If Patterson had faced Zora Folley in 1959?

HE,

I am with you 100% that D amato handpicked stylistically soft opposition for Floyd during his title reign

Damato did want to steer clear Floyd away from the IBC because he did not like smell of it. Damato was one of the reasons the IBC disbanded. However, Damatos relecutance to take on IBC controlled fighters could be seen as either a noble stance on his beliefs, or cowardly ducks of dangerous opponents


I personally think back to a damato quote. Patterson asked damato in 1955 “cus when can I take on some real heavyweights, I want bob baker”.

Damato replied “when I tell you’ll your ready to fight heavyweights I’ll let you know, but never against a big guy like baker”.

Damato coddled patterson, and steered him clear vs the big men who could punch (Cooper Valdes Williams, Dejohn Liston ). Folley and Machen were dangerous boxer punchers, damato chose to take on the boxers who couldn’t punch hard to prolong his fighters championship

Damato was very arrogant. He referred to the heavyweight championship as “his” not Floyd’s...and said “he would do whatever he wanted with it”

The radamacher debacle is what it is. Floyd got paid more for that fight than he would taking on anyone else. Radamacher came up with the idea to be the first Olympic champion to win a world title in his debut. The public wanted it, damato loved the idea..more money, low risk. The fight was a disgrace, the whole thing was a farce. Floyd got paid but it damaged his reputation.

I believe Floyd would have taken on anyone with his mentality. Damato coddled him because feared Floyd’s questionable chin wouldn’t hold up vs bigger punchers.

He took the Johansson fight because everyone including the press told him the Machen knockout was a fluke. Even Floyd didn’t take Johannson seriously during training.

Floyd finally broke off from cus and took on Liston when the public demand was too strong

 

I think you have gotten yourself a bit warped over the Cus angle. Writers did try to paint Cus as coddling Patterson but they were most likely taken to dinner by influential figures behind the IBC who did not like Cus.

Unless Cuss was instrumental in forcing Machen facing Folley after Eddie had already done enough to warrant a title shot Cus did not do anything wrong. His champion was still facing more than enough #1 contenders not be accused of hand picking challengers.

We have established Harris did at least as much as Folley and that Brian London was himself rated higher than Machen and Folley at the start of 1959, the year he fought Patterson.

 

Look I"ve read you here for many years and view you as certainly a specialist on the forties and fifties fighters so in that window I certainly sit back and pick up where I can. On this thread I"m with you for sure.

 

I love how SuzieQ has to justify his arguments using Annual Ring ratings. Ring ratings had absolutely no bearing on who got or deserved a title shot, who was stripped, etc. None. In fact Ring Annual ratings (which is a lazy researchers go to rating because its the one you can find with a quick boxrec search) was just a quick snapshot anyway and wasnt representative of the actual ratings of the time in question when a particular fighter got a title shot. Weve been through this before and you can go back and search the thread. I already spelled out the ratings for each guy Floyd defended against the last time HE got a bug up his ass about this subject and illustrated quit clearly that Floyd's defenses were perfectly within reason given the context of their time. Go search out that thread. SuzieQ complains about Rademacher but that defense came less than one month after Floyd had just stopped the number 1 contender and Floyd got paid a boatload of money for it. Frankly it was a better defense than Floyd Mayweathers fight against Connor McGregor because at least Rademacher could box. Regardless Floyd would have been foolish to turn down that payday. People love to complain about Floyd not fighting Machen or Folley in 1958 but there is a glaring issue with that argument. Machen and Folley fought an eliminator which was so boring it left the fans disgusted and resulted in a draw. In the fight most people thought Folley won but because it was a draw neither guys rating changed and Machen was rated number 1. Meaning if Patterson defended against Machen, the number 1, Folley and others would have had cause to complain and if he defended against Folley Machen, as #1, would also have a case. With both guys variously mounting legal challenges and promoters scrambling to set up another elimination between the both of them Patterson defended against the #3 challenger, Harris. Within a month and a half both guys had lost to London and Johannson. After that some argued that Patterson should have defended against Cooper rather than London but when Patterson signed to face London the new ratings hadnt been released yet and London was still the higher rated fighter despite having lost to Cooper. Just under two months later Patterson defended against his #1. He lost, exercised his rematch clause and won, and then won the rubber match which was the biggest fight on the market. Not Patterson-Folley, Machen, or even Liston. Patterson couldnt have defended against Liston for most of 1961 anyway because Liston had had his boxing license revoked for being arrested for stopping a female motorist in a Philadelphia park at 3am one early morning while impersonating an officer, fled when a park ranger came by, turned off his lights to evade capture, and only stopped when shots were fired. So Patterson cant be blamed for taking on Johannson rather than Liston when he did. As soon as Liston got his license back he took part in a joint closed circuit co feature with Patterson, facing Albert Westphal, while Patterson faced McNeeley, which was designed to promote their proposed championship. So Patterson-Liston, despite taking place later the next year, was already in the offing at that point. So all of this monday morning quarterbacking about Patterson is really ridiculous, has no foundation in fact or context, and is completely misdirected.

Its strange to say that Pattersons opposition was handpicked stylistically to avoid guys like Machen and Folley who were no bigger than Patterson, not huge punchers, and who fought timid looking for counters. Stylistically those guys would have been perfect matches for Patterson's speed, athleticism, power, and lack of size. Really, most of those guys troubles stemmed from their own performances which were often tepid and hurt, rather than helped, their reputations. It also didnt help that both were controlled by the mob but ultimately that played little role in neither getting fights with Patterson for the title.

