If Patterson had faced Zora Folley in 1959?

Ring magazine still had Folley and Machen 1 and 2. Nice try squirt

 

Doesn’t make your point at all. The nba moved down Machen and Folley but they also moved down Roy Harris to 8th! And he got his title shot despite being lower than both.

And Brian London moved up to 2 but 2 months later lost to Henry Cooper in January of 1959. So his nba ranking took a big hit with that loss.

Cooper was another one who got robbed out of a title shot vs Floyd

 

This doesn’t proven anything. Actually it defends my point which is Harris was lower rated than Machen and Folley and didn’t deserve the title shot over the
How about you post ring magazine?

 

I mentioned the defense against London in an earlier post. But as long as the champion defends against his mandatory every year, I don't care that much about his other defences. Floyd had beaten the nr 1 contender just weeks before he faced Rademacher, so I don't care much about the Rademacher defence one way or the other.

McNeely was during his second reign, that's why I haven't adressed that. But taking a softie between Ingo and Liston is hardly the worst transgression a champion has ever made himself guilty of. Not by a long shot. Floyd took on Ingo in 1961, due to contractual obligation, and the next year he faced the clear nr 1 contender. That's alright in my book. They were after all his two most formidable opponents to that date by some distance.

In 1958 he beat Harris, who reasonably should be viewed as the third best contender, shortly before taking on London. Either Folley or Machen would have been a better defense than Harris since they were ranked higher, I've never said anything else, but Harris was still a good opponent at the time.

He was better than anyone Frazier faced in 1973 or that Holmes faced in 1983-1984, and also arguably better than anyone Ali faced in 1977 or Tyson faced in 1989. Not to mention large parts of for example Johnson's or Dempsey's reigns... So it's not like Floyd stands out that much.

And the following year Floyd gave a shot to the guy that destroyed Machen. That's why I think the myth of Floyd ducking the best during his first reign is just that. It wasn't a perfect reign, but it was pretty good.

 

Bottom line is this...Machen and Folley were scuttling around the top of the rankings for 5 years and both never received a title shot from Patterson’s camp despite both reaching number 1 status....while men like Harris Rademacher mcneeley London all who never reached number 1 status received title shots

Right after Machen destroyed floyds previous title challenger number 1 ranked hurricane Jackson in 10...Machen should have immediately received the title shot against Floyd

 

Nobody’s fault? The number 1 and number 2 contenders had to fight each other in a title eliminator to get a shot at Floyd while the number 3 contender sat at home!!!

When the title Eliminator was ruled a draw, rather than choosing one of them, Floyd bypassed both and chose the number 3 despite the number 3 not winning any title eliminators over Machen and Folley


Machen and Folley got robbed

 

You going to post the nba rankings in 1959? After Henry Cooper beats Brian London in January of 1959?

Let’s see em

 

Again, I don't dispute that Machen would have been the better defense, even though I don't think the difference was that big. And I don't put Floyd facing the third best contender on par with for example Frazier not facing a ranked contender in 1973 or Holmes not doing it in 1983. Especially not (and I say this again) since Floyd the next year faced the guy who had destroyed the man Floyd is accused of ducking.

Interestingly Sports Illustrated seems to have reasoned along the lines @choklab speculated people at the time did. I agree that it's a flawed reasoning, but nevertheless...:

"Though Harris rates behind Zora Folley (now No. 1) and Eddie Machen in the National Boxing Association ratings, only Folley and Machen are complaining that they were bypassed for this title fight. This was only justice, a deserved punishment for their San Francisco fiasco."

https://www.si.com/vault/1958/08/18/566674/the-student-vs-the-professor

 

Iv'e seen, what we could, most of their first fight. IMO no 'home cooking'. Maybe an off night for Zora but, from what I saw, Zora stayed "off the pedal" so to speak for most of the fight and Cooper was pressing and aggressive throughout.

 

I've been trying to collect heavyweight ratings (off and on) for several years, via Google News, old magazines, etc. I don't have even close to everything.

