Joe Frazier vs. Rocky Marciano

Wlad certainly has a big punch. A very different fighter than Terrell. Ruiz is closer, but he also had a bigger punch.

A lot depends on whether they would even allow a Ruiz style of fighting in the forties. They disqualified fighters for excessive holding back then. And I really have to wonder if anyone gets a decision over Louis fighting that way.

"Ali finished him"

Well, he wasn't much after Ali. The problem is Machen and Jones were past it, and Chuvalo could be easily outboxed. Terrell simply shot a few in his face as he came in and then clinched him to death. None of this proves he was really all that good to begin with.

Chuvalo looked better against Ali because Ali fought an honest fight, not a grab and clinch fest.

 

I happened upon the Sports Illustrated article on the Terrell-Machen fight in the SI archives. Here are excerpts. I didn't realize they were this dismissive of Terrell back then:

"If the scuffle between Ernie Terrell and Eddie Machen last week proved anything, it was that after Cassius Clay and Sonny Liston, boxing's heavyweights are lightweights. Terrell was embarressingly inept, and the fight often ludicrous. When it ended, Ernie was solemnly proclaimed heavyweight champion of the world-a world, unfortunately for his pocketbook, that does not include Clay or Liston. Since his manager, big Julie Isaacson, has ruled out Floyd Patterson as a contender, this leaves Terrell with an empty title."

"Off his conquest of Machen, Terrell does not appear to be either a formidable or desirable foe for Clay. . . The trouble with Terrell is that he is a year or two away from being anything like a competent fighter. Against Machen, the lack of an effective right hand was painfully apparent. But once Machen sneaked in under that long, long, left hand, Terrell's only tactic was to fold himself over the smaller man, wrapping him in what looked and doubtless felt like yards and yards of arms"

"When it was over, Joe Louis summed it up neatly. 'It was a lousy fight. He didn't fight good.'"

"Actually, Machen looked much better than he did last year against Floyd Patterson in Stockholm."

"'I thought I won pretty big' Eddie said. 'He didn't hit me five times with that jab all night.'"

There is a long discussion about how Machen blocked the jabs with his gloves but got in very few punches because of Terrell's incessant clinching.

"Terrell, with a mouse under his left eye, looked more battered than the loser."

There is a long bit from Julie Isaacson about how Terrell was not going to defend against Patterson because Patterson did not defend against Machen or Folley. I failed to see the logic of this stance.

"Al Bolon, who more or less manages Patterson, was a pleased spectator at the fight in Chicago. 'I see no reason for Patterson to fight Terrell. I suggest Bruno Sammartino would be a logical opponent for Ernie.' Sammartino is a wrestler."

Inept. Might be competent in a year or two. Pretty rough.

 

The writer never disputed Machen's contention that he should have been given the decision. He was not trying to build up Terrell when he said Machen looked better than he had against Patterson, only that Terrell was not Patterson.

There is no way of spinning "inept" into impressive.

 

Old Fogey I suggest you watch more film of Ernie Terrell Pre Ali. He looks very good. Especially that jab. One of the best.

 

Did you watch the fight? I barely had spencer ahead. I thought the fight was a lot closer than the scorecards indicated.



Also,

Zora Folley would beat Michael Spinks, and give Charles, Moore, Tunney very tough fights. Folley at his best is very hard to beat. One of the best scientific fighters, and could punch too.

 

Mcgrain,


Lee Q Murray is a very overlooked fighter. Many papers spoke very highly of him, and Ray Arcel called him the best puncher of the era besides joe louis. Murray was a 6'3 210lb Boxer-Puncher who could fight both sides. Murray was interim heavyweight champion recognized by Ohio and Maryland Commisions during World War II. That is equivalent to an Alphabet Soup Belt. I think Murray was as good, or better than Terrell.

 

1. "real paper champion"

Interesting term.

2. I have to wonder where the WBA would have stood if Machen had won. There would have had egg on their faces the same as the BBBC did when Savold upset Woodcock. Of course the WBA judges came through.

3. The writer did use terms like "embarressingly inept" to describe Terrell and quoted Machen as feeling he won without disputing it at all. I judge that significant.

 

I have. And I also saw him against Williams (both times), Folley, and Chuvalo. I did not see him against Machen or Jones. He looked at his best against Foster.

Folley fought him passively until he got way behind. Once Folley figured out that he had to get aggressive and carry the fight to Terrell he came on, but did not catch Terrell on the cards.

How many guys with jabs and not much else have gotten to the top of the heavyweight division over the years? Holmes relied on his jab, but he also had quick hands and some power. Terrell didn't have significant power, nor a good right hand.

 

I wouldn't say it was a fix, but they did allow Terrell to fight a jab and grab fight off the description. Persistent clinching is against the rules.

This reporter was certainly right on about what would happen when Terrell got in the ring with Ali. He was a competent enough judge to see that Ali was a much better fighter, even before most others reached a similar conclusion. They were quite a few writers who thought Terrell would give Ali a hard time.

 

Okay. This seems reasonable. "A very close margin"--Patterson defeated Machen easily a year earlier.

I don't want to go too far in criticizing Terrell, but I also think his generally high historical ratings are unjustified. I will stand with what I said earlier, he was never better than about 4th in his own era and got Machen when he was well past it.