is a celebrity.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]But should we really limit outselfs to what people knew back then? We know how well they turned out and we judge them alike.


So how highly will people rate Corrie Snders or Kirk Johnson in 50 years time?


You keep repeating this, i don't know why.
Buddy Baer (another "brother of..") didn't really have that very significant wins either but he's not forgotten 80 years later.


I would dispute your asertion that he dose not have many significant wins. If we gave him the benefit of the kind of analysis Vitally gets we could build him up into much more than he actualy was. An all time knockout king and borderline all time great.

In fact he might be quite a good comparison in many ways.

Bottom line is however that Buddy is rememberd primarily for having fought Louis competitively and being the brother of Max Baer. Vitally by the same token will be remembered for a competitive loosing effort against Lennox Lewis and being the brother of Wladamir Klitschko.


Unless you are talking about the normal people of course, but then i can guarantee you that they don't know who Quarry was either. Some people who followed to sport in the 70's might remember, but then again, so will a lot of people who watched Vitali Klitschko, 30 years from now. He has a huge fanbase in Germany and eastern Europe, where he is a celebrity.


What do you see VKs significance being 30 or 50 years from now.

[ChrisPontius]

So how highly will people rate Corrie Snders or Kirk Johnson in 50 years time?


Not highly, but there will be SuzieQ's posting on how Kirk Johnson is very underrated with high handspeed, etc. Dito on Sanders. If we are still talking about Alejandro Lavorante then i doubt the former two will miss the boat, 50 years from now.


I would dispute your asertion that he dose not have many significant wins. If we gave him the benefit of the kind of analysis Vitally gets we could build him up into much more than he actualy was. An all time knockout king and borderline all time great.


Well he had some significant wins over course, Galento, Savold, Abe Simon and he did knock Louis down. My point is that he was not more significant in his time than Vitali was in his (of course Louis has something to do with this, but that is irrelevant), yet we still remember him.

And i don't see why B. Baer should not be recognised as an extremely hard puncher. Not an all time knockout king, but still a very hard puncher. Most of his best wins are over former contenders or tomato cans, but then so are Shavers' wins, and he's a God here at ESB.



In fact he might be quite a good comparison in many ways.


Bottom line is however that Buddy is rememberd primarily for having fought Louis competitively and being the brother of Max Baer. Vitally by the same token will be remembered for a competitive loosing effort against Lennox Lewis and being the brother of Wladamir Klitschko.

Indeed there are some similarities and this is exactly what my point was: B. Baer is still remembered today while you suggested that Vitali will be forgotten in 50 years.
And there is the difference that Vitali has been ring champ and seen as "the man to beat" for a while whereas Baer never was.


What do you see VKs significance being 30 or 50 years from now.

As one of the most talented superheavies of the first 100 years of gloved boxing whose carrier was cut short because of injuries and therefore lacks in accomplishements. And yes, he will be the "brother" of Wladimir who has already surpassed him by far in my book, and who will be likely to enhance his legacy further whereas Vitali will not be able to accomplish much anymore due to age.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Not highly, but there will be SuzieQ's posting on how Kirk Johnson is very underrated with high handspeed, etc. Dito on Sanders. If we are still talking about Alejandro Lavorante then i doubt the former two will miss the boat, 50 years from now.


OK. So they might fall under the radar of some enthusiasts who specialise in their era. At the same time fighters like Ron Lyle will still be known to the average general forum dummy.


Well he had some significant wins over course, Galento, Savold, Abe Simon and he did knock Louis down. My point is that he was not more significant in his time than Vitali was in his (of course Louis has something to do with this, but that is irrelevant), yet we still remember him.

And i don't see why B. Baer should not be recognised as an extremely hard puncher. Not an all time knockout king, but still a very hard puncher. Most of his best wins are over former contenders or tomato cans, but then so are Shavers' wins, and he's a God here at ESB.


If you are arguing that Vitally will have a historical standing as good or better than Buddy Baer then I don't dispute it. However you do not get many threads on the classic forum pitting Buddy Baer against all time greats and if you did there would be nom asumption that he beat any bellow a certain size.


Indeed there are some similarities and this is exactly what my point was: B. Baer is still remembered today while you suggested that Vitali will be forgotten in 50 years.
And there is the difference that Vitali has been ring champ and seen as "the man to beat" for a while whereas Baer never was.


That is the wild card in the question. I would not be surprized if Vitallys claim to the lineal title is acepted by historians. If this is the case then he becomes the Marvin Hart of his era by default.


