I start putting head to head in my rankings IF fighters fought in the same era imo. I can rank Liston over Patterson or Marciano over Layne so to speak. But if they didnt fight in the same era, I rank them on what they did in there own time, and thown head to head out the window.
Let me make two points that should make it clear to the viewer why Liston should unquestionably be ranked above Patterson. 1. Liston twice demolished Patterson. Both times in one round. Two victories in this decisive a manner, cannot be overlooked. 2. Liston beat all of the fighters patterson ducked. Cleveland Williams, Zora Folley, Eddie Machen, Nino Valdes. Liston defeated all of these men. Damato avoided fighting all of these men, because of the challenges they presented to floyd. Anyone of these men could have taken floyd's title away from him. I think any rating of Patterson and Liston on the same level is preposterous.
I knew this would come before I posted my list. I knew it would come from you. Yes, the first can´t be overlooked. But I do not rate h2h. Those are good wins on Liston´s resume and blemishes on Patterson´s. But nothing more. Like I said before this can be evened out with other accomplishments in Patterson´s career. I don´t think either of these guys would beat Patterson. But even if I would think everyone of them would do so, it wouldn´t mean anything. Simply because they didn´t.
During his title reign he avoided fighting some of the best heavyweights out there like Eddie Machen(rated # 1), Zora Folley(rated # 1), Nino Valdes (rated # 2), Cleveland Williams (rated # 5). Instead, Patterson gave undeserving title shots to fighters like Brian London, Pete Radamcher, Tom Mcneeley. Liston even accused Patterson of "avoiding black fighters" and "Drawing the color line".
Well, he spent three years fighting Johannson who beat Machen. Didn´t he? Yeah, he avoided those fighters but imo his latter career where he took on at least as dangerous fighters like Chuvalo despite beeing past it and smaller makes up for it. Of course Liston accused him of such things, he wanted a shot at the title. btw. what does this have to do with Patterson beeing the youngest and first two time champ?
Like...wut? And Liston's 2 first round knockouts over floyd patterson are huge blemishes on floyd's record that are inexcusable. These are great wins on Liston's resume. I am confused. If you think so highly of patterson, then why do you rate Liston so low? It's a double edged sword. Either you are not giving Liston enough credit for knocking patterson twice in one round, or Patterson getting knocked out by liston twice means he is not that good in the first place. Which is it? You "don't think" they would, but since he never fought them, we will never know the real answer. We do know Liston fought those men, and beat them all. As far as looking at it objectively, Patterson would struggle greatly with all of those men. We have never seen Patterson beat a puncher as big and formidable as Williams or Valdes. We have never seen patterson defeat a boxer in there prime as skillful as a Machen or Folley. This doesn't mean I think less of Patterson, because I rate him higher than most do, I just believe the era was quite a competitive one.
Hey PhillyPhan69, don't want to be too picky - I enjoy these top 10s/20's type list - but here are my thought's Tyson too low Tunney far too low - and no way in the world behind Schmeling!! Ditto Charles & Walcott - to of the greatest boxers ever IMO (putting them behind Bowe is criminal) - and they should deffo be ahead of..... ...Holy and Lewis who are far too high (along with Frazier) - these 3 are not top ten material IMO But what do I know really - just opinion - can't really grumble about the rest certainly and can't really grumble about any of it because at the end of the day they were all great fighters on their days - i can't really talk whatsoever - a few round here might remember my horror show list... Marciano & Dempsey 1 and 2!! LOL - anyhow keep punching buddy - and stick to your guns if anyone starts throwing their dummy out of the pram about your list or anything
This is mine (most recent) 1. Ali 2. Louis 3. Holmes 4. Lewis 5. Marciano 6. Holyfield 7. Johnson 8. Tyson 9. Liston 10. Frazier 11. Foreman 12. Dempsey 13. Wills 14. Jeffries 15. Charles 16. Patterson 17. Walcott 18. Bowe 19. Schmeling 20. Sharkey
Floyd also lost to Johansson. That doesn't help your case for rating him over Liston. How about his defense after beating Johansson the 3rd time. He chose unrated Tom Mcneely. Why didn't Patterson choose a guy like 5th ranked Cleveland Williams? What about in 1957 and 1958 when he chose to take on unrated fighters in title defenses like Brian London and Pete Radamacher, instead of top rated fighters like Zora Folley and Eddie Machen? So now your admitting he avoided these fighters. Good. Don't you think that is a blemish on his record? So winning a close decision over George Chuvalo is the ice breaker that puts him over the top of liston? I didn't realize Chuvalo was such a great fighter. :roll:
Beeing the smaller fighter in most of his fights, having a slightly better longevity at the very top, his style-disadvantage against Liston. I don´t think they are inexcusable. Liston was Patterson´s nightmare stylewise. There is nothing Patterson could do to beat Liston. And Patterson was known to need time to get going, that he had some sort of stage fever and was nervous early in fights. Liston profited from that. Those are blemishes, yes but hardly inexcusable. Great wins for Liston nonetheless. :good I disagree. I don´t rate Liston low. I just rate others who are more deserving higher. Without the wins over Patterson I think Liston would barely make it on that list. Yeah, and ...? He beat Johannson who was a a big puncher as Valdes. He was competative with Ali - second fight - and arguably beat Jimmy Ellis. And he actually beat Machen. Williams imo is one of the most overrated fighters on here. What does he do to be held in such high regard?
