[Deleted by user.]

I think so. Ali has struggled with swarmers before, and he did very well against Ali in their rematch when his back wasn’t broken. Ali has always been susceptible to the left hook, and Patterson had a marvellous one that he knew how to time perfectly. Not to mention Patterson was arguably faster than Ali was, so I don’t think it’s unfair to say that a peak Patterson would present all kinds of trouble for Ali.

 

On the Nov 22 1965 title defense for 23 year old Muhammad Ali that I saw with my Dad and Uncle on Closed Circuit Television live, Ali was clearly superior before the alleged back injury for Floyd Patterson, Ali was moving and popping Floyd with his swift left job while adding acoustic sound to it. It really was not a match, Patterson is a talented classy man but really had no chance in 1965, their proposed match scheduled for April 1967 would probably produce the same results as their first match. That bout never happened as Ali was stripped of his title and boxing license for defying military induction.

 

Agree, on paper Floyd seemed to stand a better-than-average chance, but I think Ali was just too fast and that negated almost all of Patterson's attributes. Truthfully, in terms of "quickness" (not the same as speed), Floyd was Ali's match, if not a little better, but Muhammad had that elusive style that made it hard to tag him. He was always just a step ahead of Floyd. I do believe he had a legitimate back injury, but it didn't affect the outcome.

 

Floyd had it all going for him, was just that chin of his really.

 

Patterson was a great match for Ali, just what a fighter wants in an opponent, FP was smaller, weaker, and slower. Can't see any way FP could win or even push Ali. Put FP in Ali's body and Ali in FP's body and then I'd pick FP.

 

When I saw their first fight (Ali vs Patterson) in 1965. It appeared that Floyd knew he was way over his head against a peak 23 year old Muhammad Ali who the year before had taken care of Patterson's tormentor Sonny Liston, who was at ringside that evening. Ali toyed with Floyd, and punished him for disrespecting his religion, he carried Floyd.

 

On paper Patterson should have given Ali all sorts of hassles, particularly due to his speed and firepower.

 

Frazier seemed as fast as Ali, and his punches carried a lot more steam than Ali's. Frazier threw punches that were intended to do damage, Ali's were more arm punches designed to highlight his speed and win points. Frazier was much shorter and some lighter, but was probably on a par with Ali strength wise.

I consider Frazier a bigger, stronger person than Patterson. I never saw Patterson in person, but a 140 pound former world champion told me that he met FP when FP was the Chairman of the NYSAC and FP was the smallest heavyweight he had ever seen, anywhere. He said that FP was around his height (5-8), maybe a little taller, and had the same frame size. He was not denigrating FP at all, he was amazed that a man that small had done so well fighting heavyweights. He said that FP was in his 50s when they met and he was guessing that FP had shrunk some...I have met Frazier and he was not big, but he was much bigger than the 140 pound champion. As I said, I've never seen FP, but the guy who told me the story had no reason to lie and FP does look small in the videos I've seen beside other heavyweights.

 

But did not.

 

I met both Floyd Patterson and Joe Frazier. Patterson in 1978 and Frazier in 1985. Both were in their early 40s when I met them and at those times about the same height, around 6 feet even. Patterson looked to be the same as his fighting weight and looked like he could still go 15 rounds - he was in amazing shape! He had brought his amateur boxing club to a small town in New Jersey. Joe Frazier looked to be in good shape too. He had a different type of body build. Patterson had muscular arms and shoulders and a slender waist, while Frazier was wide but not fat.

As far as Patterson being a good match for Ali on paper, I fully agree. I have always felt that he should have been competitive with Ali. I felt that their 1972 rematch was a better measure of their respective abilities against one another than their 1965 bout. I have had back problems myself and know how debilitating it can be. It is unfortunate that the 1972 bout ended on a cut. Injuries and cuts are always a possibility and take nothing away from the legitimacy of a victory, but it would have been interesting to see how the bout unfolded if it went the limit.

 

Ali 1 and 2 was a bit like Cooper 1 and 2, but reversed. When Ali was too relaxed he could be a bit stationary and not alert enough, and therefore there to be hit hard since he rarely used a proper guard. But when he was on point and moving this was less of an issue.

In both Patterson 1 and Cooper 2 he was at his fastest and also very focussed and that meant that the easy opportunities that Ali could present when he stood right in front of an opponent weren't there. And against Floyd he obviously also felt he had a point to prove, which it was one of his very best performances, although not that easy to watch.

As stated many times before, I don't think we should make very much out of the injury. We don't know when it occurred and the adrenalin in a fight means that fighters can fight on with broken hands and broken jaws, so I think it's fairly rare that injuries actually effect the outcome of a fight, even though it does happen.

 

Good post, I saw both of those fights live. Patterson in 1965 and the second Cooper bout in May 1966 on ABC's Wide World Of Sports.

 

The question was 'on paper'

 

I seem to remember Patterson giving a very good account of himself in the rematch, infact from my memory of watching it a long time ago. I believe the fight was about even until it eventually got stopped.

I'm not saying Ali was ever in trouble of losing, but Patterson was certainly competitive all the way through.

Definitely impressive though considering Patterson was 37 years old and at the end of his career.