BoxRec

Eddie Machen, might just be the most under-rated HW contender of the late 1950's, if not of all time. He might just be it.

Decagon wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Funny how boxing "suddenly modernized" in the late 1920s/early 1930s, right when we start seeing properly filmed fights filmed with more advanced cameras.

I've always maintained that this was more due to the popularization of shorter fights in championship bouts. Once fighters knew that they didn't have to worry about being there for three or four hours, they started throwing bigger combos and fighting nonstop. Only a paltry few fighters could fight at a modern pace for 20 rounds, and the number of 40-round fights fought at a modern pace? Tiny.

I agree this brought about changes in those fights that would have been 20 + rounds, but there were many fights in that time-period that were 6 rounds, 8 rounds, 10 rounds, 15 rounds etc. Fighters adjusted their pace accordingly.

I think alot of the guys being mentioned like Conn, Moore, Young, Shavers and Norton could rightly be seen as some of the best contenders to not actually win the title but it's hard to see how they are the most underrated, I mean who seriously underates Archie Moore?

What about Harry Wills?? I don't think he's been mentioned.

Now I might be biased, but I do kind of agree with Decagon, at least with Mr. Wills. Wills was a good fighter with alot of power, but outside of his size and power and that crossing right hand---I sincerly don't see the appeal. He beat Sam Langford almost a dozen times, and though I do rank Langford #1 on a pound per pound sense---though Langford did fight at HW alot and did well, he was still more or less a blown up welterweight, and to me that's a given that a genuine HW contender would beat a welterweight, no matter how much weight he packed on, consistantly.

Harry Willis

Saying that Jeanette “got a DQ win against Johnson, he beat Langford, and he beat a few guys from 100 years ago” is kind of like saying that Ali beat Frazier, Foreman and a few other guys from 30- 40 years ago. But I don’t think he’s under-rated, since many rank him quite high on their all-time lists.

As far as who would be an under-rated HW contender, I think you’d have to go with fighters from more than 50 years ago, since most of the HW’s in the past 50 years are generally still highly regarded, while the farther back you go the more they are forgotten. Perhaps someone like the original George Godfrey, or perhaps Pat Killen. Of those that are more likely to be remembered, I’d probably say Joe Choynski.

Killen is an interesting pick, John L?. Do you know much about him. His fighting styles, strengths, weakness etc.?
He didn't seem to have fought many the best of his era.
Did he have some fights against against some of the other big names (Kilrain,Mitchell, Slavin etc) that aren't on his official record?

A guy who almost never seems to get mentioned is Ernie Schaaf. It's possible that if he wouldn't have been killed that he would have been the world champion. He fought a lot of the top guys of his era and had some success. He beat Uzcudun,Stribling,Braddock,Baer,Risko, and Loughran.

Schaaf is a very good choice, as would some of the 40’s HWs like Thompson and Murray.

I’m certainly no expert on Killen, but he was a very good now pretty much forgotten HW who did fight a few notables of the era, and as I recall compiled an excellent record. While I’m not sure of his undocumented fights, it’s a fair bet that he had more than a few. He’s just one of many good fighters who seem to no longer even get a mention. The same could be said of many of the other HWs from that time.