Floyd Patterson vs Usyk?

Your bias against fighters from past eras is becoming tiresome.

 

patterson beats him up.

 

Usyk on points I reckon. He'd have a few problems with Floyd s hand speed for sure and it wouldn't be a blow out. I've got him maybe dropping Floyd a couple of times but having to settle for a points win.

 

I haven't seen enough out of Usyk yet to make me think he beats Floyd

 

QI.

 

personally I think Pat is a quality poster who gives insight on to his observations, some of which I agree with some that I don’t (similar to just about every poster). Anyway instead of getting sick of him or a disparaging comment...well you could address his post...he says he does not see evidence of the quick hands in the fights he has seen. You could try to say “check out his fight with so and so” and tell me if you still hold that thought.

As one who is reading through the thread I would find that dialogue much more interesting and informative than the replies...

Just my $0.02...anyway having watched a few of Patterson’s fights this year Quarry I/II, chuvalo and Ellis, I did not find him as quick as my memory thought. Which fights do you guys feel give evidence of his quick hands...personally I don’t dispute it, just interested in what fights you feel his tremendous hand speed is evident in?

 

I wasn’t aware I made a “disparaging” comment or was “sick of him”.
On the technical side of the game I simply wouldn’t really try to cross swords with him, simply because he knows more than I ever will, I believe he trains fighters. I just think he’s bias when he comments on previous era fighters. You just know he is going to comment on glaring technical deficiencies especially in comparison to the modern day “luminaries”. He actually said that he had a couple of kids in his gym who were superior to Greb after viewing the training footage!
From being a knowledgable poster on the technicalities of the game I repeat his wholly predictable bias against old school fighters I find tiresome, sorry.
As for Patterson’s hand speed, almost every poster of any note has him top 3 or number 1 in that regard, there are many examples of it . The Moore fight, the second Ali fight, when he actually had a bit of success.
Whether he beats Usyk probably not, but that speed would certainly aid him in the task.

 

On Patterson's speed, it's more overall than handspeed that impresses me.

This content is protected

His hand speed alone is good, but it's much rarer to see that hand speed, with that footspeed, with that fast upperbody movement.

 

Good, sensible post!

I agree, that Patterson indeed had very fast hands.

As for Pat's "bias" against the old-timers… I do believe, he's simply expressing his honest opinions, when debating old vs modern. He does not seem (to me anyway) like someone who "hates" certain groups of boxers. Also, if we're comparing modern boxers with those from 100+ years ago, I don't think it's unreasonable (if we're being honest), that the argument in most cases (there will of course be exceptions) favors today's fighters.

 

I’m talking about pretty recent old time fighters!
If that makes sense!

 

Yeah - I get what you mean.

 

I don't have any favorite fighters or any fighters that I dislike. I make up my mind as to what kind of fighters I think they are when I watch them on video. I've seen some older fights/fighters that I enjoy watching, Ruben Carter - George Benton is excellent IMO. But, there is a lot of legend out there that I haven't seen evidence to back up, things like, Patterson was super fast, Charles was a master boxer, and lots more. If it bothers some of you that I don't automatically accept the "conventional wisdom" put me on "ignore."

I have plenty of unconventional ideas about boxing. I've watched Ali - George Logan and Jerry Quarry - Alex Miteff in early fights on video and I don't see where Ali or Quarry improved later by fighting wars with better contenders. I suspect that they were as good in those fights as they ever were and additional fights leading up to title fights were just unnecessary wear and tear on them. If a fighter has a good amateur background, he's ready for anybody. Majidov is the guy I would use as an example now. He fought on the undercard of Joshua - Ruiz 2. It was his second pro fight. If he had been fighting Joshua or Ruiz IMO he would have had a live chance to win against either.

Why put him in fights that are just going to cause injuries or wear on him? That might be where the "disconnect" with some of you comes from. I don't think having a lot of fights is a good thing. Some of you do and in your mind, a guy who had 150 fights is superior to a guy who had 20. If I ever see something that changes my mind I'll admit it, but for now I'm a believer in good physical training, having excellent fundamentals, and as little wear and tear on the body as possible. Maybe that's what some of you see as a "bias" against old fighters?

 

Because Boxing has a ranking system?

Funny enough, if Boxers fought the highest ranked guys in their division every time they could, they would end up with less fights, as you suggest, before winning the title. As we know, this is not often the case. Whether it's on the fighter, management or promoter is an individual case. And some fighters need to be brought on more, ala Canelo, due to the lack in amateur career, which you seem to acknowledge.

 

Yeah fundamentally sticking in every decent amateur into the deep end wouldn't work because there's too many of them for the top fighters to face, they have to pre themselves to filter out the ones who turn out not so great and for there to be enough reward for the champion to give them a shot.

 

Henry Cooper fought Ali twice,his given opinion was that he was a much better fighter the second time around.He said he had learned about inside fighting,and was more savvy.