 

There he is!!!! The ******* is back from his ban!!!!!

I was waiting for you to chime in! Your bonafide hatred of Big Cat Williams, Machen, and Folley is legendary!!!

You know you remind me of Ty Cobb. Incredible at what he does, but has no friends.

 

Stylistically Folley and Machen would have been stiff challenges for Floyd.

Floyd was put on the deck a lot by weak hitters during his title reign. A young Machen had a really good offense. He stopped Jackson and Valdes impressively. Folley had a big right hand punch which could Put you to sleep.

Patterson would have had a lot of trouble with first class counterpunchers like those two, particular with Machen who had fast hands, good offense, and was durable.
Folley had a nice right uppercut which would give Floyd a lot of problems but Folley wasn’t very durable so Floyd could crack his chin. Maxim gave Floyd a lot of trouble with his jab. Machen and Folley both could jab.

Floyd never fought anyone with a style quite like those too. Would have been very interesting fights.

I favor Floyd because I think his speed and power edge would prevail but Folley and Machen would make Floyd look bad at times. Both very skilled counterpunchers with pop

 

This is a wonderful post. Susan seems to expect folks from the past to predict the future.

All true. The mcneeley/whestpal doubleheader was indeed a showcase for Liston and Patterson to hammer lightly regarded guys in the same ring ahead of their scheduled fight together. Nobody can knock Patterson’s opponent that night without knocking Listons opponent that night. They both intended to get an easy win.

 

nobody is saying Machen or Folley would not have been worthy enough opposition had they managed not to blow opportunities to land a title fight. Floyd just did not duck them when you consider the context of the time.

 

Haha you just knew choke was going to cream himself over Steve’s post. Maybe you found yourself a friend there Steve. He loves those euros heavies of the 50s. He might even buy your book!!!! Make sure you put an extra chapter in there talking about the incredible careers of Brian London, Joe Erskine, Dick Richardson, and Don cockell!

 

Floyd didn’t duck anyone. Damato did though for sure! He wanted no part of Folley Machen or even Valdes! and by 1960-61 he wasn’t going to go anywhere near Cleveland Williams! Too much size and power

 

No no. Klompton is right about this matter. And so is Edward and Bojack.

It all makes for an interesting theory that Patterson was guided away from Williams but Williams was never rated higher than Brian London before Floyd lost to Ingo. Floyd or Cus or both of them not wanting any part of certain guys needs to be looked at with a clear head rather than a thirst for something that does not stand up.

At no point have you made a sensible case about when Floyd was supposed to fight Valdes or Machen or Williams or Folley. Who were they going to replace, and what particular wind projects them ahead or in place of the highly ranked guys Floyd did fight?

 

Sensible? How about it was sensible to fight Machen and Folley over Number 3 Harris, NBA Number 7 RING unrated London, unrated Radmacher, and unrated mcneeley!!!

Or how he could have fought NBA rated number 2 feb of 1959 Valdes over London, but Damato didn’t want his guy fighting someone with 3” in height, 8” in reach, 20lb in weight with the punching power of nino!

You keep defending Cus!!!!

 

Edward himself thinks Williams would have been a live dog against Patterson

Edward said in February of 2018

“This has been some good posts concerning Williams' shortcomings. What about Floyd?

He is an interesting case in boxing history. Patterson was ranked in the top ten at light-heavy and heavyweight from 1953 to 1972 in eighteen out of those twenty years. So for being rated over a long period he ranks up there with Moore, Robinson, Ali, and Louis, but those guys fought tons of top men. Looking at Floyd's resume, one notes the relatively few good men he beat for someone who was up there so long.

In 1955, he was the #1 light-heavy contender. In 1956 he jumped into an elimination bout with Hurricane Jackson, the winner to fight for the heavy title. How many rated men had Patterson beaten to this point. Willie Troy, Dave Whitfield, and Jimmy Slade. Troy and Whitfield were not heavies. Slade has to be his top victim. Talk about getting to the top without being all that tested. In fairness to him, his next three fights were the biggies against Jackson and Moore which made him champ. At this point he fought Rademacher, Harris, and London, nothing much there. Johansson was top rated, but blew Patterson out, but he got him in the returns. Then McNeeley.

To the point when he fought Jackson, the heaviest man Patterson had fought was Jimmy Walls at 192. Jackson weighed about 193. So Patterson got to be champion w/o ever facing a 200 lb. man. Rademacher was a 202 lb. amateur. London went 206. And Johansson went 206 in the third fight, but was flabby at that weight.

Liston was a step up in size, and Williams would have been also. Considering what happened against Liston, I think Williams would have had a helluva shot, despite my agreeing with what his critics have posted about him on this thread.”

 

Newspaper thanks mcvey

"While his victory over Floyd Patterson was a huge upset at the time, Johansson's standing within heavyweight history is fairly poor. Considered to be an ordinary fighter with a very good right hand, the Swede was perhaps fortunate to have met Patterson, one of history's more vulnerable heavyweight champions, for the title. Patterson also likely took the challenge of Johansson lightly, given the Swede's apparently lackadaisical approach to training. This was also at a time when it was considered a virtual impossibility that a European heavyweight could inflict a defeat on an American champion on U.S soil. Furthermore, Patterson had defended the title just 56 days previously, against Britain's Brian London, and likely considered Johansson to be another inept challenger from Europe"

 

Why didn't Patterson fight more than once or twice a year as champion? Did the tax structure of the time make more defenses financially unfeasible? Were proposed bouts scrapped due to injury? Some of these "Floyd should have fought..." scenarios would've likely happened if Patterson would have simply been a more active champion.