How highly do you rate Lloyd Marshall?

I’m also in the quandary of how can you rate someone if the losses don’t count? I mean, if we go with the (very likely true) theory that he had the cuffs on often, does that mean we assume he wins all those fights? Does that mean his decision wins would all be KO1 victories if he’d have really cut loose? By this measure, we’d have to consider him completely undefeated, I guess.

But do we know that he actually did have the cuffs on for EVERY loss? Do we know that he would have actually beaten everyone he fought with the cuffs on had he been able to take them off, so to speak? If he wasn’t trying his best to win, that doesn’t equal he would have won if he had tried — it means that we just don’t know.

Likewise, we don’t know if there may have been some cases where his opponent had the cuffs on for whatever reason (Marshall’s management or promoter dictating it, some mob/gambling fix, etc). So if it was that common in his day and on the circuits he fought, there’s a reasonable chance that at least some of his wins would be tainted if we knew the truth.

Alas, that’s the case with a guy like Marshall. We just don’t have a clear picture of if he was a mythical fighter, unbeatable except if he acquiesced to lose because he needed the money, or if he might have been (which I suspect to be the case as it’s much more common) an inconsistent guy capable of beating the best but also capable of losing to ordinary (or less than ATG) fighters if he didn’t bring his A game?

I don’t doubt that circumstances dictate that he wear the cuffs at some time, and it’s sad that such was the case, but it makes him impossible imo for us to assess him if we cannot trust the results.

Boxing folks seem to pick and choose what to believe and build our houses of cards on those beliefs, extending them to whatever reaches fit our narrative — if he wore the cuffs sometime and we want to believe him to be at a mythical level of ATG-ness, we simply dismiss all his losses and there we have it.

Likewise, Jake LaMotta threw a fight for the mob … at least one that he later admitted (but not at the time — in fact he vociferously denied it). Is it not worth questioning if perhaps he also won some fights where the results were predetermined? No mobster ever wanted to make a buck with a crooked bet on Jake, just against him? Stretches credulity to me.

Heck, Mike Tyson has admitted — his own voice, recorded on a podcast — that some of his fights were fixed in his favor, that the referee was in on it but that his opponents weren’t. But no one seems to want to scrutinize that to question any results in his favor. He’s as dirty a fighter as has competed in the modern era, yet those who idolize him see him only as a victim and the purest of angels in all things. Go figure.

 

I don't think anybody thinks every loss was a win, not at all, but a few would have been, given Boxing and the said corruption. Likewise I don't think he was 'cuffed' loads of times either and yes like you say, it is possible that one or two of his opponents may have been under orders too.

But you don't even need to look at that, you just look at his Wins and who against, the same with losses in good or great showing defeats, that's a good enough measure for All & Any Fighter(s)...

then after that, any Reported Robberies and/or Shenanigans can be discussed and considered, but they are not always needed for such busy Top Records.

 

Sure, but the devil is always in the details.

One can say ‘no, of course I don’t think every single loss was a handcuff or fix,’ but when you say ‘well he lost ot this guy’ then the counter is ‘well sure, but that’s one fight where he surely had the cuffs on’ or ‘looks like a crooked decision to me.’ Not all of them … just any particular one that might go counter to their narrative that he was a mythical, near-unbeatable ATG who should be among the elite of the elite.

But fact is, he had 25 losses — 11 of them stoppages. That’s a lot to explain away.

Here is me trying to make some sense of it:

I think you can throw out as meaningful most or all of his defeats in the latter part of his career when he took his show abroad overseas. Not as much scrutiny, he knows at that point he’s not angling for any title fight or huge purses … pad your bank account a bit and let some Brit or German get his hand raised.

Or maybe he’s just old and far past his best. Ray Robinson and Ezzard Charles are rightly regarded among the best of the best of all time, but they took their share of losses to pedestrian opponents by fighting on past their sell-by dates. Either way, these late-career defeats don’t factor into his legacy much to me.

It seems he fought the first eight years or so mostly in Northern California (Sacramento and San Francisco in particular) with a few detours to the East or maybe an odd fight here or there. So that was his base of operations, and promoters out that way were clearly using him regularly and often in main events … so their incentive to get a guy who’s at least something of a local attraction beat by chicanery seems far-fetched. On the whole, I’d have to take all his losses during this stretch, up through 1943 (with some returns to his old stomping grounds after that), as legit.

Then he resettles in Cleveland and I’d think we’d have to take this stretch of his career fighting in the Midwest as also being all legit (win or lose). Promoters aren’t bringing in Jake LaMotta and Joey Maxim to fight him unless they’re trying to position Marshall for a title shot (and run), so again no incentive to have him go easy and take an L or fix a fight against him.

There are also losses vs. Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore. We know for fact that those guys are frozen out of the title picture for most of their careers, so to have Marshall lose to them? To what end? So they can keep getting ducked? And it’s not like those two can’t fight — no win for either should raise an eye brown vs. any opponent.

Beyond that, I’d look at it logically: What’s to gain by having Marshall lose? Maybe a mobster can make a wager on a guy with eight losses who’s a 3-1 underdog winning, but he’s not going to be able to lay $500,000 on a nothing fight in a third-tier town. You’d be talking mostly chump change.

(I digress here, but someone explain this to me as it’s puzzled me forever: If the mob is making money betting on fights, who are they betting against? I mean, the mob ran gambling, so is it one mob guy getting over on another … and if it were found out to be done by a fix, wouldn’t someone be risking sleeping with the fishes if he’s found out — and for a few lousy bucks? We’re not talking huge sums here unless it’s a major title fight. Heck, even when Las Vegas opened legal sports betting, the mob was running the action. Something doesn’t add up here to me.)

I’d look for suspicious losses where he fought someone in their hometown where they were attractions, and prospects who had good backing who are being groomed for a spot at the top (a la LaMotta vs. Fox). Those should rightfully raise a few eyebrows.

That’s kind of how I’d look at it.

 

that's it, but even simpler and easier to assess, are the Actual Reports, if they are stating Robberies or Questionable Decisions and luckier still some fight arrangements, well one has to see them for what they are, which are serious career defining facts.

anyhow, Marshall IS a Great for my money all day long.

 

I make no allowance for fixed fights & still rank Lloyd Marshall high at #15 all time at LHW, based solely on fights contested in that division.

His record at LHW is 44-15-2, which is loss heavy for a divisional top 20 ATG. However, most of these losses occurred past his prime. He was 31-3-1 at the weight at one point.

In fights contested at LHW he beat Ezzard Charles, Anton Christoforidis, Holman Williams, Freddie Mills, Shorty Hogue, Teddy Yarosz, Babe Risko, Johnny Bandit Romero, Nate Bolden x 2 and Curtis Sheppard.

That's a better win resume than Bob Foster, for example, who I rank #7. His losses preclude him from a top 10 slot, but his prime form and excellent win resume make him a lock for the top 20 in my eyes.