Were the criticisms of D'Amato during Patterson's reign justified?

I'm not criticizing Floyd I thought I had made that clear?

 

Well, his reign, the decisions Cus made for him, or whatever you want to call it.

I just don't see much wrong. And there are certainly several champions who are ranked higher by most who have as big or bigger gaps in theirs. So I don't understand where all this have come from in the first place.

 

Under D'Amato he defended is title against four of the absolute worst fighters that ever fought for the heavyweight title . Interesting how some choose to saintify D'Amato for fighting the crooked forces that be but then justify his opponent selection, as pathetic and choreographed as it was on having to follow the rules of the governing body. Name one heavyweight champion that defended his title exclusively against such terrible opposition while far better fighters were forced to the side .. you cannot because it never happened before or since and it was all due to Cus. As far as Ingo goes, Im sure no one knew how pathetic a fighter he was and how lucky his win over Machen was for Floyd than Cus who must have been mortified and shocked when Ingo took Floyd out the first time ..

I also think Cus hurt Floyd who had severe confidence issues and was well aware of the press outcry over his horrendous opponent selection during his first reign ... to know his own manager was behind it , no matter how many factors played into decisions mattered little. Read the press at the time and you will see Patterson was viewed as a joke. To Floyd's credit, post title reign and post D'Amato he went on to show he was a far better fighter than how he was originally promoted and protected ..

 

He arguably defended against the nr 1 contender (Ingo still being top contender after losing the rematch isn't unreasonable, I think) every year he was champ, bar 1958 when he defended against the nr 3.

That isn't made any less of a fact just because he gave time for three undeserving challengers.

And it's waaaaaaayyyy better than Johnson or Dempsey did. I mean Johnson's reign was a joke in comparison. And Dempsey didn't just bypass his first and second contender for years - he bypassed everyone for three years.

Frazier went almost two years without defending against anyone in the top 20, and even after that he bypassed the clear nr 1 - Ali.

Ali didn't defend against a top contender after Norton in 1976. That's one and a half years. He bypassed Foreman, Young and Norton during this time.

Foreman's second reign... Sweet jesus.

Tyson paid step aside money to Lewis when he became champ again.

Lewis was stripped for refusing both Ruiz and Byrd.


So what is the big problem with Patterson's reign in comparison?

 

Not from me, I think my posts were pretty forgiving/positive?

 

Ok. I'll take you word for it.

 

You don't have to take my word for it you can read my posts on the thread and decide for yourself.

 

Bump.

 

Ha, ha. You found this old chestnut.

 

When an interesting issue comes up, why reinvent the wheel?

 

True and Salerno was up there at the or near the very top of the New York mob. Legend has it that he had a piece of Tyson. At one time in the 80s Fat Toney regarded as the richest man in the Mafia.

 

He was criticized for defending the title against a terrible opponent like McNeeley, but everyone at the time knew that fight was just a tuneup and that Floyd would fight Liston next. That's why Liston fought Albert Westphal on the same night Patterson took on McNeeley, and the two fights were broadcast in movie theaters as a double bill, to build interest in Patterson-Liston. They fought nine months later.

 

During Patterson's reign, the top federal income tax bracket was something like 91 percent. I think this explains in part why as champion Floyd used to fight once a year.

 

Cus was called a paranoiac. I think he had legitimate concerns. I wouldn't feel safe if Frank Carbo and Company were my enemy. I'd want to have plenty of muscle on my side.