Actually, if memory serves me right, even Patterson, himself, predicted a Liston victory in their second fight...in a Sports Illustrated article, I believe.
I meant mike dejohn, johny summerlin and wayne bethea. those were the guys I meant when i said any world champ would beat those. aside from that I still think you sell carnera, fitzsimmons, braddock and burns rather short. nino valdes world champion? its just wrong. all real world champions built up to an edge only another world champion could top. a contender even a good one does not reach that extra edge since they are never outstanding in their own eras amoung other mere contenders. the others briggs and co were beltholders rather than champions and no beter than machen and co so yup thats ok IMO.
I can't. No one confided such info to me. I don't think it was probably as crass as forking over some money and the old guy runs to the mike to make a public pick. It was more like once the old champ was hired to publicize the event, he was expected to "earn his pay" by building up the underdog. He was, after all, part of the promotion. He wasn't exactly lying. He was just giving the official spin, sort of like the White House press secretary. And, of course, the old champs probably felt an obligation to act in the "best interests of boxing," which meant putting the best face on things. Many of their closest friends, after all, made their living in the sport.
Now Mac's going to say ,"well youv'e had more practice". Honestly , the way some people bicker on here .:rofl
I mean no offense to Tommy Burns but what exactly is the 5'7 180lb man going to do when he comes out slugging and is met with a long stiff left jab that reaches 81"?? I don't think tommy has ever seen that before in his life. Nino was big strong and powerful. How will Tommy be able to prevent nino from ravaging and manhandling him in the clinches? How does Tommy prepare to go toe to toe with valdes and survive? Perhaps he can attempt to copy cat Bob Satterfield's strategy, but even Bob had 4" in height on Tommy Burns and a harder punch. Sam Langford was only 5'7, but he is the one exception. ONE exception for a man that short. Trust me I do not sell Braddock short. I am one of his defenders here. I do not rate him as one of the worst champions ever. However I do rate Sonny Listons era as one of the most underrated in history. It was filled with a combination of great fighters(Patterson,Liston, Johannson), top ring technicians(Machen, Folley, Moore, H Johnson), and dangerous sluggers(Williams, Valdes, Dejohn)
1. "How does Tommy prepare to go toe to toe with Valdes" I don't think all that highly of Burns, but if the glass-jawed Satterfield could go toe to toe with Valdes, the relatively durable Burns certainly might. I really would love to see this fight. You assume Burns would stay on the end of that long, slow, pawing left jab. I think he would be right up against Valdes, coming under his punches. 2. You rate Patterson and Johansson "great" fighters on this thread, and yet in another say both would have been ko'd by the 34 year old, ordinary Valdes? 3. *I would take Braddock over Valdes, myself.
I never understood why some people rate Valdez so high. His record against rated opposition is what, 2-10 ? Basically, his entire legacy is built on one win over Ezzard Charles and a split decision over Harris (who is mediocre as well). Other than that, he lost whenever he stepped up in opposition. Maybe people think high of him because he was big for that time? At any rate, it didn't show, since he lost to a blown-up, erratic ex-light heavyweight in Satterfield. So did an undefeated Cleveland Williams, of course. If you then take into account that Valdes was 37 years old and a grand total of four months away from his retiremen, when Liston beat him, i think the win becomes.... well, i wouldn't say "meaningless", but similar to Wlad's over Rahman (who was a late minute substitute). A win over a washed up, name opponent who had been champion at one point. Though that's not even the case about Valdes, either.
You should maybe try to pick it out, trace his rise to the #2 in the Ring rankings. They are not infallable, of course, but you should be able to trace his rise without to much difficulty, at least pick out their thinking.
I am fully aware that he was ranked high, during two years even i think. But read my last post: his success was brief and based on a single victory; other than that, it's filled to the brim with losses.
I read your post, what i'm saying to you is that if he was ranked #2 by The Ring, that ranking will have been a process; he will, at some point have been outside the 10, then maybe 8, 7, 5, 6, 4, 2 etc etc, if his high ranking confuses you, you can chose to repeat this ad nauseum or go through the reasonably straight forward process of understanding how he climbed so high.