Floyd Patterson vs. Harold Johnson

Henry fought slade when he was blind in one eye! Henry was damaged goods at that point. Henry suffered permanent eye damage in the archie moore fight and was never the same.

I have film of henry vs baker and Henry vs satterfield

have you seen either of these films? Henry was a monster puncher in either hand but specifically his left hook.

Henry's fast powerful left hook ended both fights...satterfield out cold and baker through the ropes.

"I've never been hit so hard and so fast in my entire life "- Bob satterfield speaking about clarence Henry

"Whoosh! what a puncher!!!"- Pittsburgh Heavyweight Bob Baker regarding Clarence Henry at the post fight press conference in 1951.



Bob Baker was very highly touted at at point. Rated top 5 in the world undefeated

Here's a write up on baker

From the Oct. 1950 issue of The Ring.


Generally rated as the best of the freshmen who have been attracting varying degrees of attention of late are LaStraza of New York, Rocky Marciano of Brockton, Rex Layne of Jordan, Frankie Burford of Oakland, Clarence Henry of LA, Cesar Brion of the Argentine, Jack Gardner of England, Connie Rux of Germany - and Bob Baker of Pittsburgh.

Of the lot, Baker shapes up as one of the best. The powerful 23 year old 205lb negro seems to have many of the answers for which the promoters and fans have been eagerly hunting. He can box, he can punch, and he has proved his ability to survive rough going and fight back to win.

...

In many respects, there is a remarkable parallel in the respective careers of Joe Louis and Baker. Both were developments of amateur competition, and both turned pro immediatly after winning major titles. Just as Louis celebrated his pro debut with a one round KO victory, so did Baker. Of his 17 outings to date, Bob has won 13 by KO and four by decision. That happened to be the exact score posted by Louis after 17 bouts for pay.

...

In Baker's 13th pro bout...it was felt that Baker had progressed to the point where he could take a chance with a "name" opponent. John Flynn, the Rochester veteran was imported. He knocked Flynn out in the 6th.

Despite Baker's sensational string of KO's, there was doubt about his ability to take it. How would the youngster react if the going got tough? Baker would prove he could take as well as give against Rusty Payne.

Rusty [after surviving a fast Baker start] came on in the third t ohur tBaker with a vicious right to the body and two left hooks to the jaw. The kid refused to become discouraged. He charged out for the fourth, outslugged Payne in a vicious exchange, and dropped the veteran for the full count.

An even more severe test was supplied in Baker's next bout, and Battling Bob showed he could come back from near-disaster to win.

His opponent was Louisville giant, Sid Peaks, who if he cannot do much of anything else in the ring, certainly can punch.

The fight had hardly gone a minute when Peaks connected with two thurderous left hooks and Baker went crashing to the canvas. He staggered up at seven and managed to last the round. He was still unsteady at the start of the second and another left hook sent him sprawling once more. But Baker gamely fought his way out of trouble...flooring Peaks three times before the affair was halted in the fifth.

...

Chris Dundee who recently purchased Baker's contract: "I suppose I'm biased in the matter but I honestly believe that Baker is the best young HW in the world. We're in no hurry however. Louis, Walcott, Savold and Charles and the other old timers can have the stage to themselves a little longer. We'll be satisfied to go along, playing around with LaStraza, Marciano(!), Layne and that crowd. In another year we'll be ready to shoot for the title. I can't see how we'll miss."

 

Boxing Historian Joe Rein who saw Henry fight live described him as having "Electrifying power in both hands". By 1952, Newspapers were actually rating Clarence Henry on "par" with Heavyweight Champion Jersey joe walcott, and challengers Ezzard Charles and Rocky Marciano. Henry had a very short prime, but he was devastating at times during those years. He posed a threat to anybody out there. He wasn't that big(6'1 185lb), but he packed a wallop in both hands, had terrific handspeed, had a great workrate, and was fearless out there. He had extremely long arms which enabled him to land his long hooks and put people to sleep . Henry was nearly blind when he lost to Hurricane Jackson. Joe Rein even said "No way a healthy live henry ever loses to hurricane jackson."

