Floyd Patterson was robbed versus Joey Maxim

what I meant is I won't class it a robbery because I've not seen it myself.

 

That seems a very reasonable position to me. With hindsight it seems to have been an ambitious fight to make for young Floyd ,as Apollack has observed.

 

Ambitious yes, strange it was over 8 rounds.

 

Did that have something to do with Patterson's age?

 

Bump. I am about to do a top-ten for Floyd Patterson and was just curious about this fight. This is one that seems to have been re-written by history as a Patterson win, but we actually had a poster on here who saw the fight that said it was not so, and McGrain cited that those who saw it on TV were fine with the decision. It doesn't seem like the worst decision ever.

Interesting.

Any further insights?

 

Not specific to this fight but the late Mr Garfield makes a point it seems few take into account: judging whether a decision was just by crowd reaction kind of assumes that the crowd is all neutral, that they’re there to render their opinion on the decision with no rooting interest.

And that just ain’t so. The people booing the decision might very well be, as JG described here, registering that they’re not happy their guy got beat … and they aren’t objective in their opinion.

Look at it this way:

If the Patriots score a TD in Foxborough and a ref calls it back because he threw a flag on New England for holding, the crowd will surely boo. Do you take that as ‘well, 70,000 people in the stands all agreed that it was a bad call, so it must have been a bad call’?

A World Cup soccer team scores a goal and is called offside, nullifying the goal. People rooting for that team boo … must have been a bad call, right?

It’s no different in boxing. Peoples’ reaction to that decision is probably, as often as not (or more often than not) a reflection of the guy they were rooting for coming up short in the scoring. How many of those people scored it round by round, and how many of them are even qualified to judge if they did? (Not to mention how many beers did they consume, which can skew judgment.)

Then there’s the gambling factor: whether it’s just Joe Fan betting a fiver or a tenner with the guy sitting next to him, someone laying a wad with a bookie at the neighborhood bar back in the day or now legalized gambling available in most places … you think someone is going to applaud a just decision if he lost the bet? More likely, he’s going to boo, but it is a reflection of his pocketbook speaking rather than his rational scoring.

As for newspapermen, I’ve never seen an analysis of particular writers and how they scored and how often they went against the grain or for the hometown boy. Most of them probably aren’t as qualified to score a fight as are most people on this forum (and I’ve seen some wild cards on the general forum, believe me, ask @IntentionalButt about that). The guy who is scoring the fight on Friday might be covering baseball on Saturday and football on Sunday … is he a rules and scoring expert on all sports? I have noticed even in fights where some other outlets went against Harry Greb, you rarely if ever find the Pittsburgh press saying they thought he lost … so some ‘hometown boy’ bias can also figure in.

Just figured I’d throw that perspective out there since a lot of boxing mythology is built around ‘we have accounts that some fans booed’ interpreted as ‘we can basically reverse the decision because it wasn’t popular’ without taking into consideration … popular with whom? The boo-birds are also naturally going to be more vocal and enthusiastic in expressing their disdain, too — if the right guy wins, are the people who thought the decision just going to cheer their lungs out while they’re counting their money from their bets or happy their guy won, or are they going to smile and head for the exits happy?

 

My dad always thought this was robbery. When ESPN aired it many years ago, he recorded it for me and asked me what I thought. I told him I didn't think it was really a robbery and I was ok with the decision. He was surprised. Another one I should give another watch.

 

I might as well check in. I've watched the entire fight at least two times. I thought Maxim deserved the decision. I've discussed this fight with Steve Compton over the years and we've agreed to disagree.

From a different perspective, a bout with Maxim was a an opportunity to gain some experience. Given Maxim's cautious style and dubious punching power, Floyd wasn't likely to get hurt and he stood to learn a lot from the tricky Joey. The only real risk was losing the decision to Joey. Floyd had been winning all his fights since the Olympics. It was a gentle way of introducing Floyd to the reality that he wasn't invincible. Cus likely used the fight to motivate Floyd to work a little bit harder. As you well know, back then a loss or two for a youngster on the way up wasn't as detrimental to a fighter's career as it is now.

 

As I recall, Floyd was still under the age required by the NY State Athletic Commission's for a 10-rounder.

 

Maxim was at his best in the 40s.. he was passed his best here.. he was coming off 3 losses to Archie Moore & wasn't as active as he used to be.. hed only fought once that year & twice the year before, which for those days wasn't generally the norm... hed had a long career by that point too.. 14 years a pro.. not everyones an Archie Moore.. on the flipside tho Patterson was still a young novice so fair play to him .. a prime for prime match up would have been interesting ..

 

Patterson’s career was a bit bizarre. he was the victim of a few robberies yet also the beneficiary at times of easy match making.

 

Are you sure that the full fight exists. I have only seen a version with six of eight rounds.