Ingemar Johansson as a "great?" Yea or nay?

Nay. Didn’t do enough at heavy most would agree on that, but he was a quality fighter. He destroyed Machen and Floyd - two quality wins and impressive performances.

 

Heavens no.

 

I feel like this a trick question, but I’ll bite. He may be an all time top 5 Swede!

 

No, obviously the win over Patterson was great, as was his kayo of the notoriously difficult Eddie Machen. I'll even give him bonus points for winning an Olympic silver medal and for climbing off the deck to beat Brian London, and then intelligently retiring thereafter.

He definitely had the physical equipment, especially with his right hand, but even Ingo would concede that while he wasn't a huge partier, he was a slacker.

Its interesting to consider some of the notably rivalries through boxing history: Zale-Graziano, Bowe-Holyfield, Ingo-Floyd, Pep-Saddler. In each of these rivalries, one guy became seriously out of shape after retirement while the other guy continued to exercise and remained fit. Bowe-Holyfield is the only case where the lazy guy came out ahead in the series. Morales-Barrera might become another example. It seems like Barrera still looked svelte the last time he was on tv, while Morales has been rolly polly for years now.

 

obviously a brief champion is not a great. He was elite though.

 

A very good fighter. Not great.

 

In a nutshell.

Knocking out Floyd and Machen back to back when those two were the two best heavyweights in the world was a great feat. But that’s it.

So absolutely The man was legitmate, but just lacked longevity.

 

That to me is what "greatness" is.

That ability to fight at a consistently high level, fight after fight, for years.

Many boxers have 2-3 fight "hot streaks" where they beat the best. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are greater than the guys they just beat.

Rahman stopped Sanders and Lewis back to back iirc.

Douglas stopped prime Tyson.

That's some ability.

But they were never greats.

 

Not great. A very good right handed puncher, who came along at the right time best describes him. Did not take a good punch. Not that fast on his feet either.

I do think Ingo was important for boxing, though

 

Complex question. Ingo wasnt a great fighter but he had an all time great right hand that could certainly end things for better fighters. It was an equalizer. Where he suffers is his style is entirely predicated on landing that one punch. He was very good at hiding it and bringing it over but he was a one trick pony, one dimensional but it was a hell of a dimension. Lots of mediocre fighters would not only kill for power like that but it would take a lot of mediocre fighters to the next level.

 

I personally think that he could be a "great contender" and could be possibly be called dangerous. He had wins over Cooper, Patterson and 1 round destruction over Machen. If he fought more and longer such as Folley and Roy Harris, he could have been greater and HW's of the late 50's and early 60's could've been better. If I were to rank in his era it could be like this:
1. Sonny Liston
2. Zora Folley
3. Floyd Patterson
4. Ingemar Johansonn
5. Cleveland Williams
6. Eddie Machen
7. Henry Cooper
8. Ernie Terrell

 

You know the scenes in cartoons where a character spits out a mouthful of wine they just drank? Well that about sums up my response to this question.

 

Sorry! the spot that Cooper should've been Machen...\
And yes, Folley ahead of Patterson. Patterson start doing more at the mid to late 60's instead of the late 50's early 60's