Floyd Patterson would have sucked in any other era

Yeah, going through the articles at the time, Ingo didn't seem to be seen as a very serious challenger despite his KO's over Cooper and Machen. I think his conduct during the Olympic final in 1952 still hung over his name. And it might also partly have been ignorance about a fighter that did his fighting outside the US.

I don't know what Cus and Floyd thought of him, though. But all three fights were quite good money.

 

I think this has a lot to do with Patterson not looking the part of a HW champion, and his rep wasn't helped by him admitting that he brought a false beard to fights in order to sneak out undected in case he lost.

 

I think Floyd Patterson could have been the Heavyweight World Champion in many eras. As for the Lineal Champions, who came before him, I would pick prime Floyd Patterson over prime James J. Corbett, Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns, Jess Willard, Gene Tunney, Jack Sharkey, Primo Carnera, James J. Braddock, Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott, and can include Ingemar Johansson (who came before Floyd's second reign). I do not like him against Max Baer, because of styles, but Max was erratic, even in his prime, so Floyd has a chance against Max, depending on which prime Max shows up.

 

I have Holmes fighting 4 champs + * M Spinks was Lhvy Champ ,and 14 contenders.

 

I think Patterson would have been a good fighter in most eras. But in the later periods he might be better served at cruiser

 

Found some interesting info on the Floyd-London fight. It was actually meant to be Cooper if he beat London in their fight. He did, but was so damaged about the eyes in the process that he couldn't make the date, so London got the shot instead: https://vault.si.com/vault/1959/01/26/ingo-is-the-man-for-1959

This does not add up well with Cus having little confidence in Patterson. Trying to sign the nr 2 contender for a fight scheduled less than two months before an already signed fight with the nr 1 contender is not a sign of lacking confidence.

'57 was a so-so year for Floyd as a champ, '58 wasn't very good, but you can't fault the challengers he wanted to take on in '59.

 

I think he meant Orlando Cruz. Which is fair.

 

Who'd he fight?

 

Holmes and probably Frazier

 

Holmes ties him ,Frazier is some distance behind with 12.
You thesis is blown out of the water.
You have no case the stats defeat you.

 

Frazier has more, I count 19

 

I was a bit wrong with this. Rocky defended against nr 1, nr 2, nr 1, nr 1, nr 2 and nr 1.

 

I think that you couldn't be more wide of the mark to be honest.

Patterson was ranked in the top ten by Ring Magazine, in more years than any other heavyweight in the history of the sport.

This despite being ill suited to the division, both in terms of size and style.

Give the man some credit.

A man like that is going to go somewhere in any era.

A man like that is going to prosper, in an era where he can cherry pick a weight class, and a version of the title.

 

How do you think he does in the post Tunney, pre Louis era? Let's say 21 year old Patterson moves up to heavyweight and fights for the title in 1930, I can see him reigning until defeated by a young Joe Louis in 1937. He may have to regain the title, possibly from Max Schmeling or Max Baer, both of whom I can see defeating Patterson and some may favor them over Patterson. But he also could defeat them as well.

 

Making someone way richer isn't a disservice tho. There is also miles more fame winning the heavyweight title and indeed keeping it for some time. There was only one champ back then and being the top dog in the top division was huge.