I don't agree and neither does the commentators. They compare it to Johnson-Burns already after four rds.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I'm not pro-Floyd in this situation though. Even at his best, I don't see Floyd getting farther than losing an SD to Ali.
That is pro-Floyd (or anti-Ali), though. since he didn't get to a decision, never mind an SD, in real life.
Btw, you know that Thomas and Tucker both cited injuries against Tyson, don't you? And those fights were actually competitive at times...
The Tucker fight was competitive. Tyson beat Thomas up all the way though. But no, I didn't know that they both had injuries. You sure couldn't tell with Tucker. I thought Thomas was finished from the Berbick fight on.
Injuries happen all the time. During a fight or before it. To Ali as well, of course. I only rarely factor them in.
As far as Patterson's remarks about Black Muslims and Ali's remarks calling Patterson "white American", imagine, if you will, Usyk or Fury, being a proud member of a Christian group that taught the exact same thing that the NOI taught in regards to race, except it was reverse where they taught their members to have very negative views of black people. Usyk and Fury would likely be stripped of their titles and their careers over and everyone would support it. If they tried saying "freedom of religion", that would not fly at all. If it did, it would likely only be after long court battles. And imagine if they were calling an outmatched opponent "black American" as a way to taunt their opponent while they pummeled that opponent. They would not be remembered as a hero instead remembered as public enemy number one.
Floyd Patterson did give Ali a tougher time on Sept 20 1972, but Ali was not the fighter that he was in 1965.
I completely agree. But one could say that the two were the same distance apart both times they fought.
Yes, Patterson's back definitely was an issue in this fight. I have heard that the trouble showed in the third round, and I've heard that he had troubles while in training. He probably should not have taken the fight, but I also heard that if he didn't take the fight then he might not get a title shot for a while. In any event, Patterson showed gameness in that fight - he could have stayed down in the 6th round and no one would have thought any less of him. He even protested when the ref stopped the fight, something he hardly ever did. The Ali-Patterson fight of 1965 was highly anticipated and as such should have been competitive, more along the lines of their 1972 rematch.
Floyd saying Ali was not an American is a bad look. He also must have read a different U.S. constitution than me with his intolerance of someone with a different religion. He deserved to be punished. Ali did it.
Good point, Pat, except that the Nation of Islam talked about having that Mother Ship that would annihilate an entire race based on its colour. Floyd may not have deemed that as a religion as much as a terror organisation. Not even 30 years previously, the Nazis were looking to exterminate entire races. That was too recent a memory for people to accept the NoI's aggressive philosophy. Floyd was a nice man. He would have meant that it was very 'unAmerican' to push the doctrine of such a movement. I really would give him the benefit of the doubt here.
I agree. I have actually always felt that the 1972 fight was probably what their 1965 fight would have been like had Patterson not had back trouble.
Floyd Patterson commenting on the third Ali vs Ken Norton fight on radio said that when he fought Ali in 1965, he had trouble with Ali's legs and speed, but when they met again in 1972, he did not have trouble with Ali like he did in 1965, because Ali did not have the legs or speed anymore.
