Floyd Patteson vs Jack Johnson

interesting--------yeh i agree------i think---tough one to think about with such differences

 

NOt a chance, this is a nightmare for Floyd.

Johnson grabs him, wrestles him, overpowers him, and lands the uppercut at will, in the clinches. I cant think of anyway that Floyd can get to Johnson (unless a modern ref DQs him for fighting in the clinches). What is even worse for Floyd is that he would probably keep getting up and Johsnon would hold him on his feet and take his time.

 

Unfair. Patterson by KO within 6. Patterson too much speed and game for the limited Johnson who feasted on (and was feasted upon by) much cruder, less skilled fighters. Just to show my fairness, similar results for Jeffries, Fitz, Corbett and just about anyone until Dempsey.

 

Patterson goes down several times from uppercuts but finishes on his feet.

 

Johnson.

Remember he had more natural ability than any pre WWII heavyweight, including Joe Louis.

 

Yes.

Those quick hands and combinations are going to be difficult to evade on the defensive.

 

This could be a tactical boxing match for several rounds with both men landing some good combinations. First of all, forget the Sonny Liston reference when discussing Floyd Patterson. Floyd lost that fight out of total fear before the ink was dry on the fight contract. Based on his jab and boxing skills alone, he should have shown much more against Sonny Liston.

I believe Jack Johnson's trademark footwork and defense would be the deciding factor in this fight. Patterson did have strong legs and arguably the fastest heavyweight hands aside from Ali, but Johnson was a master at countering and feinting. Floyd could definitely land against Jack Johnson, but I'd bet on Johnson winning at least 9 rounds out of a scheduled 15 against Patterson. It also wouldn't surprise me to see either man on the canvas, especially if Floyd lands his leaping hook against Johnson.

 

I think that Patterson would be a bit of a stylistic nightmare but I would expect Johnson to get him in the end.

I think that Floyd would turn up the heat forcing Johnson into a more agresive game and that Johnsons uppercut would close the show.

 

I also feel that Patterson would be a very tough match-up for Jack Johnson.

Johnson's style worked when fighting at the slow pace of the early 1900's and his defense was near impenetrable against the opponents of his day.

He has never fought anyone like Patterson however. Johnson's defense was meant for catching and parrying single punches but Floyd, who was possibly the fastest combination puncher in history, would come out throwing lightning quick punches at Johnson. He destroyed the great Archie Moore this way.

If fought under the rules of Jack Johnson's day, his chances of winning would improve greatly. He could sneak uppercuts on his opponents with both hands during clinches like no one else I've ever seen. He was not a big KO puncher but he would tire his opponents out that way and finish them off whenever he wanted.

 

Floyd Patterson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCUkqyfUjTU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Plk85qE8c

Jack Johnson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF5NVO0WA6A
My tribute (starts at 2:45)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5WcN4wJko

 

It is hard to say which of Johnsons oponents is closest to Patterson in style.

Johnson beat some good pressure fighters but also strugled with some.

Marvin Hart gave him hell but had to take a lot of punishment to do so.

Frank Childs comes across as being Pattersonesque but he was smaller and past his best when Johnson fought him.

Sam Langford is probably the best analogue.

I do think that you would have to be fairly durable to beat Johnson since he could unleash hell when he chose to.

 

a highly dubious assertion.

langford, jeffries, dempsey, tunney, louis, m. baer are a few that come to mind from the "natural ability" side of the equation. were they all better fighters than johnson? No. But of basic physical gifts, they were arguably more blessed.

 

Johnsons key physical gifts were:

Ability to judge distances.

Cat like reflexes.

Tremendous physical strength.

The rest of what he did was mental.

 

Agreed, though I do not think he was as strong as a prime Jeffries. His reflexes- when he was on- baffled most of his crude contemporaries. I would say Tunney shared a good deal of this, too. Mentally, I will say, he obviously lacked focus during points of his career, but careers (especially his) and fightmaking were different in those days. When he was "on", he was hard to derail and quite dominant.