Floyd Patterson In The Lightheavyweight Division

He'd dominate for a decade or more. Which kind of shows what a nonsense P4P lists are, Patterson never gets mentioned or rated over Moore or Charles but he was the same size and better. He just went for boxings biggest prize.

He wasn't really any bigger than Moore or Charles. Also he bulked up to weigh 188-190. If he was intending to make LHW he wouldn't bulk up

 

Charles went for boxings biggest prize. He held on to the title for 9 defences against a swathe of top ten opposition.

Moore went for boxings biggest prize but was up against Marciano.

 

Unless I misinterpeted your post, your are the one saying that Patterson was not comparable to greats at light heavy, like Conn, Charles and Tunney(a reasonable and IMO correct view) but you are basing this on what he had done at 19, he had won an Olympic gold, defeated Slade and Durelle and gave Maxim a pretty even fight. Your post was " At best he was pedestrian at the point Patterson lost to him. I cannot, from this, extrapolate that Floyd Patterson was some kind of beast at 175 — we’re not talking Ezzard Charles or Gene Tunney or even Billy Conn here." I think what Patterson had achieved at this point was more impressive that the guys you compared him to at the same point in their careers. It obviously became irrelevant as he outgrew the division.

 

It is an absolute bull****.
Patterson WAS BIGGER than moore and Charles. Not huge difference but enough to make the difference between a lhw and a cruiser.
Patterson at 20 was weighing above 175 pounds and Archie Moore At 20weighed 145 pounds, tell me now who the hell was naturally bigger ...he was a skinny boy who incremented his body weight lifting weights

 

Patterson could have ruled the LHWs for over a decade had he stayed there instead of chasing the money. Anyone who thinks he outgrew the division hasnt read much about him. He constantly had to work his ass off to get up into the 180s. He was as natural a LHW as there every was. Read about how hard he worked to get up to his career high weight at the time of 190 for the Johansson rematch. Moore was huge for a LHW with massive arms and a barrel chest. His ability to cut weight was legendary and a source of much speculation in the press. Both Patterson and Charles were about the same height and weight naturally. Charles had a longer reach. Watch the replay of Patterson-Chuvalo on WWoS where Patterson is sitting next to Marciano while they review the fight. Marciano was about 5'10" and he trained down to his fighting weight in the 180s. He was not a huge heavyweight and sitting next to Patterson he makes Patterson look like a little boy.

 

And I personally feel he was robbed against Maxim.

 

Robbed? As in it wasn’t close at all, he ran away with the fight and only a blind man could see it the other way? Or just you disagreed with the decision?

And I can’t see a case for him dominating the division for a decade given he didn’t dominate it in any way when he actually fought in it. He was a good prospect but he didn’t leave much of a mark on the division.

 

He would probably not be as famous nor made as much money but I strongly believe he’d have had a very long and dominant reign at 175 and would rank much higher pound for pound than he seems to be now.

 

Not so sure about that. Archies run between 1952-1958 was the best ever period Of his career. This was where he beat the likes of Clarence Henry, Joey Maxim, Nino Valdes, Bob Baker, jimmy slade, Harold Johnson, Bob Dunlap, Howard King, Yolande Pompey, James J Parker, Tony Anthony, Roger Rischer and Charlie Norkus a period where only Rocky Marciano and Floyd Patterson could beat him.

Nothing before this period was remotely close to that level of wins.

The Pompey, Parker, Anthony, Rischer and Norkus wins all came after Patterson. The turning point was probably the 1960 Giulio Rinaldi fight. But much later, when Archie really was past his best Archie still beat top heavyweights Alejandro Lavorante and Pete Radmacher. And by knockout. Makes me think Patterson still beat a very good Archie.

 

You just priced my point, Patterson could beat him.

Hence in 1956 I think Patterson would have beaten Moore had they fought at 175.

 

From the highlights it looks like Patterson dominated

He also dominated the best LHW of that era weighing slightly over the LHW limit

 

Patterson never fought Charles.

 

Charles was the era before and it's not a given that Moore didn't improve after the 3 Charles fights. He certainly lost far less frequently.

 

What? They fought eachother, prime for prime, three times. How was Charles the era before Moore? And Moore's prime was, IMO, between 1947 and 1951. He only lost less frequently coz his level of competition went down drastically.

 

Over the light heavyweight limit isn’t a 175-pound fight.

And I can cut you a highlight reel that makes it look like Ray Leonard dominated Roberto Duran in the first right. Not hard to do.

Three judges saw it differently than revisionist historians.