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

I absolutely agree with this.

 

Yeah, I'm also curious about the eliminator and why Folley, not Machen, was NBA:s nr 1. Machen wasn't outstanding like Liston a couple of years later, but he should reasonably have earned the nr 1 spot off of his conclusive victory over Jackson. And, as you say, Harris had a good case for the nr 2 spot.

 

Makes sense.

 

Roy Harris was not at his best that night due to several reasons, one being his not being able to train and spar as he was accustomed to, due to having to spend time away from home due to his service with The United States Army. With that being said, Roy still offered no excuses after losing to Patterson, simply stating, ” I tried my best”.
More good overview of Roy Harris' boxing career & background:
http://clutchcityboxing.com/roy-cut-and-shoot-harris/

 

let's compare the Folley and Harris records--

Folley
Howie Turner--(20-4-5)
Johnny Hollins--(9-10-1)
J D Harvey--(10-19)
Jimmy Wood--(0-0-0)
Julius Griffin--(6-3)
Jeff Dyer--(18-8-1)
Edgardo Romero--(8-6)
Monroe Ratliff--(9-8-4)
Duke Sabedong--(13-5-1)
Edgardo Romero--(8-8)
Garvin Sawyer--(13-4)
Eddie Machen--(24-0)
Art Swiden--(28-12-1)
Pete Rademacher--(0-1)
Henry Cooper--(16-7-1)

Harris
Alvin Williams--(50-13-6)
Calvin Butler--(8-4)
Oscar Pharo--(27-4)
Charley Norkus--(26-13)
J D Marshall--(5-1)
Claude Chapman--(25-4)
Joey Rowan--(29-12-1)
Bob Baker--(47-9-1)
Willie Pastrano--(40-4-5)
Willi Besmanoff--(37-9-7)

Judge for yourself. In all this time, Folley had not only not beaten a rated fighter, but even someone I would call a fringe contender or a gatekeeper. It is almost laughable that Folley's management claimed the right to a championship match after beating Rademacher who had never won a pro fight.

Earlier in 1956, Folley had beaten Valdes by UD and Bethea twice by SD. After that, it was more or less nothing but padding his record.

Really, looking at these records, I think if Machen is not going to be rated #1, Harris should have been.

The only thing I can figure out here is that Folley was safely tied to the IBC (and thus to Frankie Carbo) while Harris was "clean" and apparently both The Ring and the NBA danced to the IBC tune.

Cooper at 16-7-1 might not have been all that great, but he really was better than anyone Folley had defeated except Valdes.

 

"Valdes was arguably better than anyone Harris beat up to that time."

Valdes had lost to Baker in late 1955. Baker was rated in 1956, not Valdes. You can say Valdes was better, but in fact they fought twice and Baker won both of them.

By the way, there is a lot of ducks and drakes by you with the ratings. We all should genuflect to Folley being rated above Harris in 1958. That is critical. Pastrano being highly rated doesn't matter. Nor Baker being rated.

Baker didn't fight Harris in 1958. He fought him in early 1957.

Here is Baker's record from late 1955 through 1957

Nino Valdes---Won (Valdes ranked 6th at end of year, probably higher going into fight)
Hurricane Jackson[---Lost (Jackson was ranked #1 at end of year)
John Holman---Won (Holman was the #4 ranked fighter at the end of 1955 and had won all his later fights, so I think he was still up there)
Hurricane Jackson---Lost
Harold Carter---Lost (Carter was the #3 contender)
Toxie Hall---Won
Jeff Dyer---Won (Dyer was unrated, but he might be the best opponent Folley beat that year)
Willi Besmanoff*---Lost
Roy Harris---Lost (Harris ranked #4 that year)
Eddie Machen---(rated #1 that year)
George Chuvalo---Won
Neal Welch---Won
D-ck Richardson---Won

Well, Baker actually is beating better opponents here than Folley was. He also beat Valdes, as well as Holman, Chuvalo, and Richardson. Look at the guys Folley fought in 1957 and explain how any of these guys prove Folley a top contender. And yes, Chuvalo & Richardson were so-so, but they still are above what Folley was beating.

*Besmanoff---this is the one hard to explain loss by Baker through 1957. All the others were top five guys. Willi was just a trial horse type who lost most of the time, but he would pop up with an unexpected victory here and there over the likes of Miteff (who beat Valdes), McMurtry, and DeJohn.

