Nemeses

[QueensburyRules]

I am sure you're right but it seems to me a nemesis should have some sort of qualifier attached to it. I.e. Quarry simply wasn't in the same league with Frazier and Ali and we expected the loss. I guess that constitutes a nemesis in that they kept him from ever becoming HW Champion, but in a sense that makes everyone who can or has beaten you, your nemesis. That doesn't seem a correct usage; there's an absence uniqueness about it.

I guess those failures constitute a nemesis relationship but they don't stand out as special.

The Great Tommy Hearns unable to get by the mediocre Iran Barkley; Rocky Kansas losing to Benny Leonard three times, but then becoming LW Champion as soon as Leonard retires; Greb able to beat Tunney first time out but then subsequently failing four consecutive times.

There is something special attached to each of these relationships. Quarry it seems just came up short against two superior fighters.

But I guess to Quarry they would feel like a nemesis relationship. So never mind.

- - All those guys Quarry beat got title shots save Foster who had been set up vs Ali after the expected win over Frazier in FOY. Jerry never received another title shot. Ali settled Foster with a 15rd nontitle fight in Tokyo to give Ali a very stern test.

[billeau2]

- -Jerry Quarry has Ali and Joe as nemeses, esp Joe who KTFO him twice with Ali merely slicing him up twice.

Quarry was the first to destroy the KO machine of Mac Foster who took Ali a hard 15 rds as did Shavers who BTFO Ali for 15 rds but couldn't last 1 vs Quarry who also BTFO undefeated Lyle who managed to hang on for the distance.

I always forget how Quarry was a fighter to be feared. He would not quit and he was usually a tough fight at best... and he beat some of the better like Foster... I always get him and his bro mixed up as well lol... damn dyslexia lol.

[billeau2]

I am sure you're right but it seems to me a nemesis should have some sort of qualifier attached to it. I.e. Quarry simply wasn't in the same league with Frazier and Ali and we expected the loss. I guess that constitutes a nemesis in that they kept him from ever becoming HW Champion, but in a sense that makes everyone who can or has beaten you, your nemesis. That doesn't seem a correct usage; there's an absence uniqueness about it.

I guess those failures constitute a nemesis relationship but they don't stand out as special.

The Great Tommy Hearns unable to get by the mediocre Iran Barkley; Rocky Kansas losing to Benny Leonard three times, but then becoming LW Champion as soon as Leonard retires; Greb able to beat Tunney first time out but then subsequently failing four consecutive times.

There is something special attached to each of these relationships. Quarry it seems just came up short against two superior fighters.

But I guess to Quarry they would feel like a nemesis relationship. So never mind.

IM torn on this one... though agree with the Queen B that Quarry fought a slice of the best and performed well enough to be thought of as a nemesis... there are some devil in the details that could perhaps indicate some conclusion more based in precident.

Triangle theory is loathed but one could argue that given a small extra special group of competitors it might yield some factual conclusions: Specifically the way my own defection from Ockham's Razor comes from considering WHY Frazier was able to beat up Foster so well... Most just think Foster was too small. I watched the fight and its a distinct possibilty... bit something sticks in mh craw: How many times does a superior puncher just get "handled" so easily because of a size difference? It usually does not happen that way when a smaller puncher is fighting up in weight at heavyweigh specifically as a big puncher.

So did Frazier just blow Foster out of the water? Or was Joe just stylistically a nightmare for Foster? Too much of a swarmer... Which would make Foster better as a heavyweight than people think and more of a scalp for Quarry. Im almost ashamed to reason this way lol... But it always bothered me that people thought Joe was just too big for Foster, assumed as much...

[Willie Pep 229]

IM torn on this one... though agree with the Queen B that Quarry fought a slice of the best and performed well enough to be thought of as a nemesis... there are some devil in the details that could perhaps indicate some conclusion more based in precident.

Triangle theory is loathed but one could argue that given a small extra special group of competitors it might yield some factual conclusions: Specifically the way my own defection from Ockham's Razor comes from considering WHY Frazier was able to beat up Foster so well... Most just think Foster was too small. I watched the fight and its a distinct possibilty... bit something sticks in mh craw: How many times does a superior puncher just get "handled" so easily because of a size difference? It usually does not happen that way when a smaller puncher is fighting up in weight at heavyweigh specifically as a big puncher.

So did Frazier just blow Foster out of the water? Or was Joe just stylistically a nightmare for Foster? Too much of a swarmer... Which would make Foster better as a heavyweight than people think and more of a scalp for Quarry. Im almost ashamed to reason this way lol... But it always bothered me that people thought Joe was just too big for Foster, assumed as much...

Maybe I am miss reading . . . But are you overlapping Fosters' - Mac and Bob?

[billeau2]

Pep cant respond back... Yes my bad.

[markusmod]

Most obviously, Holyfield for Tyson.

A little less obviously, Golota for Bowe.

Another coming to mind is Paulie Ayala for Johnny Tapia.

EDIT: A-hem... Gene Tunney for Jack Dempsey...

Barrera For Morales?

[Tatabanya]

Barrera For Morales?

They were each other's nemeses, I believe... a very balanced rivalry.

[Willie Pep 229]

Then that's not a nemesis!

[QueensburyRules]

They were each other's nemeses, I believe... a very balanced rivalry.

- - First fight the best with Morales going down late that should've cost him the fight, but didn't with a SD.

2&3 had Marco gliding smoothly to pick off rampaging Morales who never learned how to box.

[Tatabanya]

- - First fight the best with Morales going down late that should've cost him the fight, but didn't with a SD.

2&3 had Marco gliding smoothly to pick off rampaging Morales who never learned how to box.

This also reminds me of Chiquita Gonzalez vs Michael Carbajal.

First fight, an all-action war. Gonzalez close to winning, then knocked out. Second and third fights, Chiquita becomes more of a boxer to win both.