Floyd Patterson would have sucked in any other era

Not even one really.

Liston had just broken into the top 10 when Patterson lost his title to Ingo. After winning the title back Patterson was obliged to defend against Ingo due to a rematch clause. The year after that defence Liston got his shot.

I adressed that in an earlier post.

But your simple assertion was that Patterson didn't face any top guys in his prime. I showed you that he faced five (beat three of them).

You tell one of the best posters here that he should do his homework and don't even know these basic facts... Think you should do a rethink.

 

Ironically, I'd say some of Patterson's more impressive showings against good heavyweights like Ellis, Quarry and Bonavena, came after he defied Cus and started taking risks. Cus was probably wrong to lack so much confidence in Floyd.

30+ years old is a little bit late to find your courage don't you think? Are you really going to suggest to me that a 37-year Patterson's performance against Bonavena was better than what he accomplished during his career?

Compton made a good video showcasing Dempsey’s fouls in the last few rounds of the Sharkey fight

I'm aware of Dempsey fouls. Doesn't change the fact that his experience went a long way. Sharkey wasn't exactly the consummate professional either, he punched Dempsey after the bell.

While I agree that Gene is the superior technician, and overall boxer, I do find Patterson's speed, size and explosivity to be very compelling in this matchup. The closest thing Gene's faced to Floyd is Dempsey, but as you know I don't rate Dempsey during his comeback very highly. I definitely give Patterson a significant chance in this matchup.

Any trouble Patterson would give him would be momentary. Tunney would box circles around him like he did with the washed Dempsey.

I don’t rate Flynn, Childs, Bonner, Battling Jim Johnson or Moran particularly highly, nor do I think they’re on the level of someone like Patterson (or his lesser opponents) to make viable comparisons about the matchup between Johnson and Patterson. Burns was good, but never beat a genuine good heavyweight. His best win is over a fellow LHW in O’Brien, he was totally out of his league when fighting someone like Johnson.

Of course you don't. Jim Flynn beat both Jack Dempsey and Sam Langford in their primes, Jim Johnson beat Joe Jeanette twice and beat Harry Wills. Tommy Burns gave up 15lbs to Marvin Hart (who had gotten the better of Johnson over 20-rounds) when he won the world title. But I guess Quarry is superior.

I don’t feel like you’re giving Patterson his due here, while he could definitely get wild and sloppy at times he also knows when to keep it technical and refined. I think it mainly depended on who he was up against.

I don't think he had much of a skill set, I think he had a set of stock moves that Cus taught him that he repeated. He never evolved technically as a fighter.

Probably? Jack Johnson took 9 rounds to stop Bill Lang who looks more unimpressive than those men do on film, also took 14 rounds to knock Burns out despite him being a light heavyweight. I don’t think going longer distances with lesser fighters makes any less of you as a fighter, because in that case Jack Sharkey should be disregarded in almost pretty much every matchup against ATGs. However, we also know what Sharkey looks like when he's faced good competition, since he was able to beat the best fighters in the division. ATG old timers used to go long distances with lesser fighters pretty often as well.

If you say so. Johnson was known to carry and toy with his opponents for a while before finally putting them away, Patterson genuinely struggled with those opponents. Big difference.

 

You can read into my comment all you like. I never made the claim that NONE of Patterson's opponents were ranked. I said they weren't the top fighters of that era which they weren't.

Liston, Folley and Williams were the top contenders of that era and he didn't fight them up until he fought Liston in 1963. How are they irrelevant to my argument when they are three of the fighters I mentioned from the beginning?

Where is the lie? Patterson's handlers didn't want him to fight Liston. Patterson went out of his way to make the fight happen because he didn't want to look like a coward and because he felt that Liston had earned the shot fair and square. That's a fact, a fact which he admitted himself.

How exactly does my pointing out that Patterson had cherry-picked opponents 'going off topic' when that has been one of my main points all along?

Not sure where the hyperbole is.

 

Again, not adressed at me, but... If Ingo, Liston and Ali weren't the top fighters of that era, who were?

Williams has reached somewhat mythical proportions, and if he had started to face top contenders earlier maybe he'd have made a bigger splash, but the fact is that he was at best a fringe contender in the 50's and had beaten no one of note.

Machen was nr. 1 for a year and he should therefore have gotten his title shot. But it's not like he was this monster lurking over the division. He got his nr. 1 spot by beating a guy that Patterson already had beaten twice and then he lost it when Ingo KO'd him.

Folley became nr 1 when Machen was starched by Ingo, but lost it a few months later when he was beaten by Cooper, whom Ingo had KO'd earlier.

So it's not like these guys were some kind of absolute stand outs. They were good contenders and Floyd should have defended against at least one of them. But Ingo might actually have had the best case for being the top contender of the late 50's. He was undefeated, KO'd one of the top guys and beat a guy who beat the other top contender.

There were no real standouts before Liston came along, though. And Patterson was no longer champ when Liston became the supreme top contender by beating Harris, Folley and Machen in rapid succession.

 

Not even one really.

Wrong it was around two.

Liston beat Eddie Machen in Sept. 7, 1960 and didn't get the fight with Patterson until Sept. 25th, 1962. Maybe you should rethink that.

Cleveland Williams was on a seven fight streak after his loss to Liston and was seen as the next contender after him. He wasn't a 'fringe contender' by any means. There was no one else ahead of him after Liston. Zora Folley dropped the odd the fight but he was right there in contention as well. You've acknowledged that he should've fought Machen but didn't. Those were the best fighters of the era and he either didn't fight them or waited too long to fight them.

Tommy Jackson had lost to Jimmy Slade before getting a title shot.
The only plausible HW contender that Roy Harris fought prior to Patterson was Besmanoff.
But hey a numbers a number amirite.

