Patterson is greater than Tyson

It depends on what you like, if you like power, Tyson is your man. If you like a professional athlete with quickness, then Floyd Patterson is your man. It is like selecting a candidate, I refuse to vote anymore, but relating to boxing, it's what you fancy.

 

Yea. this is the saliant point on this post, and I think closes down any counter arguments.

 

Isn't it funny that Tyson fought neither Moorer Nor Cooper?

 

Tyson beat an actual champion to win his title, Patterson didn't. Tyson won the same title that Holmes vacated instead of fighting his mandatory. Holmes won the WBC title by beating Norton, he won the lineal title by beating the corpse of Ali. That's the same lineal title he defended against Marvis Frazier when WBC refused to sanction the fight.

Floyd rematched Ingo and Liston because there was a rematch-clause in the contract. There was no rematch clause for Tyson-Douglas, there was one for Tyson-Holyfield and Tyson ended up fighting Holyfield twice. Tyson also had no problem giving Ruddock a rematch even though he didn't have to.

They didn't call him a gentleman for no reason.

Despite his ability to adjust and his superior boxing skills, he still couldn't make it out of the first round against Liston. Ingo was able to land straight rights throughout their trilogy. He dropped Patterson twice in the first round of their third fight with the same right hand. I don't see what makes Patterson the better boxer. Tyson outboxed well-schooled fighters like Tucker and Biggs who were also 7" taller than him. He barely lost rounds fighting better opposition than Patterson.

Floyd never heard the final bell when he was actually losing a fight. He lost by decision 3 times. All those fights were competitive and could've gone his way (Maxim, Quarry II, Ellis).

Floyd faced a lot more adversity. Naturally he should be better at responding to adversity.

That's debatable. The last time Floyd fought for a world title he was 33 years old. But that was for a rubbish strap (WBA). The last time Floyd fought for the lineal title he was 30 years old. Tyson was 36 when he fought Lennox for the WBC, IBF, and lineal titles. Tyson battered Golota at the age of 34, Floyd was having trouble beating other contenders at the age of 32/33 (Quarry & Ellis).

Floyd was 37 when he retired, Tyson was 39 when he lost to McBride.

Tyson is a 2x champ, just like Patterson. Lennox lost the WBC title to McCall, Bruno beat McCall, Tyson beat Bruno. Floyd was given immediate rematches when he lost to Ingo/Liston. Tyson won the heavyweight titles 6 years after losing them.

Lets not forget the lineal champ George Foreman vacated his WBA title instead of fighting Tony Tucker. Seldon fought Tucker and won the title. Foreman would then defend his imaginary title against the likes of Shirts, Grimsby, and Savouries. That's your prestigious lineal title.

Tyson defended his title 9 times in less than 3 years fighting every relevant heavyweight around. Floyd held the title for 5 years and only managed 6 title defences. Half of those defences were against Rademacher, McNeeley, and London (coming off a loss to Cooper). That leaves us with Jackson, Harris, and Johannson. The only legitimate threat was Johannson and he KO'd Floyd.

Tyson was bigger but he also fought much bigger fighters than Floyd did. 6'1, 215 lbs Liston was no bigger than James Tillis. All the other stuff is irrelevant. He wasn't that much smaller than Machen, Folley, Quarry, Ingo, Ellis etc.

Probably because he was 190 lbs.

Floyd lost his title the first time he faced an elite challenger, Tyson didn't.

In terms of ratio, Tyson lost less fights than Patterson.

The only thing Floyd fought consistently was Ingemar Johannson. Johannson was a good fighter but he wasn't the only worthy challenger around. The only reason they ended up fighting 3 times is because there was a rematch clause for the first 2 fights. Patterson also defended his title against a fighter with 0 professional fights and a nobody in McNeeley. Even though Tyson defended his titles more often, he never fought such weak opposition.

