BoxRec

Do you feel he was overated or underated??? how do you think he would do agianst some of the greatest heavyweights. personally i think he would have always given louis trouble and ali lots of fits. i think he was the most underated heavyweight champion of all time.

Defintely agree... Great footwork, good hand speed, a very cute operator... Not easy to to hit and a fight winning left hook. He also came to the title late in life and was still in superb shape but had the experience that really helped him.

I think he is underrated for sure. He'd give anyone a good fight. I'd like to ahve seen him in with Ali because Ali didn't liek to be in with someone who (1) could move almost as well as he could around the ring, and (2) who had a great left hook.

he was good. i think an all-time great. he and charles both are often overlooked, but both deserve to be mentioned ahead of some of the guys that get most of the ink on these forums.

of course neither is at the level of joe louis(at his best), or ali, but both buys were beating up marciano when they were blasted out by his awesome power. still they rate sligthly below him. i think they are both on the level of an evander holyfield, mike tyson, george foreman, sonny liston.

Very slick, very much copied style wise by Ali. Had lots of early losses due to tiring late in fights, supposedly due to hunger as he was sending all his money home. I don't believe it took him years to reach the top; it takes time to learn enough to become that clever. Much like Archie Moore; was he really better at 28, or just younger?

For my money the 3 greatest are;

Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Lloyd Marshall

Walcott was a beautiful 'slick', tough hard-hitten' boxer and he had one of the best left hooks in the business and like Archie Moore he should have had title shots earlier in his career!

I don't know how I would rate Walcott with the all-time heavyweights, but I know that he could really hit. It was a tremendous shot that he hit Charles with, and he nailed Louis with a couple of good shots.

I think that Joe Walcott was a real great one.

i dunno about that... the guy finished with a 22-11 record and never beat anyone of any importance.. where are ur ali's rocky's louis's dempsey's baer's??

Are you haven' a laugh mate???

Lloyd Marshall is in the "History" books and considered among the Greats, "Do you know why?"

You might want to find out or ask some of the other board members here to explain WHY!

Yours, Jim.

I'm pretty sure he meant this Lloyd Marshall:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/marshall-l.html

Although I still don't understand jimglen's list at all.

-Dapa

my bad..but yeah your list is still incredibly ignorant..i hope you didnt put all that "money" on those fighters ud be a very poor man

the three for my money are

Dempsey
Ali
Louis

ill take them anyday over

Marshall
Walcott
Charles

Jersey Joe Walcott had a tough row to hoe early in his career, but
his career turned around later on. His manager is knocked for
his alleged criminal activities, but I thought that he had much
to do with Walcott's change of luck.

Walcott had terrific skills and good punching power in both
hands. He also came into the ring in shape and was able
to do very well in the first bout with Rocky Marciano at
the age of thirty-eight.

But it is tough to rate Walcott highly. After all, he lost
alot of bouts and didn't become a top fighter until he
was past thirty years of age. But...it would have been
interesting to see what Walcott would have done if he
had Joe Louis's management and trainer at the beginning
of his career. However, I think that Walcott would still
have had a tougher time than Louis, who was an
awesome offensive fighter AND a tremendous drawing card
during the GREAT DEPRESSION. In other words, Louis's
people may have given up on Walcott because of his fighting
style, which would not be popular with fans during the 1930s.

- Chuck Johnston