If Patterson had faced Cleveland Williams instead of Liston?

Machen was past it against Mildenberger .Germany was notorious for it's partisan judging .Look up Cooper's fights there. Folley beat Mildenberger he just didn't get the decision .
I asked you if Cooper ,Erskine and Mildenberger were as good as prime Machen or Terrell? And if you think they were, what scalps have they got to suggest it? When are you going to answer that ?


No point in continuing this with you,you would disappear up your own arse rather than admit the truth.

 

Oh is Patterson now a European?
Machen hadn't been ranked for 2 years when he lost to Mildenberger.Folley lost to Cooper and sparked him out in2 rounds in the rematch.Folley was robbed in Germany read the reports.Many thought he was robbed against London too! Zora was all through when he lost to London.
You know all this but are so desperate to prove you are right ,[though you know you aren't,]you will adopt any tactic however dubious and devious.
You are without doubt the most singularly unrewarding poster to converse with ,and I include Mendoza in this.

You couldn't give an honest assessment if your life depended on it!

 

I think the relevant stat for Folley and Machen is 4 losses in 12 fights, and the reason is 12 is the number of fights they had with Europeans. 160 total fights means nothing as they are not against Europeans. Yes, the total percentage of losses to Europeans is not high as they didn't fight many. But as pointed out in a post above, the ratios are not impressive. They lost rather often to Europeans when they fought them.

 

Precisely.

 

"Machen hadn't been ranked for 2 years when he lost to Mildenberger."

Eleven months earlier Machen fought Terrell for the WBA championship. So he was unrated by the WBA? Why was he matched for the championship?

Machen was clearly on the way down when he fought Mildenberger, but he would defeat Jerry Quarry only a few months later, so he still had something on the ball.

The question I think should be asked is how good was Machen. He failed against Folley, Johansson, Liston, Harold Johnson, Williams, Patterson, and Terrell. He looked good against Valdes, but Valdes lost more often than not to the better men. The rest. Maxim? Washed up. Baker? Well on the downhill slope. Jackson? Always an enigma, and clearly no longer what he was. The rest? The usual trial horses. Eddie was very good at beating the trial level fighters, but couldn't manage a win against the better men he faced.

 

Sounds like the bottom line on Cleveland big Cat Williams too.

 

"Germany was notorious for its partisan judging."

Unlike the United States?

"I asked you if Cooper, Erskine, and Mildenberger were as good as prime Machen or Terrell? And if you think they were, what scalps have they got to suggest it?"

I would rate Machen above Cooper mainly because of the bleeding factor, but in fact Cooper did beat Folley and Machen did not in two tries.

 

Good point.

 

I'm referring to the Ring ratings which I give some probity at the time ,the WBA I give none.
Your assessment of Machen might be correct. I would give him company ,Mildenberger,London,Erskine,Richardson,are lesser versions of Machen and managed less impressive wins.

 

Except he did stop Terrell, who was a solid 27 fight veteran.

 

Machen wasn't sparked out by Folley in 2 rds either!

 

Okay, but Machen wasn't sparked out by Doug Jones either. No doubt he had a better chin than Cooper or I think Folley,

but he still didn't beat Folley.

 

Well that is true. Williams and Terrell wound up going 1-1 with each other.

Intresting too that Williams did not surpass Machen since Williams merely drew with Eddie.

 

• "In a way Williams is tougher to fight than Liston because he has the speed the other doesn't have. You can't walk around Cleveland like you can Liston." -Eddie Machen

 

Ingo isn’t Sonny, but he knocked Floyd out.