Could Floyd Patterson have been the best LHW ever?

After watching the film again this morning, I've concluded that young Patterson, in his 14th pro fight, beat the veteran ex-champ Maxim in their eight-round debate at Eastern Patkway Arena. He didn't beat him on points but he beat him up pretty good. Floyd fought an aggressive fight, landing all kinds of hard punches with both hands.He even nailed the 32-year-old cutie with right hand leads and had him wobbly in round 2. Maxim, best known for his defense, had trouble coping with Floyd's speed and explosiveness but used his experience and 9-pound weight advantage to tire the Olympic gold medal winner. After Floyd began to show some fatigue late in the 6th round, the wise Maxim took over in the final two rounds. Fans booed the unanimous decision but Cus D'Amato greeted it with a smile.He knew the films would yield a trove of material with which to teach his prodigy. He should have been thrilled with Floyd's performance, and probably was.

The Floyd Patterson of 1954 was an undersized, skinny light heavyweight who could sock with force and amazing speed. With the right diet, he probably could have fought at 175 pounds until at least 1958, I'm guessing. But Marciano's retirement pushed up Patterson's timeline for becoming a heavyweight, and the rest is history.

 

This is it. The weight is everything and he would have at least made it comfortably for a few years.

He was 178 in his title eliminator vs Tommy Jackson and won with as broken right hand from the outset. He pumped Archie Moore next fight for the heavyweight title and Moore was the light heavyweight champion for another 5 years before abandoning the weight. Patterson would never have lost to him from late 56 on IMO.

Moore is the consensus #1 or #2 at 175 so a couple of dominant wins over him sure wouldn't hurt Patterson. Harold Johnson was firing again in 58 and he would have been a good name on the resume. Stylistically Floyd would be hell for him. Pastrano would have been a notable opponent as well. Beating Foster would be big as Foster would have been a huge player at 175 for years even with a loss to Patterson.

So the chances to make his mark at 175 were most certainly there providing his body allowed it.

I don't see his chin being an issue. Michael Spinks took a great punch at 175 but was way different at heavyweight and Bob Foster was somewhat similar. It's his opponents that would be more vulnerable given his awesome combination of speed and power. Even if he did get in trouble he has a helluva record coming back at them.

Patterson was still a top 6 heavyweight when he retired end of 72. The guy was a top tenner for 18 odd years. It's insane really and doesn't get talked about enough.

 

Yeah, I don't understand the straight "no" answers here. Floyd did easily beat one of the consensus top LHWs ever when that fighter was at the apex of his LHW reign and Floyd still was green. That should say a lot to start with. Add to that that Floyd always was in shape and took great care of himself. In his last fight I think he displayed at the very least equal handspeed to Ali in that fight, arguably faster. The guy was a phenom in that sense.

 

And he was still only 188 lbs for his last fight. That's what Moore was for his two HW title fights and he made LHW for another half decade after. So Floyd probably could have followed the path that Moore, Maxim, Johnson, Pastrano and Foster took, making 175 for LHW title fights and otherwise campaigning as a HW, and done so throughout his career.

I have a hard time seeing how he wouldn't at the very least be in the consensus top 3 at LHW in that case and quite possibly GOAT.

 

I think he'd push awfully hard, at least for top 5 and we could hone in from there. I mean GOAT would involve a helluva lot of things to go right but he would have had a helluva career there IMO.

 

This is a fine post. The guys you name -- Moore, Johnson, Pastrano -- I like Patterson to knock 'em all out. I don't give the guys who came later -- Foster, Doug Jones, Jose Torres, Dick Tiger or Wayne Thornton -- much of a chance either. Floyd was faster, hit harder and TOOK A HARDER PUNCH ON THE CHIN -- than any of them. So there!

 

If he was determined to stay on as LHW champion I think he does that at least until the late 60's, and that alone, having the longest reign ever, should put him in the top 3 discussion. If he then also beats off the challenge of Foster, and this is far from given, and relinquishes undefeated soon after, he'd without a doubt be my nr 1.

 

All very fair.

 

I suspect Maxim was closer to his prime than Floyd his, when they fought.

Both contested the majority of their respective fights at HW. So long as neither is weight drained, I'd confidently pick the best Patterson to beat the best Maxim.

There's no way to be certain, of course, but I suspect Patterson could have continued to make 175lbs without being significantly weakened for a least part of the career he actually spent at HW.

Put yourself in his shoes. At HW you're a small man in a growing divison with no upper weight limit. To retain speed you may decide against substantially bulking up, but at the very least you're going to eat well and try to add on a few lbs over and above your natural fighting weight. If you're routinely weighing in the low to mid 180's with this mindset, surely you'd be able to make 175lbs without being substantially weakened?

He was 182lbs vs Moore. That is 5.5 lbs lighter than Moore, who continued to defend his LHW title after their fight.

I don't buy (I'm not suggesting you're trying to sell this) that Patterson decided to get to the lowest weight he could safely make for their HW title contest, whilst Moore decided to bulk up to an unnatural 188lbs, then later trim back down to his natural 175lbs.

Imo, it is far more likely both had natural ideal fighting weights in the 176-180lbs region by this point and it wouldn't have been a problem for either to train on a moderate calorie deficit diet to make 175lbs or a moderate calorie surplus diet to weigh somewhere in the 180's.

As for the question posed in the thread title, whilst I suspect Charles would have been both the better and greater LHW if Patterson were able to safely, and indeed did, remain at LHW, I think Floyd could have become one of the greatest LHWs of all time.

