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.
I would vote yes, Jerry fought in the HW divisions golden era, he has quality wins, people tend to forget that in that particular era the CONTENDERS were heads above the champions of most any other era....
Jerry holds wins over guys like Floyd Patterson, first man to beat Ron Lyle, Earnie shavers to name a few,...he was a top notch fighter with huge heart
Also he was a big part of that eras history...
People tend to forget that the HOF is not just for champions and not only for the truly elite...The HOF is for fighters who gave to the sport more then others...Jerry gave all he had....He was in some important bouts...It is about fighters who played important parts of history...Jerry fit those criteria
Could not have said it better. It's time to put Jerry where he belongs. In the HOF.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
Really? I never thought of Jerry Quarry as an elite fighter. More of someone who hung in there with the best.
I wonder how Quarry would be doing in today's heavyweight picture...
Wearing a beltQuote:
Originally Posted by C-Lo
Sadly you are referring to Baer the Ron Howard creation rather than the true Max Baer. A great fighter for sure but hardly scary like Tyson. His biggest failing was that he was a clown, too good natured and happy go lucky to really dedicate himself to the sport. The Max Baer in the Cinderella Man film never existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by LuciferTheGreatNot 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 CGM
Back on point though Jerry Quarry is not a Hall of Fame fighter. If you put him in then you need to argue a case for Frank Bruno as he had two encounters with Tyson and fought Lewis and Witherspoon too. :rolleyes:
What about George Chuvalo and Henry Cooper?
Not disagreeing with this but are there any Hall of Fame fighters who didn't win a world title? I'm talking post war here, not great black fighters like Sam Langford who never got a title shot in the old days on account of their colour.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
Bruno Id consider,Chuvalo borderline,no on CooperQuote:
Originally Posted by BilboSadly you are referring to Baer the Ron Howard creation rather than the true Max Baer. A great fighter for sure but hardly scary like Tyson. His biggest failing was that he was a clown, too good natured and happy go lucky to really dedicate himself to the sport. The Max Baer in the Cinderella Man film never existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by LuciferTheGreatNot 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 mrbig1
Back on point though Jerry Quarry is not a Hall of Fame fighter. If you put him in then you need to argue a case for Frank Bruno as he had two encounters with Tyson and fought Lewis and Witherspoon too. :rolleyes:
What about George Chuvalo and Henry Cooper?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboNot disagreeing with this but are there any Hall of Fame fighters who didn't win a world title? I'm talking post war here, not great black fighters like Sam Langford who never got a title shot in the old days on account of their colour.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
I understand what you are saying mate...was not referring to your post with mine just saying in general people tend to think that...
I had actually tackled that topic in my top 25 list in the top 100 of all time thread...When I put Sam Langford in my top 10 of all time
Tough one! Maybe because in pretty much any other era he would have been one of the major players. I'm not saying definite world champ but in this day and age he would more than likely at least pick up a strap.
Jess Wilard was known for beating a tired old Johnson and taking the worst beating in boxing history. He's in the HOF! Understand the standard has been set already. You can't unring a bell. Jerry Quarry is better than Braddock and Wilard. It's not like baseball where a player has to have 500 HR or 3,000 hits. There is no real standard. Jerry belongs in the hall.
Yeah but as has already been noted both Wilard and Braddock meant much more to boxing history than Quarry did.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboYeah but as has already been noted both Wilard and Braddock meant much more to boxing history than Quarry did.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
Also both Willard and Braddock were undisputed heavyweight champs, Quarrey never was.
I don't really see why at all to be honest. The Hall of Fame is for those fighters who best in their era or who occupied a cherished place in boxing history. You can't put someone in the Hall based on what you 'think' their acomplishments would have been in another era its ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1Man 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboYeah but as has already been noted both Wilard and Braddock meant much more to boxing history than Quarry did.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
Also both Willard and Braddock were undisputed heavyweight champs, Quarrey never was.
In that case Harry Simon should be in there because he would have definitely won world titles if he hadn't have ended up in jail, or maybe Davey Moore who would surely have gone on to do great things had not Roberto Duran ruined him.
The Hall is based on actual acomplishments not hypothetical matchups between fighters of different eras.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1Man 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboYeah but as has already been noted both Wilard and Braddock meant much more to boxing history than Quarry did.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
Also both Willard and Braddock were undisputed heavyweight champs, Quarrey never was.
You do know Braddock has loss 26 times right?Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySeanNo, 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1Man 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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!
Quarry never won ANYTHING though, he even failed to win the NABF title.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuarry never won ANYTHING though, he even failed to win the NABF title.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
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,
Who less deserving than Jerry Quarry is in the Hall? Even Barry McGuigan was a world champ :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1I agree, We should keep it exclusive,But you can't unring a bell. The standard has already been set.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuarry never won ANYTHING though, he even failed to win the NABF title.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
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 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?
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboYou could say that about putting Tim Witherspoon in the current era though, it's irelevent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyAgree & imo how Quarry performed in what is arguably the best heavyweight era ever is an accomplishment within itself...Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboYou could say that about putting Tim Witherspoon in the current era though, it's irelevent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy
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
Johnannson is in there, Braddock is in there & I feel Quaary should be too
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.