BoxRec

lloyd marshall or holman williams? and why

Williams was 2-1 against Marshall. Marshall lost to Eddie Booker, while Williams beat him and held him to a draw. Williams was also 2-0 against Jack Chase, whereas Marshall could only manage one win, one loss and one draw against the same man. While Marshall beat Ezzard Charles, Williams beat Archie Moore, and of course fought the tough series with Cocoa Kid and Charley Burley. Marshall was 1-0 against Burley, but Williams was 3-3-0-1 with the same man - something I find more impressive.

DoubleM wrote:Williams was 2-1 against Marshall. Marshall lost to Eddie Booker, while Williams beat him and held him to a draw. Williams was also 2-0 against Jack Chase, whereas Marshall could only manage one win, one loss and one draw against the same man. While Marshall beat Ezzard Charles, Williams beat Archie Moore, and of course fought the tough series with Cocoa Kid and Charley Burley. Marshall was 1-0 against Burley, but Williams was 3-3-0-1 with the same man - something I find more impressive.

I was going to say the same thing. Although Marshall has the TKO win over Charles, Williams had the better career against better fighters for a more consistent time period.

The most impressive thing for me though is that Williams went 3-1 against Kid Tunero, a guy who won a split decision over a 17-1-1 middleweight Ezzard Charles. He was definitely past his best days when he lost the series to Williams though, as he was between 32 and 34 for the four fights.

Good topic. Williams UD over Marshall head to head.

charley burley called marshall the best fighter he ever fought


marshalls win over ezzard charles counts more than williams win over moore. charles was a better middleweight than moore and charles beat burley twice.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:charley burley called marshall the best fighter he ever fought.

marshalls win over ezzard charles counts more than williams win over moore. charles was a better middleweight than moore and charles beat burley twice.

He definitely wasn't better than Ezzard Charles. I think Burley must have taken a few too many from the Cincinatti Cobra. Either that or he wanted to forget his two fights with him as quickly as possible.

Williams win over Moore meant nothing. He only won because of low blows and lost the rematch. Who else lost a big fight that way, was it Henry Armstrong that lost five rounds to Lou Ambers because of low blows? I can't remember. Anyway, Moore beat Williams twice if it wasn't for point deductions.

Great example of current days is Injin Chi. He just got screwed out of his title by WBC rules. He lost a point in the 11th I believe for an accidental headbutt that cut Takashi Koshimoto (I think thats his name). If you remember WBC rules, the uncut fighter is penalized a point. It would have been a draw, but the point deduction turned it into a split decision for Koshimoto. Bullsh*t.

Impossible to rank fighters "truthfully" and acurately, and dare I say honestly!

Why?

ie: Kid Tunero, "Well spanked in his prime" by the 'feared' McAvoy, beaten by plenty of Top European fighters (who supposedly don't rate when the conversation suits), he fought and beat Top Americans who "DO" rate when the conversation suits , and lost again to Top Euro's (who again, supposedly don't rate when the conversation suits), in his closing years! ???

Tunero gets "press and consideration", Jock McAvoy gets ignored, Top Euro's get dismissed, Americans get raised to "immortal" status and RATED!!! ???????

and of course there are many, many more WELL WORTH the mention!

You want a rating Marshall over Williams, but the BEST who knows?

mid-30's -early 40's JOCK MCAVOY!!!

jimglen wrote:Impossible to rank fighters "truthfully" and acurately, and dare I say honestly!

Why?

ie: Kid Tunero, "Well spanked in his prime" by the 'feared' McAvoy, beaten by plenty of Top European fighters (who supposedly don't rate when the conversation suits), he fought and beat Top Americans who "DO" rate when the conversation suits , and lost again to Top Euro's (who again, supposedly don't rate when the conversation suits), in his closing years! ???

Tunero gets "press and consideration", Jock McAvoy gets ignored, Top Euro's get dismissed, Americans get raised to "immortal" status and RATED!!! ???????

and of course there are many, many more WELL WORTH the mention!

You want a rating Marshall over Williams, but the BEST who knows?

mid-30's -early 40's JOCK MCAVOY!!!

Sorry, I was confusing Kid Tunero with Ken Overlin for some reason. Speaking of which, Kid Tunero did score a win over Ken Overlin

I think Burley actually said that Marshall was the roughest fight he he ever had. Not that Marshall was the best he fought.

IMO Holman Williams was the better middleweight. Marshall fought over the limit for most of his career and was really a supermiddleweight. He beat Burley at middleweight, but Burley was concealing an injury (hand), though he never brought that up as an excuse.

Overall, Williams has the better record and Marshall is hurt by the fact that he fought to instructions quite a bit of the time.

Non specifically, but a sparring partner of Lloyds (who also worked with Burley and Booker ), said that Marshall was quite well known on the west coast for not trying too hard on occasion.

He recalled one incident - though he didn't name the fight - where Marshall went down, and appeared to want to stay there, when the referee (Toby Irwin) told him "Get up! Your not pulling this on me tonight."

The same guy said that after the Marshall - Overlin fight Ken's 'backers' moved in on Lloyd and he often fought to instructions. This came from Overlin himself who worked with this guy in the South Pacific where they would also sometimes box exhibitions.

Overlin said that Marshall was one of the best fighters he ever met, which makes the story of him wearing the handcuffs even more sad. Marshall's legacy has been hurt by some of his defeats and stories like that make you wonder how good he really was.

It appears from some interviews that Marshall was more money motivated than most. Given the times that he fought in this is not a bad thing as paydays from some fights would not be that great and these guys were trying to earn a living.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:charley burley called marshall the best fighter he ever fought


marshalls win over ezzard charles counts more than williams win over moore. charles was a better middleweight than moore and charles beat burley twice.

I need to check the records but I seem tor emember that Marshall's win over Charles came after Charles's release from the army. Ezzard wasn't at his best and subsequently avenged the loss. Still Marshall got the win and deserved it.

how was charles a better middle than moore?in very few fights did ezz make 160 and despite besting burley he was not in the division too long.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:marshalls win over ezzard charles counts more than williams win over moore. charles was a better middleweight than moore and charles beat burley twice.

Marshall over Charles was at 168 and 165. When was that middleweight? Marshall was a big middleweight and was up in the higher class for the bulk of his career.

Charles had at least 10 pounds on Burley - who was almost always a light-middleweight competing in the middleweight division. Charles was as high as 166 months after the second Burley fight and continued to grow into a genuine light-heayweight.

Archie Moore was a middlewight for about the first ten years of his career and Holman Williams was 163 when he beat Archie - with Moore almost 173 (the top end of the light-heavyweight limit). This bout was really a light-heavyweight bout, so the arguement about who was the better middleweight based on those results doesn't really work.

If you look at the body of work at midldeweight then Burley and Williams are the better middleweights as Charles did his better work in the next division and Archie was beaten by both Burley and Williams while those two went 3-3-1 NC against each other. If you wanted to stretch it further then Burley scored the only stoppage in that series, so maybe he is the better middleweight, while Charles is the better light-heavyweight as he beat ol' Archie three times.

Going on who beat who can make you dizzy and leave you confused!! Especially when you place bouts in divisions they don't belong in.

I'm with Dalek on that one.