How tall was Floyd Patterson really?

Ellis and Stribling were other examples of 185-90ish guys who weighed in at middleweight or lower in their younger days, IIRC.

Patterson was Marciano-sized. Taller, same weight more or less. And barely even taller, according to this thread.

 

Yes a lot rests on the fact he was 160 as an adult because that shows how small his frame was. The 190 range is actually the HIGH END for Patterson when he got much older.

Tyson was absolutely an overachiever, dude had a welterweight reach and a LHW height fighting 6'3 230+ behemoths.

I think you're completely writing off just how difficult it is to use a come forward peak a boo style with such a small stature against tall strong guys in an open weight classes. It's incredibly draining and taxing mentally and physically, especially for someone like Patterson who was chinny and apparently 5'9.

 

And Rocky was an overachiever too, so I'm not sure how this is some sort of "gotcha" to dismiss the fact Patterson was out of his element in an open weight class. Rocky was clumsy, uncoordinated, had T Rex arms, wasn't particularly fast, and had to develop an insane gas tank through rigorous monk like training and strict dietary discipline to make his style effective.

 

Precisely! like Rocky his best opponents were at or around his size, he had his share of Vigo types in there that are realistic for him to beat. Ellis was 160lbs as a pro and did consciously bulk up to 190lbs-200lbs but had a career at 160lbs similar to Patterson at 175lbs.

an open weight class where he only had meaningful wins against other cruiser sized guys. It’s a realistic outcome, being in the open weight and say beating Liston, Lyle, Foreman, Norton, Ali etc that’d be impressive but really while he was swimming the same waters as elite 210-220lbs fighters he was either prey to them or was the fish that got away, Patterson beating big C listers is a reach for calling him an overachiever same as just because he is short, a short height can be an advantage - it’s boxing not every short fighter is an overachiever… what was the biggest height and reach he overcame against a good opponent anyway?

 

I'm not sure how it's a "gotcha" either...because it's not. It's a statement made in a boxing discussion. The first two were other examples of guys who started lighter, and ended up around Floyd's weight.

His exercise regimen was researched in depth on this forum a few years back. There's a thread on it. Marciano wasn't putting up mileages that were all that unusual. Ate a lot of blueberries, though.

Marciano and Patterson were both athletically talented men fighting in a heavyweight division where a lot of their opposition weren't that much bigger than them. Marciano through his entire career; Patterson initially.

 

See my “Open weight” thoughts in the other post I quoted you in a minute ago - when was he 160lbs as a pro? How old was he when he stopped weighing 160lbs? He was always at LHW and became 175lbs at 20… he was around 168lbs as a teenager Glass end of. FP filled out to 180lbs-190lbs in his prime and his best wins came against other cruiser sized guys nothing unusual about that and it tracks with Moore, Charles, Marciano etc and he was bigger then both Moore and Charles. He was a very successful original cruiser sized classical HW.

 

I feel like maybe English isn't you guys' first language?

Patterson wasn't a natural cruiser sized guy. He was overachieving winning against cruiser sized opponents to begin with, let alone also having some success against b and c level big guys 210+.

Which doesn't disprove my point so it's irrelevant...? If anything bringing up Rocky only enhances my position that it's commendable guys like him and Patterson had the success they did.

You have a weird knack of focusing on the tree instead of the forest.

I mentioned all the things Rocky had going against him such as his clumsiness, incredibly short arms, etc, and you focused on one thing (his training to improve his stamina) while not bringing up anything that would detract from what my overall point was in the slightest.

No one is saying Patterson or Rocky were fighting a bunch of modern sized behemoths, but their shorter height, reach, and other intangibles (Patterson's chin, Rocky's clumsiness, etc) made their road to success an uphill battle. It's the combination of negative traits that made facing even cruiser sized opponents challenging, especially for Patterson who had a very small frame and had to pack on muscle to get to 185+ in the first place.

I didn't say he was 160 as a pro. Try actually addressing what I said. It's all there in plain English.

Moore, Charles, and Marciano weren't chinny 5'9 guys.

 

Let’s not resort to insults over dead athletes, I believe I have not insulted you have I? I think we are done, all of it’s there in plain English re-read and try to understand. IMO you’re missing the forest and usually do with @cross_trainer posts, no offence intended.

 

It sounds like your feelings are a pretty unreliable guide to the truth in this instance.

So you keep saying.

As a mature adult, he was a guy in the mid/higher 180s, up to the 190s after his championship reign, fighting guys around that weight and a bit higher.

The connection seemed pretty clear. You talked about how Marciano "had to develop an insane gas tank through rigorous monk like training and strict dietary discipline to make his style effective." This was, at best, seriously misleading. Marciano's training wasn't different from other people in his time. He wasn't some little-engine-that-could, who needed to work twice as hard to compensate for his lack of ability.

Marciano had insane stamina for his era, he was durable, and he hit quite hard. Those are athletic gifts. Gifts that lots of his opponents didn't have.

Patterson had some of the fastest hands the division had ever seen. He was also a puncher. Very nimble, good stamina. Gifts that -- again -- most of the division didn't have.

