Floyd Patterson would have sucked in any other era

The ultimate glass cannon. Blinding speed, powerful hook...no chin at all.

I would say he could be a hell of a LHW in any era, and, yes, he could succeed at cruiser, and if he could get the right guy, he could succeed at heavy. If Haye can do it...

 

Just an FYI: I don't think I used the word 'sucked'.

Secondly, Patterson didn't fight any of the top contenders in his prime and you think that's defensible? There are people on this forum that are in fits over Dempsey not fighting Wills. Patterson avoids all the top fighters of his era and we're supposed to give him a pass because he managed to hold a ranking? That's laughable.

 

You don't think you did? That's laughable.

Jackson was a top 3 heavyweight. Moore was #1 or #2. Ingo was #1 and then later he fought him when he was champ then around top ranked next outing. He fought Liston TWICE. Ali was CHAMP.

I suggest having a few years off and studying up on the sport.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

He did do very well over several eras already, so this claim falls flat right there. There's 18 years between his fight against Maxim (which most thought he won) and the one against Bonavena (which quite a few thought he lost to tbf), so he was competitive on the world stage for almost two decades. It's not like he topped the division for a few years and then disappeared.

I can see why one would think that he'd be less competitive in later eras when HWs became much larger. Being an essentially aggressive fighter and giving up more than 30 lbs isn't ideal of course. But I don't see why he would be less competitive in earlier eras.

 

Homicide Hank, I think it's fair to note that Floyd was at the time the youngest heavyweight title holder in history. He was only 21, having only within months exceeded 180 pounds. He hadn't yet grown into his body. He was essentially still a boy. D'Amato wasn't just a trainer. He was Floyd's manager. He did protect him, yes, but that was good business. However, Floyd chafed under that protection and once he split with Cus he fought everyone.

P.S. All the evidence suggests that Rocky Marciano wanted no part of Floyd Patterson.

 

Fair.

 

Quarry would be his best win.

 

What about Williams, Folley and prime Machen.

You clearly don't follow the sport. If you did you would know that Patterson went against his handler's wishes to procure the Liston fight. Patterson became a laughingstock because he was blatantly avoiding the top contenders and tried to rectify that by stepping up to Liston. We all know what happened afterwards. Seems like you are the one who needs the education.

Patterson's opponents were cherry-picked for him. What other champion fought a debutants coming out of the Olympics?

 

Moore, Jackson (second fight), Ingo, Liston and Ali were either top contenders or champions when he faced them. Harris was ranked third.

 

You've got more faith in Patterson than his own trainer did.

Ironically, I'd say some of Patterson's more impressive showings against good heavyweights like Ellis, Quarry and Bonavena, came after he defied Cus and started taking risks. Cus was wrong to lack so much confidence in Floyd.

A washed Dempsey is better than a prime Patterson. He still had enough in the tank to win against Sharkey (who is also better than Patterson). I hold Tunney's wins over Heeney and Risko over anything Patterson did in his prime.

I agree that Risko and Heeney are underrated, but Sharkey was cooking Dempsey until Jack had to resort to fouling in the last 2 rounds. Sharkey was winning dominantly on every card. Compton made a good video showcasing Dempsey’s fouls in the last few rounds of the Sharkey fight, gets to Sharkey about a minute in:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EKMa8bXLzPU&t=268s&pp=ygUURGVtcHNleSBzdGV2ZWNvbXB0b24=

In any case one only has to observe the footage of Tunney with a critical eye to see that Patterson couldn't have troubled him very much. Superior footspeed and footwork, more skilled in every facet of boxing, a consummatering general: more seasoned, moretried and tested over different divisions, taller and heavier, I can go on.

While I agree that Gene is the superior technician, and overall boxer, I do find Patterson's speed, size and explosivity to be very compelling in this matchup. The closest thing Gene's faced to Floyd is Dempsey, but as you know I don't rate Dempsey during his comeback very highly. I definitely give Patterson a significant chance in this matchup.

