Printable View
True he was never Champion, But he did fight in the toughest era in boxing history. Yes he loss to Ali and Frazier but who didn't. Fighter with much less talent are in. He took on all comers and did have some big wins in his career. I would like to see Jerry in the HOF.
Absolutely not. The HOF is reserved for the truely elite fighters; not people who fought the elite fighters.
Are you joking? James Braddock is in the HOF with a record of 51-26!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut
Braddock is a unique case and he earned his spot because he was one of the biggest stories in boxing, EVER. He's in the HoF because of what he meant to boxing and what he meant to the public at that time. He also won the undisputed championship of the world, and he was an inspirational figure at a time when the nation needed one desparately.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1Are you joking? James Braddock is in the HOF with a record of 51-26!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut
Jerry Quarry is a nice fighter, but he's not a HoF fighter. If he were around now, he would be unified Cruiserweight champ. He's on of my favorites, in fact, but he did not have the impact of Braddock and he he never won the title. You really can't mention Braddock and Quarry in the same breath. Quarry may have even been the superior fighter, but the Jerry Quarry never inspired a book and movie.
Shouldn't we look at the era in which he fought? Could could any of the fighters in the 30's be Champion in Quarry's era? Maybe Joe Louis but that's about it. I think Quarry could have been a Champion in any other era. He should not be held back because of that fact.
Is it really? I mean, I see your point, but I'm sure that there's more than a few fighters in there who can't really be considered elite by any stretch of the imagination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut
I would tend to agree with you Mr Uppercut, but HOF is probably already kinda watered down. so why not for Quarry? He is famous, and an integral part of the Golden Era.
Thank you. Let me add that the standerd has been set already by the HOF. With Braddock it's the story rather what he did in the ring. I'm going by what Quarry did in the ring against the very best in a era that was filled with very good fighters. Could Braddock beat Shavers,Lyle, or Foster? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMIs it really? I mean, I see your point, but I'm sure that there's more than a few fighters in there who can't really be considered elite by any stretch of the imagination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut
I would tend to agree with you Mr Uppercut, but HOF is probably already kinda watered down. so why not for Quarry? He is famous, and an integral part of the Golden Era.
Not sure if Braddock could have beat those guys. Then again I don't remember them killing someone with a punch like Baer did. Baer in my mind was scarier than Mike Tyson. Not sure Baer would have beat Tyson, but if he fought Tyson before he killed a guy or two and started clowing around rather than really taking it out on guys it might have been a war.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1Thank you. Let me add that the standerd has been set already by the HOF. With Braddock it's the story rather what he did in the ring. I'm going by what Quarry did in the ring against the very best in a era that was filled with very good fighters. Could Braddock beat Shavers,Lyle, or Foster? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMIs it really? I mean, I see your point, but I'm sure that there's more than a few fighters in there who can't really be considered elite by any stretch of the imagination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut
I would tend to agree with you Mr Uppercut, but HOF is probably already kinda watered down. so why not for Quarry? He is famous, and an integral part of the Golden Era.
I agree that fighters have be accepted into the HOF that were not elite(i.e. Jess Willard) however, I dont think that we should should just lower the standard. Instead the boxing writers should be more vigilant not to let it happen again.
Let's put his talent in perspective. Quarry fought in one of the great eras for HW, but Braddock fought in one of the most competitive eras for LHW's. Most of his losses happened during the period when his right hand was injured. At LWH, he had wins of Tuffy Griffiths and Pete Latzo. He lost to HoF's like Maxie Rosenblum and Tommy Loughran and lost a close fight to Lomsky (a quality fighter with a win over Maxie to his credit). After time off to heal his injury, where he developed his left hand, he came back to beat Corn Griffin on 48 hours notice after working on the docks for 9 months. He then beat two very good fighters in John Henry Lewis and Art Lasky. Based on these wins and Baer not being able to make a deal with for a rematch (who he beat) with Schmelling, Braddock gets a shot at Max Baer. Braddock beats Baer.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1Thank you. Let me add that the standerd has been set already by the HOF. With Braddock it's the story rather what he did in the ring. I'm going by what Quarry did in the ring against the very best in a era that was filled with very good fighters. Could Braddock beat Shavers,Lyle, or Foster? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMIs it really? I mean, I see your point, but I'm sure that there's more than a few fighters in there who can't really be considered elite by any stretch of the imagination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut
I would tend to agree with you Mr Uppercut, but HOF is probably already kinda watered down. so why not for Quarry? He is famous, and an integral part of the Golden Era.
So Braddock beat a guy who beat Schmeling, who beat Joe Louis.
People don't give Braddock enough credit. If fought in an era when you fought every month or two and you fought injured. When healthy, he ate aggressive big punchers for lunch, even early in his career. He was always a good counterpuncher. Pure boxers, like Rosenblum and Loughran gave him trouble. He had one of the great chins of all time. In his losses, he lost only two by stoppage - one was because of a cut and the other was his last fight against Joe Louis. Quarry was stopped 6 times out of 9 losses. Once he developed his left, he had that nice run leading up to his championship.
Which heavyweight champ would you favor Quarry over? We know he lost to Ali, Foreman, and Frazier. Would he have beaten Paterson in his PRIME? Probably not. Liston? Marciano? Could he have beaten Max Baer? Shavers and Max Foster (Foster especially) would be taylor-made for Braddock.
Quarry is a top ten fighter in any era, but he would have never been undisputed champion. He could be a beltholder today or unified CW champ, today, but he just ain't HoF material.
To use that logic we should throw Willard and Braddock out of the HOF. The standard has been set. You can't unring a bell. I had Quarry beating Ellis in a very close fight. He is most noted for two losses to Ali which was the greatest champion of all time. Frazier loss to Ali and Foreman two times each. Does that mean he shouldn't be in the hall? The bottom line is we must look at the era in which he fought. To let other fighters in the hall with spoty records in a much weaker era is a crime.
If I had a vote Id put him in,the guys he had to fight just to stay a top 5 fighter was insane,and while he lost some of those fights,he hung tough in every one
I Quarry had 1 win over any of the great heavyweights of his era then I might say yes, but the fact remains that he lost every big fight.
No he lost every big fight.
Keep in mind as you read this that I'm talking about the Braddock that emerged from his days working on the docks. The other version is a different story (though still a quality fighter).Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
No, not really. Willard and Braddock actually won the undisputed championship. Quarry never did. I wouldn't like Quarry's chances against Max Baer. If you had a gun to my head and asked who has a better chance against Marciano, Quarry or Braddock, I would give Braddock the better chance, and heads up Quarry vs Braddock, I would pick Braddock.
Quarry also lost lots of other big fights, and he was beaten soundly by three totally different styles. It's not like one type of boxer was his downfall.
I give all love and respect to Quarry, I really do. He's a guy who really suffered for the lack of a cruiserweight division. Heavyweights were getting bigger at his time - most were 210-220 and he rarely came in at over 200. He would mop the floor with any of the current cruisers and the old CW's I can see beating him at CW are Toney and Holyfield.
Actually, if you going to make a case for Quarry in the hall, that is the best argument you can make. He was cursed with being a 'tweener (too big for LHW, too small for HW), but he made a great career staying in the top 5-10 for so long fighting bigger men.