Who were the best guys that these "overachievers" beat? Most of them weren't much bigger.

You could list similar disadvantages for the guys they beat. Having weaknesses isn't unique. It doesn't make you an "overachiever" to have weaknesses.

Charles was an actual former lightheavyweight. So was Archie Moore, who was also old. Walcott was old as well. Louis was old, and his power had mostly left him. Rex Layne (eight pounds heavier than Marciano) lacked Marciano's stamina. Among other things. LaStarza was the same weight as Marciano; he would presumably also qualify as an "overachiever" by the standards you're arguing for. He lacked Marciano's power or insane stamina.

Floyd's best victim was probably Ingo, who was a smallish heavyweight himself at 6'0" and an average of 199 pounds across their three meetings. Ingo had a weight advantage, but was much slower, and kind of limited outside of his one trick. He wasn't even significantly more durable than Patterson (His stamina also was probably worse, but it never got into late enough rounds to really decide matters.) Floyd won the title from Archie Moore, who was also a lightheavyweight, and was old. Cooper had tissue paper skin (a physical disadvantage he shared with his twin brother), and lacked Floyd's speed. Machen had a whopping six pounds on Floyd, and lacked both Floyd's speed and his hitting power. I guess you've got the Chuvalo fight, but Chuvalo lacked Patterson's speed and skill as well. Plus, like Machen and some of these other guys he beat, the Chuvalo fight came after Patterson's prime, so I don't know how much you're counting it.

And this is mostly just stuff related to physical qualities like size, age, etc. We could expand the list if we included stuff like Floyd being groomed from his days as a young boxer as a D'Amato prospect. Walcott would've probably appreciated that kind of opportunity during the Depression.

Since you qualified your opinion by saying these guys weren't fighting superheavyweights, I'll qualify mine as well. I'm not saying Floyd was a big heavyweight for his era. He was a bit below average. Same with Marciano. But neither Marciano nor Patterson were so small that they should be considered overachievers. I guess, per @Journeyman92's point, Marciano may have a better case only because he started so late. But he isn't the only guy to have to box around a physical drawback.

 

Patterson weighed roughly the same size as Ellis and Machen. He wasn't super undersized given his era

I doubt he was 5'9 either,

 

They've never been wrong. My intuition is impeccable. Ive aced every exam where I trusted my gut instinct.

Which is below the average cruiser sized guy, got it...!

Marciano was throwing 100 punches per round even in the last rounds. You don't get that kind of stamina from just going through the motions doing what everyone else does. Likewise, you don't get the kind of stamina "naturally". If you read his biography, Rocky wasn't some stamina beast from the start, he was sucking wind in the 2nd round of his sparring matches and early anateur fights.

Punching a 300 pound bag and dipping underneath it were not common training tactics at all. Goldman was brilliant.

I never denied Patterson's hand speed and Rocky's power weren't natural gifts that helped them, they weren't carried by or reliant on those fists. Talent is overrated. It means nothing if you don't develop the other x factors that make a great fighter. I've seen guys 5x more athletic than Terrence Crawford in the gym, yet they never made it because they didn't put in the work. Patterson having fast hands and power is great, but he was still 5'9, chinny, and had a very small frame. Those weaknesses were still huge hurdles for him to overcome. This is my last time explaining this because it's obvious to anyone whose studied boxing for even 5 months or been to the gym.

I literally addressed all of this, which is why I got snarky and asked if you guys were reading my posts carefully.

Charles was taller than Patterson, had a better chin, etc.

Moorer had all of the above, and he also used to cut weight to get down to the LHW range. If I recall correctly, he would weigh as much as 200+ between fights and starved himself. Moorer could've thrived in a cruiserweight division with his natural frame.

Now as for their opposition, yes, some of the things you're bringing up are valid. Ingo wasn't particularly big, Louis was old, etc. I've criticized Rocky's opposition before dozens of times. You're still not acknowledging any of the x factors Patterson or Marciano had to overcome like their short reach and height. We aren't going to make progress if you keep pretending Patterson being fast or Rocky having lots of stamina completely made up for their disadvantages.

Literally no one is saying Patterson is the only HW boxer to overcome physical drawbacks. You really aren't getting what I'm saying at all even though I've said it in plain English 4x.

 

Floyd Patterson was most likely 5'9" like Tyson, Marciano and Frazier, who were often listed at 5'11".

Here is a picture with Floyd and Ingo in the early 80's
https://imgur.com/VvhdLTD

Floyd and Ingo in 1959
https://imgur.com/PwlLJwa

Here is Chuck Wepner, Ali, and Floyd
https://imgur.com/pCnAF5N

Cus, Tyson, Torres, and Floyd
https://imgur.com/ulo7ZQR

Lyle, Floyd, and Cooney
https://imgur.com/QCfVfyR

 

Floyd wasn't that short just a bird boned guy with a head the size of your fist I doubt he is much bigger then Canelo

 

I'd argue that anybody who wins a world title at most anything has overachieved compared to most...

Gotta love Floyd. Complex cat...