Well, after beating Johannson and before taking on Liston I think it´s okay that he made an easy defence in between. Well, Rademacher was an publicity gag. I still don´t understand who wanted to see that but I guess amateur boxing was more popular back then - which possibly may have to do that the difference between amateur and pro boxing wasn´t as big as it is now. Folley and Machen were more deserving fighters, I agree. Too Floyd´s defence, he was still pretty inexperienced as a heavyweight and he did fight Machen later on, after he got rid of D´Amato if I remember right. I don´t think avoiding fighters are blemishes but when you look at the career as a whole it should hold that fighter back. One reason why I can´t rate him any higher. Where did I write that? Please read again what I actually wrote.
1. Patterson is not the Youngest. Tyson is. 2. Being the first two time champ is not necessarily a good thing. This means Patterson had to lose the title in the first place. He lost it to a fighter who couldn't shine Listons shoes. Why? fighters like Machen, Folley had been literally begging for title shots for 4 + years. They were well overdue for one over a scrub like Mcneeley. What do you mean inexperienced? I don't buy that. He was heavyweight champion, in the prime of his life with 30 + fights. He had an extensive amatuer career. When Eddie was well past his prime. It would have been interesting to see if Floyd could have handled a young eddie machen. Yes. You said he "took on fighters as dangerous" as those guys. Well taking them on, and beating them is a different matter. Patterson beat Chuvalo and Bonavena, but neither were close to the level of a Eddie Machen and Zora Folley. Patterson also lost to Jerry Quarry and Jimmy Ellis. 1. He was also blown away by Johansson 2. I said "big". Johansson while owning a big punch, was not a big man. Valdes and Williams posessed power, but were closer in size to liston. This could have intimidated Floyd. Floyd did not like to take on 6'3 or 6'4 215lb fighters with a big punch. 1. Because he was one of the biggest, fastest, and most deadly punchers of the era. This is easily noticeable to any objective viewer watching him on film. The only one to beat him in his prime was Sonny Liston. Most fighters of the period did not cherish to share a ring with Big Cat Williams. He was rated in the top 5 for four years in a row during the 1960s. Williams had the size, power, strength, and speed to power floyd patterson out early. He just might have. Bottom line is in the midst of this "longevity" by floyd was a wide arrey of losses, some of which were brutal knockout losses, avoiding fighters, and struggling to beat contenders. He does not compare to Liston. Liston rates well above him.
I don't believe Foreman rates above Liston. Foreman was too susceptible to boxers. Liston did not have this problem. Liston was also thrown to the wolves early, while foreman was coddled more than 1 year old baby. H2H, I think Liston knocks out Foreman every time. Both were strong, both could punch, both could jab. The deciding factor is Liston had more science to his boxing game than Foreman.
Once again I am fine with where Tyson is!!! IMHO (I know there are some who disagree!!!) Tyson is a clear notch below Lewis, Holyfield and ESPECIALLY FRAZIER! I am still not sold on 14-20..but what makes Tunney a clear rank ahead of Schmelling????