Who is the most underrated heavyweight Champion between 1920-1970?

Do you think Charles and Walcott were at the peaks of their careers when they fought Marciano ?

 

Perhaps not "peak" but they were still very good and got into tremendous shape for those bouts. It's like asking whether Hopkins is peak for any particular bout. He may have lost a step physically for any given fight as opposed to what he was physically when he was in his 20s or 30s, but what he loses physically he gains in experience, ring generalship, and his lifestyle and work ethic in the gym. So I'd say the versions that Marciano fought on those nights were still excellent fighters, as proven by their performances, which were brilliant even in losses, but were only losses because they were in there with an unstoppable force of nature. Any other fighter in the world on those nights, and Walcott and Charles would have won.

 

Good Post:good

 

OK .. so if a prime Bob Foster , say a 1968 version, defended his title in a classic war with a forty plus year old Bernard Hopkins would you say that would qualify him as an all time great. Say he also defeated a 1972 Emile Griffith and a 1959 Ray Robinson as well ... all were still dangerous guys. Is that criteria in your opinion to say he was an all time great ?

Adam, great fighters do not lose to Rex Layne .. I say these were formerly great fighters who could still perform on a world class level predicated on the opposition .. much like pitchers who lose a few miles off their fastball get by on guile. It works sometimes .. Marciano beat these guys through superior strength and conditioning, wearing them down till their old legs could not move and they were forced to slug with him .. in his last ten fights going back to 1946 Walcott was 11 - 9. Not only did he lose to Charles, Louis and Marciano but Layne, Maxim and Ray .. Charles was younger and better but not by much .. these were old men fighting a young one .. not much different than Jeffries building his rep on Jackson, Fitz and Corbett but at least Jeffries had a prime Sharkey thrown in there and Ruhlin as well ..

 

You have to take into account the quality of their opponents, which was very high. A loss here and there back then was not denigrated. They fought a lot, too. Plus, I rely on what my eyes show me. These guys looked really spry when they fought Marciano. They don't look like over-the-hill fighters to me. Walcott WAS the world heavyweight champion when he fought Marciano. He ko'd Charles with a brutal ATG picture perfect left hook. And off the title defense against Charles and the first Marciano performance, I'd say that was no fluke. Walcott looked awesomely fast, powerful, and sharp against Marciano. That was an ATG heavyweight championship bout.

After losing the title, Charles stopped Layne, beat Maxim, lost a close decision to Walcott, okay he lost the rematch to Layne in a 10-rounder, but is it possible he had an off night or was not as motivated? - I say so because in their third bout Charles beat Layne handily, dropping him three times in the process. Charles also beat Brion and Bivins, no shame in a decision loss to Valdes who was a huge dude, lost a split to Harold Johnson - a good fighter, but then KO'd Coley Wallace and Bob Satterfield. And he looked very sharp against Marciano - in both fights.

 

Two did.

This means that we have to take him seriously.

 

You will change your tune when you write the book!

 

Max Bear
could have been atg

 

Good grief, that's horrible reffing. I feel terrible for Machen every time I see the ending.

 

Please sell me on how Jack Sharkey, who is already regarded as one of the weaker heavyweight champions in history, is overrated. Who's overrating him? If anything, he gets sold short.

The heavyweight champion who's been brought up the most (in this thread) as being the most overrated, out of nowhere, is.....Jack Sharkey? Really?

 

"great fighters do not lose to Rex Layne"

All the fighters we have been talking about lost to fighters who were arguably on the same level as Layne, or perhaps not even as good.

Schmeling was beaten by Steve Hamas only two years before he ko'd Louis.

Sharkey lost to Maloney, Risko, Levinsky, drew with Heeney, etc.

Carnera lost to Maloney, Poreda, and was twice ko'd by Leroy Haynes.

Baer lost to Risko, Uzcudun, was stopped twice by Nova, etc.,

Braddock? Lost to mediocre fighters quite often.

Patterson lost to Quarry and Ellis, who between them could not give Ali or Frazier a particularly tough fight.

Liston lost to Marty Marshall. Dempsey to Jim Flynn.

The bottom line is Tunney, Louis, and Marciano did not lose to Rex Layne level fighters.

 

Agreed to all of the above except at 33 and 37 were they age proof ? We know they looked sharp ... many old fighters can look sharp for a while .. are you saying you think they were at their best when they fought Marciano at those ages ? I don't. I can se clear difference between the Charles that had the legs for 15 rounds against Joe Louis v.s. the Charles who fought Marciano .. Walcott also looks slower as well .. I don't think Hopkins at 40 beats Hopkins at 30 and I don't this Charles or Walcott were at their best when they fought Rocky. Both lacked the gear to go the additional steps that they very well may have had earlier in their careers.

 

That was funny ! We should be so lucky that he chooses to go that far .. I have fingers crossed that he gets to Dempsey ..

 

The funny thing about Floyd is that he beat better fighters after the first Ali loss than before when he was champion . If Floyd is underrated by some then they just don't know that much about him .. that being said I stand by Frazier who I think may very well have been the fifth best heavyweight pre 1970 after Johnson, Louis, Liston and Ali .. so many write him off as chinless that it's not even amusing ... he was an exceptional heavyweight, definitely one of the top P4P we've had ...