You are misrepresenting my argument.

I acknowledged the fact that he faced Liston pointing out that it took him a while to get round to it. Patterson fought Ali after his title reign. My critique was mainly focused on his tenure as champion.

 

Williams was a contender in the early 60's after Patterson had regained the title. I didn't say he was a top contender in the 50's.

Doesn't justify Patterson not fighting him (Machen).

Ingo had only fought the European crop. His knockout of Machen was impressive but he wasn't exactly the cream of the crop. There were other game American fighters who could've beat him.

Patterson regained the title so saying he 'wasn't the champ' is pretty dubious.

 

You're running away from what you blatantly claimed while claiming you didn't actually say it and now adding extra a host of extra bits of bull**** in.

My work here is done.

 

I explained to you about the rematch clause. He was obliged to defend against Ingo.

Sure, in the best of worlds he defends against Liston instead of McNeely next, but that would still just be about 8 months earlier than when it actually happened.

That run was after Floyd lost the title. He wasn't even ranked during the part of 1959 that Floyd was champ: https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/National_Boxing_Association's_Quarterly_Ratings:_1959

And show me any time when Williams was right after Liston in the rankings.

We agree that Floyd should have defended against at least one of them, but how were they better than Ingo, you mean?

And won two fights after that. Again, check the actual rankings: https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/National_Boxing_Association's_Quarterly_Ratings:_1957

He was the nr. 1 contender when Floyd defended against him.

Pastrano was his best win.

Ok, you said prime, so that was what I responded to. But during his two reigns, he defended against his nr. 1 three times. Machen was the only one who was nr. 1 for a longer period than a few months that he didn't defend against.

Those are the simple facts.

 

Show me when he was ever the top contender during any of Floyd's reigns: https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/National_Boxing_Association's_Quarterly_Ratings:_1960

He brutally knocked out the top contender and then the other top contender lost to someone he had already beaten. Thus he became the top contender: https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/National_Boxing_Association's_Quarterly_Ratings:_1959

What you believe about who would have beaten him is utterly irrelevant.

Liston became top contender when Ingo was champ: https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/National_Boxing_Association's_Quarterly_Ratings:_1960

 

30+ years old is a little bit late to find your courage don't you think? Are you really going to suggest to me that a 37-year Patterson's performance against Bonavena was better than what he accomplished during his career?

Patterson fought better competition in the 60s than he did in his prime, even if Ingo is his best win, so Cus probably wasted it in that regard. He was 32-33 in his fights against Ellis and Quarry, and 36 against Bonavena. Good showings against good competition, especially from a technical standpoint, show .

Of course you don't. Jim Flynn beat both Jack Dempsey (may have been compromised) and Sam Langford in their primes, Jim Johnson beat Joe Jeanette twice and beat Harry Wills. Tommy Burns gave up 15lbs to Marvin Hart (who had gotten the better of Johnson over 20-rounds) when he won the world title.

Langford took Flynn lightly, and similarly to the Gunboat Smith fight; he obliterated him in their rematch just a few months later. Also knocked Flynn out in one round in 1908.
Jim Johnson lost to Jeannette 7, arguably 8 times. Wills injured his elbow in the second round of their fight, and beat Johnson on two other occasions.
The fight reports of Johnson's fight with Hart suggest that Hart was outclassed in every way except for aggression:

"In the first ten rounds Johnson easily demonstrated his superiority. After that Hart made a better showing but he did not have the better of the going and a draw would have been a present to him."

National Police Gazzette

'Hart was the worst punished of the two, and had the negro fought a fight which he showed himself at times capable of he should have won handily. Referee Greggains gave the decision to Hart because of his gameness and aggressiveness."

Trenton Times

If you say so. Johnson was known to carry and toy with his opponents for a while before finally putting them away, Patterson genuinely struggled with those opponents. Big difference.

Patterson was dominant in those fights, outside of being knocked down early on. Johnson himself went the distance with many of those opponents as well

 

It's 1959 and you're a bigtime boxing promoter. You can match the heavyweight champ Floyd Patterson against Ingemar Johansson, Eddie Machen or Zora Folley. Who's the biggest draw? Who brings the excitement? It has to be Ingo. He's just knocked out the #1 contender in the first round. He's a handsome Swede with a punch that has the boxing world buzzing about the Hammer of Thor and Toonder and Lightning. And he's ranked at the top. Folley is a boring fighter from Arizona. His matches don't excite anyone. Machen has just been kayoed in one round by Ingo. Isn't this a no brainer? Are these people supposed to ignore basic business sense to satisfy the purists and aficionados? Gimme a ****ing break. Liston hasn't earned his shot yet. He earns it in 1960 by defeating both Machen and Folley. But then Patterson and Johansson have to settle their differences, and those Floyd-Ingo return fights generated huge closed circuit TV cash. And let me repeat what I have said before: The top U.S. tax bracket in those days was 90 percent! It simply didn't pay a heavyweight champ to risk his title more than once a year. Floyd's lawyer Julius November certainly advised him of that.

The first Liston-Patterson match was in the works by late 1961 when Floyd fought Tom McNeeley
and Sonny trounced Albert Westphal on the same night and the same closed circuit double bill.

 

A fair, alternate representation of this conversation:

HH - "Bananas are blue."

JT - "No, bananas are yellow. Here is a banana, as you can see, it is yellow."

HH - "What about the sky? It is blue. You know nothing about colours."

 

That's no exaggeration either!!!!

 

I've never thought Patterson lacked either courage or heart,and when past his prime he showed no reluctance in taking on top ten contenders.
Whatever you think of Harris and Jackson they were both top ten rated.