Patterson is greater than Tyson

I personally do not believe in the premise of H24, P4p or even H2O fighters, next thing you know we will have CIA fighters, that is something that these young fans made up. It is for all these overweight Steroid hooked Jolly Green Giants. I would not know one from the other. Let's be honest, no one cannot grow that big without some help. Not my cup of tea.

 

Well, I sympathize with what you're saying, as I had a hard time putting him above both Wlad (longevity) and Liston. Liston might have been the most arguable for me, considering the man languished as the best in the world for years before finally getting his most deserved shot against Patterson. He should have been champion for years before he was imo.

 

li

 

What’s important is that each disgraced the heavyweight division in his own way:

Floyd by defending the most important title in all of sport against someone who had never had a single professional fight in a circus of a defense (getting knocked down in the process to add to the heavyweight championship’s humiliation).

Tyson by biting Holyfield’s ear off. (Twice.)

Cus left quite a legacy. He orchestrated one of those and protected Tyson from consequences that should have been learning opportunities to shape his character.

But D’Amato wanted his boy Floyd to keep the bauble in Cus’ camp, whether that meant ducking Liston forever or fighting people who hadn’t so much as thrown or taken a punch in a professional prize ring. And he wanted to rush Tyson to the title in time for him to be part of it.

 

And he was supposed to be better than Angelo Dundee, Emmanuel Steward, Ray Arcel, or even The Petronelli's who trained Marvelous Marvin Hagler, wow, Floyd never bit ears, that is nasty.

 

You edited your quote for some unknown reason but I remember you creating a straw-man and changing the argument to why I think Patterson was greater when my original discussion with you was about the relevance of Patterson fairs against Tyson to how he compares in terms of greatness. Their is no correlation and you know their is no correlation which is why you created the straw-man in the first place.

 

Strawman, seriously ? Dude let it go .. I erased it because I felt it was harsh and not needed but you won't stop with attempting to drive home a point dripping with dribble .. it is not that interesting to me to dissect the loopholes in your point yet you continue to try and prompt me to do so .. We both agree Tyson defeated much better opposition as champion. We both agree H2H that Tyson crushes Patterson easily and early .. we disagree on the relevance of these points to the thread .. it is what it is ..

 

Whatever man. I think you are a great poster and normally agree with you. Not here. No harm done either way.

 

I don't know about the rest, but I'm not sure Cus belongs in the same Pantheon as, say, the mighty Eddie Futch.

 

100 Percent .. same w you .. we're allowed to disagree and I applaud you for being a class act as well .. too many here, myself included for sure, have had dumb moments ...

 

As are you my friend.

None more than myself Apologies if I was being unnecessarily hostile.

 

H2H its Tyson no doubt

legacy wise you have a point

 

No. I gave both Tyson and Patterson credit, and acknowledged both their weaknesses. You on the other hand gave only Tyson credit, while subsequently making excuses for his shortcomings while emphasizing on Patterson's who's accomplishments you downplayed.

OK I was 2 years off. I was wrong. I accept that.

Oh yeah let's give Tyson credit for knocking out a bum, who was dropped twice in his last bout where he escaped with a controversial draw against Botha, hardly world class, while criticizing a similar aged Patterson for fighting ONLY contenders and not champions.

Well you would certainly be in the minority. Most though Patterson had won both comfortably as I've established previously.

"Patterson's post championship career"

His four big wins were Machen, Chuvalo, Cooper, and Bonavena. Folley beat all four. Ellis beat Bonavena and Chuvalo. Terrell beat Machen and Chuvalo, as well as Folley, plus Williams. My point is what makes Patterson anything more than just a pretty good contender during this period off this record.

Well, how often was Tyson on the floor? I think twice prior to the Lewis fight. In the 10th against Douglas, in which he took a terrific beating over 10 rounds before being brutally knocked out. Tyson got up against Holyfield and fought on and was still on his feet at the end. I frankly don't see why this is so much less impressive than going out in the first round from one flurry of punches. Tyson took real beatings from Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis over several rounds before being stopped. He never went out with one punch like Lewis did, nor in the first round like Patterson did. Perhaps you are harsh here. [/QUOTE]

Why is Lewis the cuttoff point? Do knockdowns he accured against and after Lewis not count? In any event, against Douglas he was in his prime, and the younger man by a significant margin. He had no reason to lose to Douglas on paper much less get knocked out which is why he was a 49-1 favorite. Many others faced more significant adversity, some not even in their prime, and came out on top including; Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Louis, Dempsey, Patterson, Marciano, Holyfield. The fact that Tyson never did absolutely should be used against him.

No argument.

Okay, but the only ones Tyson could have come back in prior to Lewis would have been Douglas and Holyfield. He did bounce back from losing badly to almost KO Douglas, before Douglas bounced back to KO him. He did get off the floor to fight on against Holyfield. The problem with this argument is that you are extrapolating from a very small sample into a grand conclusion. [/QUOTE]

Already mentioned Douglas before. Against Holyfield he was also the younger man, and closer to his prime. Holy had just come out of retirement stemming from a serious heart condition and had already lost to Moorer and Bowe twice who knocked him. Many legitimately feared for Holyfield's safety. Their's no reason Tyson should've lost to Holyfield, let alone being floored and stopped.

