A fellow fight fan replied to me that Marvis is underrated. Is he? He did beat boneclutcher, but that is more of a reflection on Smith, imo. Marvis and James are good men, but the two first round annilations of Marvis at the hands of Holmes and Tyson make the underrated claim difficult to believe, imo. Am I wrong? It wouldn't be the first time.
He beat Broad, Bugner, Tillis, Ribalta and Bonecrusher after being a good amateur. He only lost to Holmes and Tyson. I wouldn't say any of his wins were lucky. He gets disregarded for how easily he lost to Tyson and Holmes.
Norton was destroyed by Cooney, Forman and Shavers and is held in high regard. I think Marvis was excellent, and a good guy too!
He had decent skills, but was not big enough for heavyweight, at least not durable or physically strong enough, probably should have fought as a cruiser. He almost bought it in the first round against Smith, too, but then Bonecrusher found a way to lose over the remainder of the fight. Even though Marvis and Joe were similar in weight, Joe was much more 'robust' physically, and a natural slugger. Marvis was a good boxer, and he should have played to that strength instead of trying to crowd and pressure.
If he'd have fought at cruise he'd have picked up a belt. He wasn't a bad fighter, he just wasn't big enough to go far in the division. Plus the two best heavy s in years stood in his way.
His biggest issue was trying to please his father. Joe was trying to live it all again via his sons career, hence some ridiculous matchmaking.
He had a good career for having so few bouts. With some better match making and a trainer who capitalized on his strengths he might have been an alphabet champion or perhaps better. As it stands his legacy is a respectable one. He retired with wins over several contenders and lost only to two ATG greats, then left the sport with his health in tact. Apparently he later became a priest or something to that effect.
Met him with his dad in a hotel in downtown Philly in 2007, and he later showed me around their gym. Was a complete class act, and a son every father would be lucky to have.
Marvis was a very good fighter. He only lost twice as an amateur. Once to Tony Tubbs, who he also beat as an amateur. And once to James Broad in the Olympic Trials, and he beat Broad as a pro. So basically he beat everyone he faced as an amateur - including Tim Witherspoon and Mitch "Blood" Green. He also beat everyone he faced as a pro, too, except for two first-ballot Hall of Famers in Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson. If you think about it, Marvis had a better amateur record than his dad. (Marvis won 20 more fights and had fewer losses). Marvis did lose in the Olympic Trials, but SO DID Joe Frazier (to Buster Mathis). Mathis didn't go to the Olympics because he was injured, so Joe (as an alternate) got to go instead. As a pro, if Marvis got to fight James Broad - the guy who beat him in the Trials -- for a vacant heavyweight title (like his dad got to fight Buster Mathis for a vacant belt) ... I'm sure Marvis would've won the title, too, like his dad did. ON THE OTHER HAND, in his 11th pro fight, if Joe Frazier had to face a Larry Holmes for the title (instead Joe fought a washed up Billy Daniels) ... or if Joe (in his 18th fight) had faced the 1986 version of Mike Tyson (instead of Tony Doyle) ... Joe might've been knocked out early in both as well. Bottom line is if Joe Frazier fought the guys Marvis did when Marvis fought them, Joe might not have done any better than his son, did.
Very good and interesting points. But do you think marvis ever would have stood a chance against Muhammad Ali?
Interesting read, Dubblechin. You know amateur careers of different HWs pretty well. Did you just follow closely HW amateur boxing and remember those fights? Or you have some online source where we can check all these amateur careers of 70s - 80s HWs