 

Clarence Henry is still to this day the most underrated Heavyweight marcianos era. He may have been the biggest puncher of the entire era outside of Rocky Marciano. That includes fighters like satterfield Louis walcott moore and valdes.

 

dubblechin.....i didn't say harold johnson would beat floyd patterson......i said cus d'mato was afraid he would.

have happy july...

 

Joe Rein also said Bob Baker - the guy you've gone on and on about - was a fat slob who he had little regard for.

Truth is, Clarence Henry was a flash in the pan. And his "name" wins are suspect. He was run out of boxing for trying to bribe other fighters for the mob.

If your argument in favor of Harold Johnson hinges on Clarence Henry, forget it.

Harold Johnson was an excellent fighter. But against the best heavyweights, he had to work his butt off just to get by.

Patterson was a far better heavyweight.

It's an intriguing matchup. But you're getting carried away.

 

No, he wasn't.

 

Yes he was. I've seen film of them all. I've studied the era extensively. I've talked to joe rein whose seen each man live. I've talked to other historians of the era. Henry was a MONSTER puncher.

If you had seen he Henry vs Baker and Henry vs Satterfield fights on film, you would know what I was talking about. Until you see them, I recommend not forming an opinion

 

Soft body Bob Baker and glass jawed Bob Satterfield?? Those fights are your reasoning for calling him this great and feared puncher?? Ive seen more of Henry than you have I guarantee and he was nothing special. Even against Baker it took him about a dozen shots to put him down after initially hurting him and Baker was leading in that fight despite looking like ****. Look at Henry's record and you will see that he had far more struggles with even pedestrian heavyweights than knockouts. Sound like someone else weve discussed recently? Having two knockouts against also rans (one of which had a famously glass jaw) is hardly the stuff of legends. Instead of focusing on his mediocre knockouts and fantasizing that hes Mike Tyson why not watch all of his fights that are available. Ive seen his fights with Baker, Slade, Satterfield, Agromonte, and Smith the guy was nothing special.

 

Well, Andrews knocked Johnson down with a left hook on film, but Johnson won the two fights solidly.

I don't want to dismiss the Smith fight. Johnson got caught with an overhand right,

but it might have been interesting to see how Patterson would have done with light-heavies (who tend to be quicker) who could punch. I don't see that he ever fought one.

*As a matter of fact, how Patterson got to be the #1 light-heavy contender and jumped right into a heavyweight elimination with his only victories over rated fighters Slade, Whitlock, and Troy,

is for me one of the great mysteries. Suzie is criticizing Pastrano for just being rated at heavyweight, but at least he fought and beat an over 200 lb. rated heavyweight in Layne, and beat top five light-heavies in Maxim and Speiser. Actually, that is a lot more than Patterson did prior to his fight with Jackson.

In fairness to Patterson, he knocked out the middleweight Troy while Pastrano only drew with him.

 

"Godoy and Bivins were nothing after WWII"

Fair with Godoy, who was down to beating trial horses at best, but Johnson was only 20 when he fought him.

8 of Bivins 11 loses were to champions--Walcott, Charles, Moore, and Maxim. The other three were to Murray and Morrow which he later reversed. And he was still beating all sorts of second-tier contenders and was ranked in both 1948 and 1949. I don't see him as being exactly "nothing"

What exactly is the comparison of Floyd and Johnson against top five heavyweights and/or fighters over 185 lbs.

