How would Patterson have done against Walcotts opposition?

How does that help your case? It only reinforces the opposite

 

:nono

 

Patterson´s chin was not good but to think a crude puncher like Abe Simon would beat him just because he was a puncher is not fair IMO.

 

so you disagree with me do you?

Any other great hw I can think of started strong cos they had good backing. They were consistently trained and it seems logical to me that they would not have become a journeyman given jersey's early opposition.

Floyd is one of these with good training and backing early doors. I would individually favour him over jersey opponent bar Louis and rocky though I appreciate in a career span there's a chance he gets caught.

So my case is Floyd does better.

 

Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey are two examples.

 

Its not that I think Simon would beat him.

Its more that if he fought Murray, Sheppard, Gomez and Ray, somebody would beat him.

 

Aye well played :good

Then it's a case of who has the most natural talent out of those 3 as to who would do better. Tough call.

 

Give me the skilled fighter everytime....
They would have a good chance but Patterson was much better in the skill departament, at least from what I know about these guys you mentioned.....

 

Gr8 idea , m8 . I say Pitter- Patterson gets ,
stopped by a lot of Walcott 's opponents . includes Charles & Marciano .

 

Interesting discussion--my take

1--If Patterson was born in 1914 like Walcott was, and therefore was an exact contemporary of Joe Louis, he never becomes heavyweight champion. He chances of being champion rest on beating John Henry Louis or Billy Conn for the lightheavy title in the 1930's. If he had the non-backing of Walcott, who knows if we would ever even have heard of him.

2--Walcott was the much better old-age fighter, taking on everyone around and holding his own. Picking Patterson to beat Charles, Johnson, and Layne overlooks that if he followed Walcott's career path, he would have to fight them from 35 to 38. I don't see him beating the Charles and Johnson Jersey Joe fought at that age at all, and a loss to Layne at 36 is certainly not out of the question.

3--Walcott fought all sorts of fighters--cuties, big punchers, big men. Patterson was pretty well protected. Who knows how he survives big punchers after big puncher? Why assume he does as well as Walcott against the big fellows (210 or so or more) when he did so poorly against them in his actual career. The only fairly good big man he beat was Chuvalo and almost any fair boxer could outbox him. Someone like Joe Baksi might have been quite a task for Patterson.

4--It is also difficult to say how he would do with the likes of Tiger Jack Fox or Jimmy Bivins. Other than the impressive wins over the aging Moore who was vulnerable to his speed, and Johansson (who got the championship by beating him) he basically beat a rather questionable bunch. Jackson? Hard to tell if he was even a good fighter. Machen and Cooper? Past it. Chuvalo? He was no problem for Folley. Bonavena? Floyd was losing until Bonavena hurt his hand. Ellis and Quarry? Patterson couldn't score a win in three tries.

Liston? No other champion ever failed in his physical prime like that.

Bottom line for me--Let's just match both men with Foreman. You might not think Walcott could win, but many would judge he could at least give Foreman a tough night. Patterson? Off his showings against Liston, it is hard to imagine him surviving the early rounds.

 

Well WEalcott wasn't blowing away the likes of Ray, Bivins, Baksi, Maxim, Layne in his career peak, in my opinion his resumee is very similar to Floyd, I take wins over Johansson, Moore, Bonavena, Jackson, Cooper(who was peak) Chuvalo as good as JJW's wins(bar Charles) and his only decisive defeats were to Liston, Ali and the twice avenged loss to Ingo. The Quarry, Ellis affairs correspond to Maxim and Ray for Walcott-I think a fair analysis might be that Jersey did better against his very best opposition, both had great longevity, Patterson more consistency, and both fought and beat a lot of quality opposition. I see Floyd dropping the odd one to Walcott's opposition but the reverse might be true too, Quarry-Walcott or Ellis-Walcott anyone?

 

"Quarry, Ellis affairs correspond to Maxim and Ray"

Except Walcott proved himself superior to Maxim and Ray while Patterson failed to beat Ellis and Quarry (or Maxim)

"Wasn't blowing away Ray, Bivins, Baksi, Maxim"

He beat all of these--and how many ever "blew away" Maxim

"Quarry-Walcott or Ellis-Walcott anyone?"

I don't favor either one over Walcott, but even if Jersey Joe lost, he would be doing nothing that Patterson didn't do. Patterson didn't beat these men.

Patterson's big victims

Johansson--certainly a big win, but Ingo's only other top rated win was the quick blow-out of Machen. Ingo has such a thin career that he is difficult to rate, and his position in history rests on ko'ing Patterson

Moore--Probably Patterson's most impressive long-term win, but a man who was not as good as Charles

Jackson--almost impossible to rate, but his performances against Patterson and Machen were so bad he was banned.

Chuvalo--simply lost to most decent boxers.

Cooper--"peak"--well, why debate it. He had lost to Roger Rischer and Amos Johnson in his last few fights.

Bonavena--Probably Floyd's third most impressive win, but Oscar apparently was on his way to victory before hurting a hand, and was still judged the winner by a majority of the ringside press. Still, this one is a very solid win.

Ellis--besides beating Patterson, also defeated Bonavena and Chuvalo, as well as Quarry. In fairness to Floyd, this was a controversial decision. Although superior to most of the fellows Floyd was defeating, proved no match at all for Frazier or Ali.

The bottom line for me--against the really top men, Liston and Ali, Patterson failed utterly. Walcott did not fail in the same sense against Louis or Marciano (nor with Charles). And I'm more impressed with the men Walcott did defeat. They were much more proven fighters. I think I would favor Harold Johnson against all of Patterson's victims save Moore and possibly Johansson, but Ingo is pure guesswork.

 

What I think we can take away from this thread... Nah.. I won't even start the debate again.. Suffice to say.. JJW should've been labeled great imo..

 

Patterson even though was a headcase his boxing skills are unmatched. He majority. Wins a close one with Charles and Walcott(Although I can see a KO),loses to Rocky and Joe.

Beats Wladimir Klitschko too