By mid-1958 Baker really was going back, but I don't see that as being relevant to the Harris fight. And you have posted often about Baker being shafted by the judges against Jackson, but are apparently flip-flopping for this thread.

"Harris had a dreadful career."

A short one, but his losses were all to men who rated in the top five. He had an option outside boxing, becoming a lawyer, and understandably took it when it was obvious he was not going to reach the top. How much the post-Liston fights were just for picking up law school tuition money might be pertinent.

"Harris got knocked out twice by Bob Cleroux, who, Folley easily defeated."

And Folley got knocked out by Lavorante, whom Harris easily defeated. Folley only had somewhat of a better career, not a grossly better one. He was KO'd by Liston also. He lost a decision to Cooper also. He even managed to lose to London in 1967. Folley was old, but so was London.

You will certainly point out that Lavorante was only a four fight tyro when Harris beat him. But he was also only a 13 fight tyro when he KO'd Folley.

But future accomplishments or failures aren't relevant. And going into 1958, I think Harris had done more because he was actually fighting name fighters most of the time.

 

I have posted that I thought Machen should have gotten a shot at Patterson in 1958 and that I can't see why there was any reason to match him with Folley in an elimination. I would like to know why there was such a match.

But Machen blew the fight with Folley. He didn't win. That certainly puts a bit of a cloud over him.

My main point here is that Harris in fact had done as much, and I think actually more, to earn a title shot than Folley had to this point. If that is a problem, so be it.

Look at the guys Folley actually defeated in 1957 and 1958 and tell me who impresses you.

on Patterson--Jackson was the #1 contender. Rademacher was a disgrace and viewed that way. Even for good money, I don't think D'Amato should have accepted this fight. Harris was a decent contender who had earned a shot. London shouldn't have gotten a shot, but is no where near the worst challenger ever to get a chance. Johansson was the #1 contender. Johansson in 1961 was a rubber match that the public wanted. McNeeley was a disgrace, but this was I think a keep busy fight with a limited purse for tax purposes. Liston was the outstanding #1 challenger.

My comments on Rummy's decade list was that for a guy who ranked so high for decades Patterson really didn't beat that many top men. He did defend though against three #1 contenders as champion. It was Johansson who didn't fight Folley when he was #1. Folley then lost to Liston, and Floyd fought Liston.

The problem with Folley is he simply didn't stand out. He beat no one of substance in 1957 and 1958, lost to Cooper, improved with a run of wins over trial horses and then a win over Machen. He was now #1, but quickly was KO'd by Liston. In 1961 he was KO'd by Lavorante. In 1962 he was KO'd by Jones. In 1963 he lost badly to Terrell.

Your discussions of this era have caused me to reevaluate Cleveland Williams upward. I now think he might have been better than Folley and Machen before he was shot. He certainly did better against Terrell, and his "weak" early competition is really not that much different from Folley's.

As for Harris, he has a good record.

I remember really enjoying reading the Police Gazette (which by the way also ranked fighters) and I remember they always dismissed Folley and Machen as the "ho-hum twins" before focusing on the guys they felt should get shots at the title like Ingo and Sonny and even old Archie Moore.

 

on Daley

"D'Amato was merely trying to protect his fragile champion"

Then why match him with Johansson who blew out Machen in a rather frightening KO?

"whose chin made tin resemble titanium"

Only Johansson, Liston, and Ali ever stopped Patterson. Only Liston ever put him down for the count. To me this hardly proves a "tin" jaw.

Harris--"couldn't take a punch"

Well, he hadn't been knocked out or even lost a fight when he was matched with Patterson. The next year he beat Charlie Powell in Powell's first fight after Powell KO'd Valdes. He also beat Lavorante who later KO'd Folley and Bygraves who had KO'd Cooper.

If Harris had a weak chin, what proved it. Losing to the champion in a fight which went 12 rounds and in which Harris was not counted out? Moore didn't last that long with Patterson.

In his whole career, Harris was only stopped by Patterson and Liston, in neither of which he took the count, and by Cleroux, who KO'd 38 men in 55 fights in his career. I don't see anything that proves he had that weak a chin.

"rewrite history"

History is not the past. It is what folks accept as the past. When it is wrong, we rewrite it all the time to bring it into line with what we now know about the past. Rewriting history is actually the job of historians.