Johnson---fought 10 men who were rated at one time in the top five. He defeated nine of them-

Godoy, Bivins, Moore, Henry, Valdes, Slade, Charles, Machen, Jones

and lost to two--Moore and Walcott

Discounting Liston and Ali, who are in a class by themselves among these fighters, and with whom Patterson wasn't competitive,

Patterson--fought 12 men who were rated at one time in the top five--He defeated nine of them

Slade, Jackson, Moore, Harris, Johansson, Machen, Chuvalo, Cooper, Bonavena

and lost to three--Johansson, Quarry, and Ellis

plus a draw with Quarry.

Overall Johnson went 10-5, Patterson 12-3-1. The edge here is caused by Moore, and why I give Patterson a slight advantage, but Johnson fought a younger and lighter Moore. Who knows. He might have also been fighting a better Moore.

As for fighting men over 185 lbs, and discounting Ali and Liston again, and also the second Mederos no contest fight

Johnson went 19-1 against men over 185 lbs., losing only to Walcott. He went 5-0 with 2 KO's against over 200 lb. men.

Patterson went 21-3-1 losing to Johansson whom he also defeated, but also to Quarry and Ellis.

Patterson clearly had more power at heavy, and if this fight ends in a KO, Patterson is the more likely winner,

but overall I see this one as definitely an interesting match-up which could go either way.

*It has been posted that London was once ranked #2 by the NBA. Okay, but to be consistent I stuck to The Ring ratings--and anyway London was the #2 contender?

 

Why do you keep talking about guys who were "at one time" rated in the top five? Or guys who weighed more than 185 or 200?

At one time, Frans Botha and Michael Grant were in the top five. Is it some big feat if someone knocks them off now? James Gaines weighed nearly 300 pounds. Was that a big accomplishment if someone beat him?

You're complicating this way too much. Focus on Patterson and Johnson.

Floyd Patterson was the heavyweight champion and Harold Johnson was the light heavyweight champion at the same time.

If they would've fought, who would've won? Floyd would've won.

Patterson was bigger, faster and he punched harder.

I said earlier, if they fought five times in 10 rounders, Patterson wins at least four, and scores knockouts in three of then. Maybe Johnson can scratch out a split decision in a 10-rounder if he's fighting his very best.

If they fought a 15-rounder, Patterson stops him every time.

Only one heavyweight ever went 15 rounds with Patterson (Ellis), and Ellis didn't fight for more than a year afterward because he looked like he was in a high-speed car crash by the end.

Against common opponents, Patterson performed better (scoring KOs where Johnson squeaked by or lost repeatedly).

Size and skillwise, Patterson was better.

Reigning heavyweight champions ... historically ... tend to beat the reigning light heavyweight champions.

Johnson was very talented, but he wasn't the heavyweight champion. Hell, he was barely the light heavyweight champion. (He only managed to get there because Moore finally got too old.)

Johnson squeaked by or split with enough contenders that he might not lose EVERY time if the fights were 10 rounders.

But Floyd beats him every time over 15 rounds.

 

I talked to Joe Rein, too, before he died.

And Clarence Henry and his 19 knockouts wasn't a greater puncher than Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano and Archie Moore ... like you stated earlier. Everybody and their brother knocked out Bob Satterfield spectacularly.

If you think Henry was, I suggest you go back and watch Louis, Moore and Marciano again. Because you lost touch with reality at some point.

 

Next to Marciano..

Satterfield really seems to be the next best puncher of the era. He was just erratic as an overall fighter.

 

Ok re read my post. I said other than Marciano implying he was NOT on marcianos level. I also said marcianos era meaning early 1950s. Was Louis of 51-52 a better puncher than Henry? I don't think so. Did I ever say Henry could punch like a prime Louis? No

 

I dont think Henry hit any harder than Satterfield, Moore, Valdez, Marciano, or even Louis who simply didnt have the speed or timing to get his power home by this point but could still hit as evidenced by what his jab alone did to the guys he fought. I also dont think it makes a lot of sense to say Henry was this monster feared puncher because he had exactly one KO over a top ten rated guy who could be stopped but didnt have a glass jaw. The number of HWs who can boast the same accomplishment is as long as my arm.