Here's what I do have from the NBA in 1959 -

National Boxing Association –
(as of January ?, 1959)

Champion: Floyd Patterson
1. Ingemar Johansson
2. Brian London
3. Nino Valdez
4. Zora Folley
5. Willie Pastrano
6. Eddie Machen
7. Henry Cooper
8. Roy Harris

National Boxing Association -
(as of July 1, 1959 (via AP))

Champion:
Ingemar Johansson
1. Floyd Patterson
2. Henry Cooper
3. Zora Folley
4. Sonny Liston
5. Roy Harris
6. Eddie Machen
7. Alonzo Johnson
8. Charlie Powell
9. Brian London
10. Joe Erskine

 

Seems to me there is more argument for Cooper to have a shot at the title in 1959 than there is for Folley. Between drawing with Machen and losing to Cooper Foley was fighting losers. Cooper beat highly rated London then Foley himself in this time.

 

To me it seems like the main window for Machen and Folley were in 1958. Folley on strength of his nr 1 ranking with the NBA (even if that seems a bit questionable) and Machen on strength of his win over Jackson (which really should have given him the nr 1 spot, it seems).

For some reason an eliminator was staged between them instead of just one of them getting a title shot. The reasoning behind this would be interesting. The draw the eliminator resulted in seems to have put them both out of contention temporarily. Not really logical from a sporting perspective, but perhaps from an economical one since the draw could have reduced their marketbility as contenders.

One of them should have gotten a shot (preferrably Machen), even though I don't see evidence that Floyd and Cus wanted to stay away from them. If that was the case, facing Ingo the next year would seem like a strange call.

Then Folley had window again when he was the nr 1 contender after beating Machen and when Floyd was the champ again after beating Ingo. But the window was only for a about a month, until Folley lost to Liston, and Floyd had a rematch clause with Ingo in any case. So Folley was never a realistic option.

All in all, Machen seems the most hard done by, since he had done the most to deserve a shot early in 1958. But it was a window of only 10 months. It was there, though, and big enough for a fight to be made.

 

Yes, I absolutely think this is fair. This seems correct.

 

Sometimes a fight comes along and eliminates both combatants from future gain. Usually it is a draw or close fight, and it is not always legitimate. Indeed, when Cus D'Amato used the Eddie Machen-Zora Folley draw as an excuse to have his champion Floyd Patterson avoid both men, it was a cowardly move.

You can make all the excuses in the world for timing, economics etc, but you yourself have admitted Machen reached number 1 status and folley reached number 1 status twice during Pattersons reign. Apparently, Patterson didn't have time for them but he had time for number 3 Harris, Brian London coming off a loss, unrated Pete radamacher, and unrated tom mcneeley.

 

I don't think Machen ever reached a nr 1 NBA rating during Floyd's reign. He probably should have had it in 1958, but instead Folley received that distinction.

We can only speculate why Floyd didn't fight any of them before they lost that year, but it's hard to see why Folley would be a more intimidating option than Harris and even harder to see why Machen would be a more intimidating option than Ingo, who Floyd fought the very next year. That's why I think there were other factors at play, namely that Harris made better sense from a financial perspective at that time.

The second time that Folley's nr 1 rating coincided with Floyd being a champ only lasted a month, when Floyd also had a rematch clause with Ingo. So a match-up then just wasn't a realistic option.

You go on about the fillers Floyd took during these years, but many champs have. Ali, for example, faced London, Williams, Wepner, Dunn, Coopman etc while champ, but I see no problem with that since he also faced highly relevant contenders during those years. There are loads of examples like that. When a champion goes a whole year or more without facing even decent contenders (like Frazier did between Ali and Foreman) then it's an issue, but that Foreman for example faced Roman between Frazier and Norton is not imo.

Floyd won the title in 1956.

In 1957 he defended against the nr 1 contender plus an unranked filler.

In 1958 he defended against the nr 3 contender.

In 1959 he defended against a ranked filler plus the nr 1 contender.

In 1960 he won back the title.

In 1961 he defended against a top 5 ranked contender that he had a rematch clause with, plus an unranked filler.

In 1962 he defended against the nr 1 contender (who also had been the nr 1 contender the previous year).

I don't think that's too far from the standard of defending against your nr 1 contender every year. There sure are champions who have deviated more from it, but still seem to get less flak.