You can say that again! Say what you want about Patterson but he was nothing but a gentleman perhaps never more on display than against Ingo in the rematch where he cradles him after knocking him out.

Technically you are correct, though I don't hold Patterson's loss to Maxim against him considering I thought Patterson had won clearly. The was The decision "was booed loudly for more than three minutes" according to newspaper accounts of the fight and is verified by footage. Here is a post from one of our own that perfectly describes the atrocity of the decision.

The loss was absolutely damaging to his legacy. As I stated above Tyson was in his physical prime and was SIX years younger. He may not have "trained adequately" but that is nobody's fault but his own. Nobody told him to go bang hookers in Japan instead of training to defend the most prestigious title in the sport.

But he was not fighting was he? Therefore Ellis, and Quarry were arguably THE top 2 at the time.

It is widely acknowledged that Liston was heavily ducked. Ingemar Johannson, Henry Cooper, among others wanted nothing to do with him. Hell Patterson was told by everyone including his manager, the NAACP, and THE ****ing PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES NOT to fight Liston, he knew he had no chance but gave him the shot anyway. That requires massive ****ing balls which I doubt you'll ever give him credit for.

Again show me proof. I do remember people saying he was POTENTIALLY in that class and only time could tell if he could solidify his spot. A test which he failed miserably.

That's an understatement.

 

Why is Lewis the cuttoff point? Do knockdowns he accured against and after Lewis not count? In any event, against Douglas he was in his prime, and the younger man by a significant margin. He had no reason to lose to Douglas on paper much less get knocked out which is why he was a 49-1 favorite. Many others faced more significant adversity, some not even in their prime, and came out on top including; Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Louis, Dempsey, Patterson, Marciano, Holyfield. The fact that Tyson never did absolutely should be used against him.


No argument.


Okay, but the only ones Tyson could have come back in prior to Lewis would have been Douglas and Holyfield. He did bounce back from losing badly to almost KO Douglas, before Douglas bounced back to KO him. He did get off the floor to fight on against Holyfield. The problem with this argument is that you are extrapolating from a very small sample into a grand conclusion. [/QUOTE]

Already mentioned Douglas before. Against Holyfield he was also the younger man, and closer to his prime. Holy had just come out of retirement stemming from a serious heart condition and had already lost to Moorer and Bowe twice who knocked him. Many legitimately feared for Holyfield's safety. Their's no reason Tyson should've lost to Holyfield, let alone being floored and stopped.



You can say that again! Say what you want about Patterson but he was nothing but a gentleman perhaps never more on display than against Ingo in the rematch where he cradles him after knocking him out.



Technically you are correct, though I don't hold Patterson's loss to Maxim against him considering I thought Patterson had won clearly. The was The decision "was booed loudly for more than three minutes" according to newspaper accounts of the fight and is verified by footage. Here is a post from one of our own that perfectly describes the atrocity of the decision.





The loss was absolutely damaging to his legacy. As I stated above Tyson was in his physical prime and was SIX years younger. He may not have "trained adequately" but that is nobody's fault but his own. Nobody told him to go bang hookers in Japan instead of training to defend the most prestigious title in the sport.



But he was not fighting was he? Therefore Ellis, and Quarry were arguably THE top 2 at the time.



It is widely acknowledged that Liston was heavily ducked. Ingemar Johannson, Henry Cooper, among others wanted nothing to do with him. Hell Patterson was told by everyone including his manager, the NAACP, and THE ****ing PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES NOT to fight Liston, he knew he had no chance but gave him the shot anyway. That requires massive ****ing balls which I doubt you'll ever give him credit for.



Again show me proof. I do remember people saying he was POTENTIALLY in that class and only time could tell if he could solidify his spot. A test which he failed miserably.


That's an understatement.[/QUOTE]

There is too much here to go into all the points, but,

"similarly aged Patterson"

Only the Bonavena fight was when Patterson was all that old. Machen, Chuvalo, and Cooper were beaten by Patterson when he was between 29 and 31. Machen and Cooper were actually older men.

"fighters afraid of Liston"

Well, in order Liston fought Bethea, DeJohn, Williams, Valdes, Besmanoff, King, Williams (again), Harris, Folley, Machen

You say Johansson and Cooper were afraid of Liston and ducked him. Okay, but Johansson is Patterson's top scalp (off the poll just done) and Cooper was certainly among his better names. If I buy your take, what does this say about Patterson's opposition if they were afraid to tackle Liston when so many others weren't? I find this a perverse argument to give in support of Patterson.

"President Kennedy"

I have heard the opposite. Kennedy asked Patterson during a visit to the White House when he was going to fight Liston and Patterson took this to mean the president expected him to defend against Liston. I don't know how much Kennedy was into boxing or knew about these men anyway. The NAACP was down on Liston because of his prison record.

"Tyson's rep in the late 1980's"

I am not going to argue about whether Tyson had a soaring reputation after the Holmes and Spinks fights. If you don't believe it, so be it. It isn't worth debating. I lived through it. You are absolutely correct that this rep went down in flames after the Douglas bout. (aside--I think it wise never to go overboard on any fighter until his career is safely over)

 

I keep coming to this thread to say along the lines of Tyson, it's obvious.

But the premise of the thread has you questioning it quite well.

I mean there's an argument that Patterson only ever lost to Liston, Ingo and Ali. Ingo he won a trilogy against.

But Tyson, well he's Tyson.