He was a durable south paw fighter. But one without any superbly good wins. I saw him fight Roy Jones and frankly I thought he was pretty average. But Not bad I supposed
I believe he was the first one to score a knock down against Jones. I remember watching that fight and his left hand surprised everyone, including Roy. He was a good fighter, certainly not great.
He was good for a couple years. He floored Virgil Hill in their title fight. He floored Roy Jones in their title fight. Yet, he wasn't known as a big puncher and didn't really look impressive ever. He won a vacant belt. That's about how good he was. Just a solid pro.
He wasn't as good as Bruno Girard. I don't know if that makes him very, very good. He had moments, but he couldn't actually beat someone who had a belt.
Right. Average but not bad. It's weird because if you say he dropped Jones or dropped Hill, it sounds like there was something there. But, when you watched him, you didn't get that impression. (LOL) Hard to classify.
I guess so. Because I would need a lot of hands before I found some light heavyweights from that era who Lou Del Valle could or did beat. In an era that had top 10 light heavyweights like Roy Jones, Dariusz Michaelczewski, Virgil Hill, Henry Maske, Antonio Tarver, Montell Griffin, Reggie Johnson, Gracciano Rocchigiani, Eric Harding, James Toney, William Guthrie, Mike McCallum, Fabrice Tiozzo, Derrick Harmon, David Telesco, Julio Gonzales, Clinton Woods, Glen Johnson, Julian Letterlough ... I don't even think about Lou Del Valle.
He gave a good account of himself yes but his fundamentals didn’t give me the impression that I was looking at a great fighter. We’re also talking about a fight I watched only once and decades ago
