Did Zora Folley and Eddie Machen deserve title shots against Floyd Patterson?

I actually agree with you but here is the ratings that feature Brian London so surprisingly high.


National Boxing Association ratings – via Google News
(as of November 5, 1958)

Champion: Floyd Patterson
1. Ingemar Johansson
2. Brian London
3. Nino Valdez
4. Zora Folley
5. Willie Pastrano
6. Eddie Machen
7. Henry Cooper
8. Roy Harris
9. Mike DeJohn
10. Sonny Liston

 

I think this would have been a good thing. Machen certainly was looking something like the outstanding contender having beaten Valdes and Jackson.

absolutely correct. On paper, using only what was known by 1958, there is not much to chose from Harris and Folley.

This is absolutely crucial to the matter. It isn’t part of the equation to include what these men did after Patterson lost to Ingo.

 

Patterson had some jokes for title defenses.

 

Foley should only have got a shot when he beat Machen on points in 1960 but not before it. Between losing to Cooper and losing to Liston foley had stayed busy in 9 fights where every single guy had lost his last fight. That was not good enough. Problem was Foley had already lost decisively to Sonny Liston before Zora could beat Machen, then Sonny beat Machen too. Of course after this was during the whole Floyd v Ingo, Ingo v Floyd, Floyd v Ingo saga.

So the only window is a year where Ingo could not fight him because he was contracted to rematch Floyd. It’s just a shame is all.

 

Brian London has a very good year in 1958. Stoppage Wins over Erskine and pastrano launched London to #2 with the NBA at the end of the year. The winner of London vs Cooper was promised a title fight with Patterson. Cooper did replace London because he won that fight and had just beat Foley. However, Coopers manager demanded too much money. So Zora was out, Machen was out, pastrano was out, Ingo was in but an international challenger was decided as a warm up for Ingo. London had already surpassed Foley in the ratings before Brian lost to Cooper so the NBA accepted London on the strength of that. Once Machen and Foley had lost their ranking to two Europeans there was no way anybody but a European was going to get a shot at the champion. The Europeans looked hot that year. Cooper, London And Johansson were the surprise winners that year.

 

Styles make fights, you can count the examples.
Despite Machen's 'mental' problems, Floyd basically ran the table on him in July 64.
Had they fought in the late 50's?...not as one-sided but a Floyd victory IMO.
Folley vs. Patterson late 50's?...Way well have been a good s c r a p, but to deny Patterson would have taken this one as well is certainly not a stretch.
IMO Harold Carter might have slipped and slided to a decision except for the age old mantra that you have to 'Take' it to the Champion to win.

 

Thing is all three of the highest ranking Americans NBA #1,#2, #3 all went to Europe and lost their rankings to Europeans Ingo, Cooper and London.

There is no getting around thIs. It was sensational. Machen and Foley drew with each other then lost to one European each. It was within a short period too. You could say They sucked in 1958-59.

 

My point is why was Folley the #2 contender in early 1958?

Folley was KO'd in 1955 by Johnny Summerlin & Young Jack Johnson. In 1956 he defeated Nino Valdes, and then won two split decisions over Wayne Bethea. After the second Bethea fight, this is his list of opponents--

Howie Turner, Johnny Hollins, J. D. Harvey, Jimmy Wood, Julius Griffin, Eduardo Romero, Monroe Ratliff, Duke Sabedong, Edgardo Romero, Garvin Sawyer, Eddie Machen, Art Swiden, Pete Rademacher, Henry Cooper.

An unimpressive list, and the two good fighters, Machen & Cooper, he did not defeat.

I honestly think Harris should have been the #2 contender going into 1958. He was undefeated, on a roll, and coming off victories over Pastrano and Baker. Even some of his lesser opponents were at a higher level than the group Folley was fighting. Looking carefully at Folley's record, it becomes very understandable why he lost to Cooper. He simply was rarely fighting good men. I think he tightened up his game later after meeting better competition.

Machen should not have had to fight Folley to get a title shot in my opinion. I don't know who exactly decided that there should be an elimination.

It is hard to sell a guy coming off a draw as an opponent, so I understand why they went to Harris. Why the Machen-Folley fight in the first place? I would like to know.

As for Harris, he was a worthy contender, I think.

 

yes, but in fairness, Harris wasn't one of them. He was a solid high-ranked contender in 1958. He should have been rated higher in my judgment. He was ranked behind Pastrano whom he had beaten, and Folley, who was feasting on journeymen and really hadn't beaten as good a list of opponents, and whose overall record wasn't as good as Roy's.

Harris wasn't some sort of great fighter, but he had proven himself a solid enough contender.

 

I think Machen should have gotten a shot in 1958.

Folley should have gotten the shot against Johansson in 1960 that Patterson got because of the rematch clause, but Patterson actually re-won the championship.

There is no convincing reason for Folley to have gotten shots over Harris, Cooper, or Johansson in 1958 and 1959.