Charles-Walcott, Schmeling-Sharkey, Folley-Machen...

Why? Folley outboxed him clearly both times they met. Folley also had better longevity than Machen.

 

Machen and Folley fought to a draw. I think Machen was a bit better over all as he had a good defense, could take a better punch, and could counter very well.

 

Folley deserved the decision in the first fight, and beat Machen convincingly in the rematch.

Folley had the better jab, better instincts, better offensive arsenal, hit harder, and was the more natural fighter. Folley outboxed Machen in their fight.

 

Folley's better jab gave him an edge against Machen head to head, but his weaker chin made him less effective against the field. Machen did better against common opponents more often than not.

"Folley deserved the decision in the first fight"

On what basis? You sure can't prove it on the scoring or the major wire services--

Ref Carter--117-116 Folley
Judge Downey--115-115
Judge Apostoli--117-115 Machen

UPI--117-115 Machen
AP--117-116 Folley

Joe Louis--"It was a terrible fight. Machen wasn't sharp and Folley weakened."

"and beat Machen convincingly in the rematch."

This is correct, and the one really strong argument for rating Folley over Machen.

I remember that back in the day many critics felt Machen had the tools to handle Folley if he fought aggressively and carried the fight to him, but that he was content to get into a sparring match against a man with a better jab, as he also did with Harold Johnson.

*I might not agree with the critics. Folley's big weakness was that he was vulnerable to a right cross over the jab, and was flattened that way by such as Jones and Lavorante. Machen didn't have much of a right. He was even scored by some as a one-handed fighter.

 

The way I would look at it also.

 

Okay, you give a basis.


"Machen was the home fighter"

*Well, I used to live in San Francisco, and us folks from THE CITY certainly don't consider a fellow from a hicksville like Redding ours. I mean Machen might as well have come from any other backwater like New York City or London.

 

"Folley's prime run"

Is basically against second-raters. I was looking at his record and he had a lot of fights against dubious opposition in the southwest. 32 of his victims did not have 10 victories, and these fights are spread all the way through his career.

Prior to his draw with Machen and his victory in the rematch, his big wins were a UD over Valdes (whom Machen KO'd) and a couple of split decisions over Wayne Bethea. W/O looking it up, I think Machen would later beat Bethea also.

Machen was fighting older and perhaps slipping guys and the like, but his victims, besides Valdes, included Baker, Maxim, Jackson, and Holman, a better group than Folley could claim, which is why Machen was the #1 contender. Machen also beat Summerlin and Young Jack Johnson, both of whom had stopped Folley.

Just an honest disagreement.

"Liston"

Machen performed a lot better against Liston.

 

This is a perceptive post and you make a strong case.

Machen and Folley could be counted on to out-box the second tier guys, but failed consistently against first tier opposition, except of course Folley against Machen, if Machen is viewed as first tier. I wouldn't hold the Ingo blow-out that much against Machen in a comparison with Folley, as Folley was blown away by lesser right-hand punchers like Jones and Lavorante. I realize this will ignite the bash Ingo crowd, but I think Johansson is a likely KO winner over Folley given both men's track records.