He is not on top of my list. I have no lists anymore. I had him Top15. Like Liston. And I think that´s justifyable (does this word exist?). No, I don´t give fighters with slow hands extra credit. You can compensate this with timing and accuracy but how do you compensate a size disadvantage :huh
Fighting small, fighting out of a crouch, working the body, stayng inside, giving only the top of the head, it all depend upon who you are figting. Obviously a Patterson would have to change this around when he's fighting somebody smaller, like Moore. It's very obviously a dis-advantage that certain strategies and strengths can overcome, like slower hand-speed.
Of course it can be overcome but that´s not what I said. I wrote compensate. And for a reason. You can overcome a size disadvantage with certain styles and tactics. But you have to take more risks with that. You can compensate slower hands with better accuracy and timing. You don´t need to take more risks for that.
Alright, well you can compensate for that disadvanatage by doing all those things I said, if you prefer, though I don't see the difference. Yes, they are stragies that empoy risk,but so what? Why does fighting riskier to overcome disadvantages make a fighter greater or better?
The difference between overcoming and compensating is that for the first one you need to overcome adversity. Here a size disadvantage. And yeah, overcoming adversity is a sign of greatness.
:huh Come on, having slow hand doesn't need to be overcome? Having no power doesn't need to be overcome? It's just a question of nipping and tucking the tactics? When two heavweights fight, you think the difference in size is the most significan factor, the one that needs to be "overcome" as opposed to "compensated for"?
Depends on the size gap and on the range. For example it´s harder to overcome for a 180 pounder against a 200 pound fighter than for a 230 pound fighter against a 250 pound fighter due to the "diminishing returns". And yeah, I think it is a major factor then - and fighters who are able to make it a non-factor should be credited for that. The difference is for one you have to take risk, for the other not. You need to take more risks to overcome a size gap. you don´t need to take more risks to compensate for slow hands/no power.
So, you rate Patterson as highly as Liston in part because he suffers from a physical disadvantage, which makes it harder for him to win fights - and to overcome that, he has to take more risks than a fighter with little power or slow hands. Is that right?
No. Read my previous posts. It´s a factor but just one. btw I rate both as high as Louis and Ali these days since all of them are genuine hw atgs and I don´t make a difference between these anymore.
Sure, it's a factor, that's what I meant. Seems the absolute height of bizarre to me, but to each his own. I take it you rank Tyson very high? He was considerably smaller than Patterson was in comparisn to most of his opponents.
I rank him above Patterson and Liston for sure. Like I said I don´t do lists anymore but when judging a fighter you´ve got to look at these factors as well - IMO.
1. Ali 2. Louis 3. Marciano 4. Holmes 5. Johnson 6. Lewis 7. Holyfield 8. Frazier 9. Tyson 10. Liston
01 - Muhammad Ali 02 - Joe Louis 03 - Lennox Lewis 04 - Sonny Liston 05 - Larry Holmes 06 - Joe Frazier 07 - Rocky Marciano 08 - George Foreman 09 - Mike Tyson 10 - Evander Holyfield