Are Charles and Walcott better than Patterson?

Well Cecil wasn’t talking of power of punch was he? He’s talking about the size difference alone as the big factor in being able to man handle the stuffed up Middleweight and hurt him with even mistimed punches that were not completely on target.

Cecil is completely right about Floyd knowing he was outgunned though. And that the misstimed punches hurting that were not completely on target. The three “holding and hitting” arm punches just before the final great left hook (that was a really great punch) were already rattling Floyd more than they should have. There was not full force, delivery or leverage on those holding and hitting hooks. I know Sonny had incredibly heavy hands but for these to cause as much damage, at much less than full power, how was Floyd so resilient against everything Chuvalo could muster? Chuvalo could really punch. He was not anywhere near ATG level but still dangerous and physically very strong. Floyd traded with George without wilting. He won very heavy exchanges even. But against Sonny he was feeble. As the sparring partner said Floyd knew what to do, he just couldn’t do it.

 

Tough one. H2H, Patterson could beat both, on the other hand, H2H, they both could beat him. BTW, I'm assuming this is at heavyweight. Against Sonny Liston, who defeated Patterson in blow out victories, I do think Walcott and Charles would've done better than Patterson did, but that may be due more to styles. I think they may have done better against Ali as well, but again, due to styles and not to mention that Patterson had an injured back in their first fight.

If I had to pick a winner H2H, I may favor Charles and Walcott, but not without reservation

 

Yes I understand what you are saying. And yes if in those other fights Floyd did that and got away with that then it was because it was not Sonny in there doing it to him. When Floyd fought Jackson or when Floyd fought Chuvalo, guys who came right at him as Sonny did, like Bonavena did also, he was more direct. He had another plan of action. A different mind set and focus.

yes you did. And I gave addressed this.

yes. Do you see what I am saying? I am not saying anything Angelo Dundee said. Dundee said Floyd was psyched out both times. And I have told you this before.

of course they do. You have explained that well enough now. I understand that. Your jumping on my using the term not “taking the lead” because we have a different interpretation of the term. Then you are saying “well if this is so unlike Floyd why did he do it to a completely different guy who fought nothing like Sonny Liston.” My point is the crucial part is “Sonny Liston” that’s the guy he shouldn’t be doing it with. He needs to be more like the way he approached Chuvalo.

he needed to punch with authority. Look at Walcott against Marciano. Completely different guy to Floyd I know. When he fought Rocky he uncharacteristicly slugged right into Rocky. He knew he had faster hands. And he knew he needed to stamp his authority on the youngster right off the mark. So he did. This is a comparison mind you. I imagine there are a great many fights Walcott had where he was less reactionary so early on.

right at the beginning of our debate I told you I knew that Floyd often fought nervous and won. He had Sharkey moments trying to find his feet. I mean he got off the floor to win from behind against bob Radmacher for goodness sake. But he was capable when required to be much more alert.

no. Nothing I say is anymore ridiculous than you. I am offering up my own opinion. I am not trying to sway anyone here. An opinion that is not unique in boxing circles. I’m happy for you to believe Floyd was red hot that night. I don’t think he was. He often wasn’t. Like you say.

maybe. maybe not. It did happen that is the point. All fighters clinch. Floyd overcame the gulf of fighting bigger heavyweights before. Sonny might alwaYs beat Floyd anyway. But Floyd was positively good enough to fare better than Albert Westphal for Christ’s sake. i mean Sonny is good enough to knock anyone out in the first round even if Floyd was red hot since he hit that hard but for me (even if he exhibited meek starts in other fights) Floyd was capable of more than that.

you want to be that my argument is that Floyd was panicking because he was doing boxing. I told you right at the beginning that the signs I see are hard to describe. But you knew that. If Floyd stood there with his knees knocking it would be hard to prove or convince you that I wasn’t thinking it to downgrade Sonny. It’s ok for Angelo Dundee to say he thinks Floyd was psyched out both times but that’s fine.

well technically clinching is illegal. All fighters do it. Boxers come together. The dipping and slipping was great. The positivity there was not. In my opinion. And that’s all it is.

 

I like Walcott over Floyd by stoppage late, Floyd takes Charles

 

no, it’s not luck. Sonny turned up to do his best both times and he did his best both times. Floyd did challenge himself to confront Liston and wanted to deliver both times but he failed. Sonny was too good and Floyd was not good enough. Floyd was not good enough both times to prevent the fast start Sonny achieved twice.

 

It's interesting as I can see any of the three beating the other two .. what is Floyd's biggest win ? You'd have to say winning the title v.s. Moore. Then the return w Ingo. Say what you may but Archie was an old man and Ingo one of the worst men to ever hold the title ...

Charles was in my opinion a better fighter. Floyd may have been faster and maybe even hit harder w his left hook but Charles was a better fighter. I can see Floyd doing better w Walcott because of his speed. Little wonder Floyd lacked confidence when you combine his childhood demons with a manager who fed him the most pathetic title opponents he could get away with. All three were terrific fighters capable of big wins based on stylistic match up ...

 

Patterson was one of the best under 200 lbs fighters to ever grace the ring. The only under 200 pound fighter I'd comfortably pick to beat Patterson would be Rocky Marciano. I'd even favor Patterson over the cruiser weight version of Holyfield. But next to Marciano, Charles and Walcott, IMO, have the best chance at beating Patterson out of anyone from 175-200 pounds. Holyfield would come in 4th after those three. I wouldn't favor Patterson over Marciano, I'm on the fence regarding him vs Charles and Walcott and I'd slightly favor him over the cruiser Holy from Qawi 2 onward, big favorite over the Holy prior to Qawi 2. Holyfield would need a size advantage to be favored over Patterson, so at heavyweight, I'd favor him to beat, even stop Patterson.

Also, Patterson was one of those fighters that it would be virtually impossible to beat if you were giving away a significant amount of size to him, no matter how great you were pound for pound.

And I'd favor Patterson over many modern day heavies. Obviously, the Bowe's, Tyson's, Lewises, K2 brothers etc are off the table for Patterson to likely beat. But the Berbicks, Briggs, Weavers, Stewarts etc of the world could likely be taken by Patterson, he could even have beaten say a Ray Mercer or a Hasim Rahman on the right night, even with the weight that Patterson would be giving up. Very good and talented fighter.

 

I wouldn't say that Liston was better than Patterson. Even though Liston beat Patterson.

IMO, Patterson was the more skilled fighter, Liston was put over the top with his size and punching power combined with the skill he did have and Patterson's style. Not to veer off topic, but it's one reason why I'd pick a young Tyson to beat Liston as Tyson and Patterson were more or less equally skilled, but Tyson had more physicality than Patterson and was more on Liston's level in that department. I do think a fighter Patterson's size could perhaps beat Liston, but they'd need a different style. That's why I think Walcott or Charles would be better bets to pull it off.

If Patterson was 15, 20 pounds heavier with similar skill and a better chin or if Liston was 15, 20 pounds lighter and didn't hit as hard, I'd pick Patterson over Liston each and every time. I think a 70s George Foreman would beat Patterson in the same manner Liston did and for the same reasons. But I still think Patterson was more skilled than George Foreman. But if you could beef Patterson up like was done with Holyfield, while letting him retain his skill and speed and giving him a Holyfield like chin, I'd pick Patterson over Foreman.

 

A very good post. I agree with it.

 

This is a fun thread with some interesting points from several contributors. It's a good round robin with these three choices. To me I can't decide I think it over and pick a different guy each time.