Are we going to forget his wins against Fireman Jim Flynn, Frank Childs, Jack Bonner, Jim Johnson, Frank Moran and Tommy Burns? Hell even the washed-up Jim Jeffries showed more courage and heart in that fight than Patterson did his entire career. What does Patterson have stylistically that could trouble Johnson? You can't even make the size argument here because Johnson was bigger! Johnson would mash him up up-close the same way Liston did. How you can make a case for a soft, overprotected fighter like Patterson over a hardened pro like Johnson is beyond me. One of us must be dreaming.

I don’t rate Flynn, Childs, Bonner, Battling Jim Johnson or Moran particularly highly, nor do I think they’re on the level of someone like Patterson (or his lesser opponents) to make viable comparisons about the matchup between Johnson and Patterson. Burns was good, but never beat a genuine good heavyweight. His best win is over a fellow LHW in O’Brien, he was totally out of his league when fighting someone like Johnson.

Patterson would not be the biggest heavyweight Johnson faced, but he would definitely be the most skilled offensive heavyweight he ever faced, as well as possibly the fastest. That’s the key difference in this matchup compared to Johnson’s other heavyweight fights. If the fight is under the modern ruleset, I’m almost certainly picking Floyd. You’re right about Johnson’s advantages over Floyd on the inside, which would be integral to the fight’s outcome under Johnson’s ruleset, but I certainly don’t see him doing a Liston level demolition job. Maybe a late stoppage.

What does Patterson have that could trouble any of those guys stylistically? All he had was fast (though often wild and inaccurate) combos, a Gazelle left hook and the ability to bob and weave.

I don’t feel like you’re giving Patterson his due here, while he could definitely get wild and sloppy at times he also knows when to keep it technical and refined. I think it mainly depended on who he was up against.

Do you think either of those guys would've taken eleven rounds to dispatch of Brian London? Six rounds to take care of the debutante Radamacher? Twelve rounds to get rid of Roy Harris? Ten for Tommy Jackson?

Probably? Jack Johnson took 9 rounds to stop Bill Lang who looks more unimpressive than those men do on film, also took 14 rounds to knock Burns out despite him being a light heavyweight. Went 15 with rookie Jeanette, went 20 with Gardner who was outweighed by 30 pounds.
I don’t think going longer distances with lesser fighters really makes any less of you as a fighter, because in that case Jack Sharkey should be disregarded in almost pretty much every matchup against ATGs. However, we also know what Sharkey looks like when he's faced good competition, since he was able to beat the best fighters in the division. ATG old timers used to go long distances with lesser fighters pretty often as well.

 

Not adressed at me, but Williams was just a fringe contender during Patterson's first reign. Floyd should have defended against Machen in 1958, though.

Well, we have one now that fought a debutant coming from another sport.

And even though the likes of Stander and Coopman weren't debutants, I actually think Rademacher was a better fighter than them.

 

How many years did he avoid Liston before fighting him?
What about Folley and Williams and prime Machen?

 

Lets revisit your claims, and i quote!

Secondly, Patterson didn't fight any of the top contenders in his prime and you think that's defensible? Patterson avoids all the top fighters of his era and we're supposed to give him a pass because he managed to hold a ranking?

I shot this down in flames with multiple examples to the contrary. Williams, Folley and Machen are completely and utterly irrelevant to the rubbish you claimed. This really shouldn't be difficult to understand.

Again you need to revisit your lies that i just dished back at you for a second time. Blatant lies. You and boxing 2002 or whatever the rumpers name is should get a room and a carton of beer. One can well imagine that convo!!!

Revisit your claims vs the truth!

Yet again this has nothing to do with your claims. If you can't support your claims/lies simply don't make them so no-one's time is wasted.

Stay on topic or just admit you talk rot and hyperbole.

 

Would have been the best LHW of all time