As one of the most talented superheavies of the first 100 years of gloved boxing whose carrier was cut short because of injuries and therefore lacks in accomplishements. And yes, he will be the "brother" of Wladimir who has already surpassed him by far in my book, and who will be likely to enhance his legacy further whereas Vitali will not be able to accomplish much anymore due to age.


This is how people who saw him fight will remember him but what will the new generation say?

[ChrisPontius]

OK. So they might fall under the radar of some enthusiasts who specialise in their era. At the same time fighters like Ron Lyle will still be known to the average general forum dummy.


Yes, that is true. Does it matter though? I don't know all that much about B. Baer's opponents either, but i still have a decent picture of who he was and where he stands.

On Ron Lyle, he was certainly a bigger player than Kirk Johnson or Corrie Sanders, no question. But not bigger than Vitali.

Another thing to note is that many people here had their Muhammad Ali as youth hero and as a consequence know a lot about the 70's. Unfortunatly we have only a few posters (excellent posters, by the way) who actually lived throught the 60's or the 50's because many of them either lost their passion for boxing or are not aqcuinted enough with computers to find this site. If we had as many people from the 40's/50's/60's as from the 70's/80's, i can guarantee you we'd be talking a lot more about the punching ability of Elmer Ray instead of why Shavers, i quote, deserves to be mentioned among the greats of all time.



If you are arguing that Vitally will have a historical standing as good or better than Buddy Baer then I don't dispute it. However you do not get many threads on the classic forum pitting Buddy Baer against all time greats and if you did there would be nom asumption that he beat any bellow a certain size.


Of course, but that is because B. Baer fought 70 years ago whereas Vitali is still fighting today. And Baer lost to some pretty average fighters whereas Vitali (a bit like Tyson) also dominated lesser opposition AND he managed to look good in controversial (not in my eyes, by the way) defeat, which adds to it.

Vitali exactly the properies which make for a lot of extremes on both sides in discussion: he lost big fights, yet blew away lesser opponents and other contenders. The fights which he lost are one he arguably could've won with more luck. He towers over nearly every fighter from the past. He is not American and he is white. Etc etc.

I know you don't go there, but i can tell you that no fight in the general forum has been more discussed than Lewis vs V. Klitschko.

If there was an ESB 70 years ago, i imagine the same thing happening back then. "Baer knocked Louis through the ropes, he'd knock Fitzsimmons out in one round", etc.


That is the wild card in the question. I would not be surprized if Vitallys claim to the lineal title is acepted by historians. If this is the case then he becomes the Marvin Hart of his era by default.

This is how people who saw him fight will remember him but what will the new generation say?

No idea. Maybe he will be the Hart of the twentyfirst's century as you said.

[janitor]

Yes, that is true. Does it matter though? I don't know all that much about B. Baer's opponents either, but i still have a decent picture of who he was and where he stands.

On Ron Lyle, he was certainly a bigger player than Kirk Johnson or Corrie Sanders, no question. But not bigger than Vitali.

Another thing to note is that many people here had their Muhammad Ali as youth hero and as a consequence know a lot about the 70's. Unfortunatly we have only a few posters (excellent posters, by the way) who actually lived throught the 60's or the 50's because many of them either lost their passion for boxing or are not aqcuinted enough with computers to find this site. If we had as many people from the 40's/50's/60's as from the 70's/80's, i can guarantee you we'd be talking a lot more about the punching ability of Elmer Ray instead of why Shavers, i quote, deserves to be mentioned among the greats of all time.

Of course, but that is because B. Baer fought 70 years ago whereas Vitali is still fighting today. And Baer lost to some pretty average fighters whereas Vitali (a bit like Tyson) also dominated lesser opposition AND he managed to look good in controversial (not in my eyes, by the way) defeat, which adds to it.

Vitali exactly the properies which make for a lot of extremes on both sides in discussion: he lost big fights, yet blew away lesser opponents and other contenders. The fights which he lost are one he arguably could've won with more luck. He towers over nearly every fighter from the past. He is not American and he is white. Etc etc.

I know you don't go there, but i can tell you that no fight in the general forum has been more discussed than Lewis vs V. Klitschko.

If there was an ESB 70 years ago, i imagine the same thing happening back then. "Baer knocked Louis through the ropes, he'd knock Fitzsimmons out in one round", etc.


Some interesting points.

[Cojimar 1945]

Were Duplooy, Sprott or Cooper ranked highly when Sanders fought them? I didn't think any of them were rated in the top 10 at the time they fought Sanders. Cooper may have been ranked around 10th or so at one point but that was before he faced Sanders.