Where do you rank Floyd Patterson at heavyweight?

I have Patterson at 15, one place behind sonny liston.


Post Liston Patterson was a good heavyweight. with wins over bonnavena, machen, cooper, chuvalo and fights with quarry and ellis that could have went his way was better form than liston had at that point.

I would have liked patterson to stay in the LH division longer and beat moore for the LH title then a less battle hardened patterson could have moved up to chalenge ingo, machen, folley and Liston in 1960-63.

 

I rate him around fifteenth on my all time list.

 

anywhere between 15 and 20 seems just about right

 

Liston at 14 is ridiculous

 

This is reasonable.

 

Some people rate chemical punching stylists a little lower than others, Suze. :tong

 

He has Patterson at # 15, but fails to acknowledge his # 14 beat the **** out of his # 15 twice in 1 round. Those 2 wins alone should propel liston into the top 10 based on his list. Not to mention Liston beat all the men who his # 15 ducked/avoided.

 

This content is protected

 

Nope, because when you take Liston´s style and size advantage over Patterson into account those two wins aren´t as impressive anymore. Still great wins mind you but not good enough to base Liston above Patterson alone on that. Their overall resumes are quite comparable, difference is Patterson was mostly at a weight disadvantage while Liston was quite often at a size advantage which IMO gives Patterson an edge. Patterson also has more title defences and better achievements - you wrote it yourself - and better longevity at the top. Liston has an aedge in dominance. It´s perfectly reasonable to even rank Patterson above Liston which I do. :deal

 

Brother Bodhi, do you penalize Patterson at all for not learning how to throw a proper Super Chemical Jab, such as Liston did? :think

 

Nah, he surpassed that level. :deal

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_K2Zj9UcCU[/ame]

 

Ali4life & SuzieQ49

"Can" Means is capablele of doing so, and not nesscarly gantured of doing so.

 

I can agree with some of the points in the rest of your post about comparing their resumes, but disagree with the quote highlighted above... Just because a fighter had some physical and stylistic advantages over the other doesn't mean that the win should be worth any less. In almost any boxing match, one guy is always going to have something that the other doesn't have.. By this logic, Foreman's win over Frazier is devalued on the basis of having " a size and styles edge".. Ali had style, reach AND youth over Liston.. Tyson had a few advantages over Spinks, etc.. etc.. Doesnt mean these wins weren't outstanding victories. Now weather or not you think its enough to rate Liston over Floyd based on the wins alone, is your perogative.... I do agree with you that Floyd having greater longevity, more personal records, etc could certainly bolster an argument rating him higher.... But I don't think its cut and dry.. I can just as easily see Sonny being viewed as the better great.

 

I don't think much of him at all. Johansson was terrible and beat him once and made him fight for his life twice; that trilogy, while entertaining fights, is not something to be watching if you're looking to pick up tips. His opposition, while champion, was handpicked and yet he went down more than any other champion.
Marciano would've steamrolled him, and the Charles of the first Marciano fight would've taken him apart, as would the Walcott of the first Marciano fight. I don't know how he beat Moore (Moore's manager thought he threw the fight) unless losing to Marciano took that much out of him.