 

If Floyd would start his reign by beating Moore (as he started his HW reign) and end it some time after beating Foster, Charles has absolutely no reasonable argument for being a greater LHW. Zero. As for better... I suppose one can say what one wants there, and therefore it's quite meaningless to me.

If an ageing Floyd loses his title to Foster in the late 60', after a Louis long reign, he's still probably the greatest LHW ever, but you can make arguments for others, like Charles.

But a 10-15 year undefeated reign that starts and ends with wins over ATGs... That's the GOAT spot for any division. It would be like Ali starting his reign with Liston and ending it with a win over Holmes. Even excluding names like Frazier and Foreman in that equation, it's stupendous.

And before Foster, I don't see anyone beating Patterson at LHW. He was just too good and too consistent. Frankly, I favour the Patterson that arguably got the better of both Quarry and Ellis over late 60's Foster at LHW as well.

 

I'm sorry to read that my view on who was better is meaningless to you, Bokaj. I find your views interesting, even if I don't agree with all of them.

Moore was damn near 43 and definitely passed his best win when Patterson fought him. Had their fight been at LHW, 1 win over a past prime Moore doesn't equal 3 wins over a prime Moore.

That said, yes, if Patterson beat Moore in 56, reigned unbeaten for 12 years, with regular defences against top contenders, beating Foster in his final defence, he would be the GOAT at LHW, imo.

On the balance of probability (note, I said "I suspect" Charles would remain the greatest ever at LHW), I don't think that would have happened had Patterson resolved to campaign at LHW for as long possible, though I would not rule it out entirely as a possibility.

 

Sure. Why not.

 

Sorry. I did not mean it like that. I meant "you" as a general, including me. Just that better in a fantasy h2h sense is a very unwieldy concept to me.

I will edit that, so that it doesn't come off as a slight on you. Didn't mean like that in any way.

This is all perfectly logical, but it seems like Moore maybe defies logic a bit. Around the Charles fights, Moore would still pick up losses to unknown fighters, and he had some of his best wins not long before the Patterson fight. So I'm not really decided on when I think his peak was, but first half of the 50's would probably be my answer. Weird as that is age wise.

Fair enough. All guess work this, but where do you think his reign ends if he sticks to LHW?

I tend to stay from hypothetical predictions nowadays, but I just don't see anyone before Foster. And Patterson is still the favourite in that one for me.

 

No problems mate.

I agree Moore's "prime" is difficult to distinguish, but:

1) He didn't lose to anyone in the near 2-years between his 1st and 3rd fights with Charles;
2) With 100+ fights aged 32 and 33 he can't be considered green and it's difficult to think he got substantially better after this. Certainly difficult to think his prime lay further ahead than it did behind him aged almost 43 vs Patterson.
3) Excluding losses to Charles and DQ's, Moore went 69-3-3 from his first loss to Charles to his loss to Marciano, in a run that was the finest of his career. One of those 3-losses was to the ATG Harold Johnson, who Moore also beat x 4 during that run. Wins in the late 40's over Jimmy Bivins x 3, Harold Johnson (who went on to beat Moore during the 50's), 24lbs heavier Curtis Shepherd, Oakland Billy Smith x 2, Bert Lytell, Jack Chase & Bob Satterfield, make me guess that Moore was at or around his best from roughly 1947-55, so admittedly late 1956 vs Patterson wasn't too far after that.

As for your final question, it's difficult to say. However, agreeing that there was no LHW active between Moore and Foster that I'd make favourite in a best vs best, one-off contest, is a world away from saying that I think, that on the balance of probability, Patterson would reign for 12-years, ending that reign beating Foster.

8 x weight divisions. c.140-years of boxing history (ok, a little less for Fly & LHW). 1 x instance in history of the (i.e. excluding Alphabet nonsense) champion reigning for 12-years with 20+ defences against mostly ranked contenders. And no instances below HW. The reasons for this include, but are not limited to:

1) Fighters below HW change weight divisions more often than not over a 12-year period. I guess Patterson could have continued at LHW when he moved up to HW, but for 12-years & at a level of performance as good as we saw in his actual career? I'm not so sure.

2) Better fighters lose to inferior, but still world class, fighters over the course of 12-years for a multitude of reasons, including but not limited to:
a) not being at their peak on the night (which again can be due to a multitude of reasons);
b) being injured
c) bad style match up
d) being caught on the chin with a big shot
e) cuts
f) poor ref &/or judges
g) etc.

It's possible Patterson could have beaten Moore at LHW in late 56 and then reigned unbeaten for 12-years, consistently defeating top contenders and ending his reign by beating Foster. On the balance of probability, I think that is less likely than the endless other permutations and he'd really have to go some to rank over the guy who was 3 out of 3 (1 by KO & another by shut out decision) over a consensus top 2 all time LHW, who has on outstanding LHW resume aside from that, including other wins, at LHW, over a top 10 all time LHW (Bivins) and top 20 all time LHW (Marshall).

As I said, my guess is Patterson could have competed at LHW for a while longer and had he resolved to stay there as long as he possibly could, I think he likely would be considered an ATG at that division. JT's position of top 5 ATG, as best guess, seems reasonable to me. On the balance of probability, I think it's more unlikely than likely, that he'd top Charles in my rankings, had he done so.

 

Patterson again gets eternally disrespected on all levels on this forum, I think it’s because of residual resentment over Cus D’Amato’s shenanigans and because of him crapping the bed twice against Liston and because he was on the canvas so much, IMO except for Liston and Ingo that was more because of balance issues than a “glass jaw.”