im gonna come out and ask, was floyd patterson great?!

I've known two people who've met Floyd (NYC/Vegas) and they both said they were immediately surprised at how big his hands were. Interesting.

 

He was a very big guy to me. That was in 79 or 80. he had very long arms and was very wide at the shoulders. He looked trim and in pretty good shape also. A very nice guy, soft spoken, seemed to have a good relationship with his fighters. They have him listed as 6 foot tall, but if I had to go by my own guess I would have said 6'2"-3"? When I was stationed at NAS Pensacola, RJJ used to come on base every once in awhile to see the troops. That was 01-03 time frame if I remember right. In street clothes he looks very skinny, but obviously all muscle. He has very skinny legs, and has this weird trap/neck thing going that makes his head look like its tied into his shoulders by big cables? Hard to describe, kinda freaky looking. But in no way could he be mistaken for a big guy. His hands/wrists looked pretty small also. Nice guy from what I saw. He is a god in PCola. I heard from some girls at the local strip club there, that he and his crew used to come in, and drop some pretty big change there once in awhile. Why not, if you got it?

 

I have another one for you. Two years ago I was at a conference in Reno. My buddy pointed out somebody standing by a poker table. It was Ken Shamrock the old UFC fighter. We went over to say hi and get a pic. Nice guy but way smaller than he looked on TV. Kinda skinny looking to be honest. I even asked him if he had lost wgt, he said no but he also said that anybody with good muscle defintion looks bigger on TV with no shirt on.

 

I did miss this, SQ, sorry.

If memory serves, when Rocky hung'em up, I leaned toward Baker to fill the vacuum. Good size, smooth, poised, stand-up boxer/puncher, power with both hands (when they weren't injured) -- very accurate -- and a savvy ring general. But his fragile paws were on his mind too much, I think. He didn't commit to his shots, which contributed to the impression he lacked fire. But when he was right, he was an impressive heavy.

Valdez had good size -- shoulders like Max Baer -- lots of attitude -- a bully's mentality -- heavy hands, especially a booming overhand right, but Macho was his undoing -- refused to adapt.

Moore, though he scaled '75, looked like heavy was his natural weight. But as ring-smart and dangerous as he was, I think I succumbed to the accepted notion, LT heavy's couldn't cut it for the big prize. Dumb way to analyze things, huh? Go along with the sheep.

After watching Patterson spar and his early fights live, I didn't jump on the bandwagon annointing him Rocky's successor. In spite of his blinding speed, I thought he was all too mortal. I didn't like the way his body reacted when he was hit flush. He had balls, and fired back, but I thought, ultimately, his constitution would betray him.

 

I don't think he would have a hard time with either man.

 

He is just below the top tier of HWs and probably just makes the top 20 of all time based on achievement and skill at HW.

There is a case for Patterson being above Walcott/Charles/Tunney/Schmelling/Norton which is pretty impressive.

He was hurt by size but not just size (he made too many mistakes in his earlier years)

 

I struggle to put him above Jersey Joe Walcott either H2H or achievements...

 

Allot hinges on how you judge the first Walcott-Louis fight. In the comparison:

Both lost against the best HWs they faced. Both pushed the Great HWs they faced (Ali not Liston for Floyd)

Walcott has worse losses

Patterson looked more spectacular/dominant

Walcott was better defensively, smarter,

Patterson was the better offensive force and faster of foot and hand, actually Patterson has a claim for the fastest hand/feet at HW ever

Best wins are pretty close for my money

A H2H would be a close match up. I think all round they are quite closely matched

 

I thiknk Patterson dominance had alot to do with the cleverness of his managers, he had a great amatuer background and turned pro with a bit of excitement and was managed accordingly (too accorsingly if you ask me). I in fact beleive Pattersons 8 losses show more about his abilities than those 18 on Walcotts, mainly down to the match making.

Walcott lost to some great fighters and came back to avenge a couple to, Patterson didnt.

Patterson may have had a 'more dominant' reign but when you fight novices like Rademacher, them padded prospect like Tom McNeeley (father of pete i believe) and Harris, its easy to look great. Everytime he took a step up in level he got found out, while i dont think the same could be said with the likes of Walcott, whose career went up and down but his body of work is underappreciated, while I feel Floyds is over appreciated, mostly by old guys that look back and remember him as a 'nice fella'... You know who you are!

Walcotts overral resume has more grounding to it, Patterson was just a bit too well managed for my liking.

H2H would have been interesting but Walcott was defensively savvy to last it with Patteron and he could dish it out aswel, I see him dropping Floyd (more than once) on the way to a decision victory.

 

Remember 100 is the new 90, jc.

 

Walcott had some truly awful losses aswell as respectable 1s

Look Pattersons best wins: Johansson, Quarry (he won at least 1), Moore, Cooper, Ellis (deserved the nod), Bonavena, Chuvalo, Machen, Harris,

Walcott too has excellent wins but I certainly wouldnt rate them much above those wins if at all, bare in mind the last Charles fight was a bit of a gift

 

Walcott BEAT joe louis, and pushed louis in the 2nd fight and marciano in the first fight far more than floyd ever pushed ali. Floyd never even had control on the scorecards in either fight and was destroyed in 12 one sided rounds by ali.

Walcott also had much better wins

against who tomato cans??? many of walcotts one sided victories over contenders arnt captured on film.

I think walcott hit harder though

not really. Wins over Joe Louis 1st fight and one punch KO over Ezzard Charles in 1951 are by far better wins than anything floyd achieved. Elmer Ray was argueably a better heavyweight than anyone patterson ever beat. Lee Q Murray, Harold Johnson, Jimmy Bivins rate over Old Machen, Chuvalo, Bonavena.

 

If your going to include the ellis and quarry "wins", then you must include the 1947 Joe Louis fight as a win for walcott. Joe Louis would have knocked patterson out early, even that version of louis.

 

I havent seen the fight and need to, I said 'it depends how you view their fight' and will

I was saying you could argue hes above those fighters, he isnt necessarly so BUT theres not much in it. Its apples and oranges, each of them did different things better

I know your a massive Walcott fan, rightly so hes excellent but your opinion is scewed. Bare in mind the version of Louis he lost a decision too was 1 of the worst versions and on top of that didnt show upto the races, Patterson never got a shot at an aging champion on an off night, Walcott was stopped in the rematch

 

Floyd had a bad back in the first fight, the scorecards were level in the second fight when Floyd was an old man, you have to give him props on that performance.