Re: Should Jerry Quarry be in the HOF?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RozzySean
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrbig1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Yeah but as has already been noted both Wilard and Braddock meant much more to boxing history than Quarry did.
Also both Willard and Braddock were undisputed heavyweight champs, Quarrey never was.
Man come on. I think we both know Quarry would have been champion in their era. We must look at the era at which they fought. Quarry era was much,much tougher that Braddock or Wilard.
No, we don't. Braddock was never KO'd and stopped only once on cuts and they were fighting without chambered gloves at the time. He fought half his career with a broken hand. Quarry was KO'd 6 times. There is no way you can say Quarry was TOUGHER than Braddock.
You do know Braddock has loss 26 times right?
Re: Should Jerry Quarry be in the HOF?
I think so!
He fought the best fighters of his era (arguably the best era ever)
You got guys like Johannson (RIP) in there, then I think its only fitting to put a tough SOB like Quarry in there too!
Re: Should Jerry Quarry be in the HOF?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrbig1
So using that logic Larry Bird shouldn't be in the basketball HOF because he was only the 2nd or 3rd best player at the time. Quarry being put in the hall is not only about him but the era in which he fought. Ali,Frazier,Foreman,Lyle,Shaver,or Norton. Larry Holmes once said that this era was the best from top to bottom in the history of the sport.
Quarry never won ANYTHING though, he even failed to win the NABF title.
Just becuase he fought the best doesnt mean he should be in the Hall of Fame, he didn't beat of them and that's the point.
John Ruiz has much more claim seriously a two time world champ one of the few in boxing's illustrious history, only stopped once in his entire career. Great trilogy with Evander Holyfield.
If you put Quarry in the HOF you have to open the door for a whole slew of other fighters. Let's keep it exclusive,
Re: Should Jerry Quarry be in the HOF?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrbig1
So using that logic Larry Bird shouldn't be in the basketball HOF because he was only the 2nd or 3rd best player at the time. Quarry being put in the hall is not only about him but the era in which he fought. Ali,Frazier,Foreman,Lyle,Shaver,or Norton. Larry Holmes once said that this era was the best from top to bottom in the history of the sport.
Quarry never won ANYTHING though, he even failed to win the NABF title.
Just becuase he fought the best doesnt mean he should be in the Hall of Fame, he didn't beat of them and that's the point.
John Ruiz has much more claim seriously a two time world champ one of the few in boxing's illustrious history, only stopped once in his entire career. Great trilogy with Evander Holyfield.
If you put Quarry in the HOF you have to open the door for a whole slew of other fighters. Let's keep it exclusive,
I agree, We should keep it exclusive,But you can't unring a bell. The standard has already been set.
Re: Should Jerry Quarry be in the HOF?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrbig1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrbig1
So using that logic Larry Bird shouldn't be in the basketball HOF because he was only the 2nd or 3rd best player at the time. Quarry being put in the hall is not only about him but the era in which he fought. Ali,Frazier,Foreman,Lyle,Shaver,or Norton. Larry Holmes once said that this era was the best from top to bottom in the history of the sport.
Quarry never won ANYTHING though, he even failed to win the NABF title.
Just becuase he fought the best doesnt mean he should be in the Hall of Fame, he didn't beat of them and that's the point.
John Ruiz has much more claim seriously a two time world champ one of the few in boxing's illustrious history, only stopped once in his entire career. Great trilogy with Evander Holyfield.
If you put Quarry in the HOF you have to open the door for a whole slew of other fighters. Let's keep it exclusive,
I agree, We should keep it exclusive,But you can't unring a bell. The standard has already been set.
Who less deserving than Jerry Quarry is in the Hall? Even Barry McGuigan was a world champ :)
I just don't see how any post war modern era fighter can be in the Hall of Fame if they never even won a belt.
You mentioned Larry Bird in an earlier post but he's won a bunch of awards and had held many basketball records, widely regarded as one of the best ever.
Can you really say the same for Quarry who fought the best but lost to them all and didn't even win so much as a NABF strap?
Re: Should Jerry Quarry be in the HOF?
Can see no possible justification in having Jerry Quarry, I'd have Arturo Gatti in there ahead of him, and that's the minimum set of achievements that I would expect that a HoF fighter should have, & even than I don't think he's actually worthy. So basically no, there is NO way Jerry Quarry earns the right to be in there
Re: Should Jerry Quarry be in the HOF?
IMO if you put Quarry in any other era he could have & probably would have been among top guys... I think that says a lot about him!
Re: Should Jerry Quarry be in the HOF?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galaxy
IMO if you put Quarry in any other era he could have & probably would have been among top guys... I think that says a lot about him!
You could say that about putting Tim Witherspoon in the current era though, it's irelevent.
You can't put someone in the Hall of Fame based on how you think they might have done in a different era, the Hall of Fame is about ACTUAL acomplishments not fantasy
Re: Should Jerry Quarry be in the HOF?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galaxy
IMO if you put Quarry in any other era he could have & probably would have been among top guys... I think that says a lot about him!
You could say that about putting Tim Witherspoon in the current era though, it's irelevent.
You can't put someone in the Hall of Fame based on how you think they might have done in a different era, the Hall of Fame is about ACTUAL acomplishments not fantasy
Agree & imo how Quarry performed in what is arguably the best heavyweight era ever is an accomplishment within itself...
Johnannson is in there, Braddock is in there & I feel Quaary should be too
Re: Should Jerry Quarry be in the HOF?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galaxy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galaxy
IMO if you put Quarry in any other era he could have & probably would have been among top guys... I think that says a lot about him!
You could say that about putting Tim Witherspoon in the current era though, it's irelevent.
You can't put someone in the Hall of Fame based on how you think they might have done in a different era, the Hall of Fame is about ACTUAL acomplishments not fantasy
Agree & imo how Quarry performed in what is arguably the best heavyweight era ever is an accomplishment within itself...
Johnannson is in there, Braddock is in there & I feel Quaary should be too
Both Braddock and Johannson were world champs though! And both were part of boxing history, Braddock as the Cinderella Man who inspired a nation during the depression era and Johannson who was involved in arguably the greatest fight trilogy of all time.
Quarry may have been able to beat them both (but just an assumption) but he never won a belt and wasn't involved in any great defining moment other than being a competitive opponent against the best fighters in his era.
Both Braddock and Johansson are famous outside of boxing for their acomplishments, Quarry is known in boxing circles only. If you go on acomplishments he doesn't get in, and if you go on FAME he still doesn't get in.
Re: Should Jerry Quarry be in the HOF?
Should also mentione that Johansson died only a week ago too so RIP to a great fighter and some great memories :(