He got KO'd by both Johannson and Liston. Johannson had KO'd Machen in 1 round, Bonecrusher had KO'd Witherspoon and Weaver in 1 round. How was Johannson a better opponent than Bonecrusher? Tyson dominated Bonecrusher for 12 rounds, Patterson got KO'd by Johannson in 3 rounds. Tyson beat Spinks who held two wins over Holmes. Going 2-1 against Johannson is not as impressive as a 90 second KO over Spinks. Unless you think Johannson was some great technician who underachieved, I don't see what makes him such a great opponent.

No point of bringing up Liston since it doesn't help Floyd's case at all.

 

I think it's much closer than the poll is indicating. Patterson was the youngest undisputed champion, first one to win the title back after losing it, would've been the first three time champion had it not been for the late career robberies, beat more ranked heavyweights than Foreman, had a great post-title career. The greatest fighter of all time, called him the most skilled fighter he ever fought, and that is saying A LOT considering who he's been in the ring with. I also think his chin was very underrated as he was only knocked out by two men a peak Liston and Ingo, which their is no shame in at all. Patterson was ranked in the top 10 longer than any other heavyweight champion which takes a special type on consistency. Nobody can question his heart as well (which was never more on display than his trilogy against Ingo)

He had a much better post-title career than Tyson. That's not debatable. He also avenged some of losses which Tyson never did and only lost to elite fighters. He also didn't lose to fighters of a calliber as low as Mcbride, and Williams no matter what stage of his career he was in. As a matter of fact, you can make a very good argument that Ali, Liston, and Ingo (a loss which he avenged 2X) are the only ones who legitimately beat him which puts him in pretty elite territory.

On the other hand, Tyson was the youngest fighter to ever win the world heavyweight championship (though Patterson remains the youngest undisputed champion), had an amazing run to the title and dispatched numerous world-class fighters in a brutal manner which he made look ridiculously easily, and effortlessly. He also destroyed the reigning champion effortlessly inside of a round. Something unseen since Liston (ironically against Patterson) did the same 26 years earlier. He accomplished more by the time he was 22 than most do in their entire careers!

On the other side of the coin, he never really exhibited the ability to fight through adversity and come out on top. When he had his hands full, he'd often resort to fouling, biting, elbows, and trying to break his opponents arm. He never snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, was knocked out by a fringe contender in his prime, never came back from behind to win (unless you consider the laughable Botha fight), and never got off the floor to win. Quit 2X, and fouled out in the most embarrassing and disgraceful manner ever seen in pugilistics. His loss against Douglas in particular is most damaging because Tyson was in his physical prime at 23 years old, a HUGE favorite 49-1 by the sole oddsmaker who decided to put odds on the fight, and he was the heavyweight champion of the world. Some think he lost fair and square to a fighter who simply had his number. Others came up with a million excuses, and say Rooney left him, Tyson didn't train, was banging hookers, etc. While some of these might be valid, isn't it his own fault? NOBODY handcuffed him and forced him to bang hookers and slack off, while he should've been training to defend his title. It's nobody's fault except his. It doesn't look good either way you look at it. Every ATG came into fights less than 100% stemming from issues outside the ring, but persevered and found a way to win. Tyson shouldn't get a pass. All of this seems to be looked over in this thread and I don't think that's fair.

I think it's very close, and while I think Tyson had the potential to surpass Floyd (and arguably become a top 3 ATG) I have to give the edge to Patterson (though Tyson shits on Patterson H2H).

I expect to be stoned to death by the Tyson fan club.

 

I still think that you are A okay my friend, power is not for me either, I like good boxing skill.

 

Patterson was better in some ways, he was fun to watch and a lot more admirable, but in seriously evaluating them I think Tyson is better and it's not very close or ambiguous.

 

I see the resident Tyson Hater Block voted 7 times...

 

Why is that funny? Tyson demolishes both at any point of his career.

 

Saved me the time and patience. Great post!!

 

Tyson because who is Patterson’s best wins? Ingemar Johannson? Bruno is better than Johannson and Tyson never got dropped by a debut opponent especially not whilst he was champion

 

Ok, so solid contenders.

 

You didn't get it.

 

This is a very interesting subject.
I'll lean slightly towards "Iron" Mike on this one. Here's why.
Though all your points for Patterson are true and on point.
He didn't clean out the division the way Tyson did, Tyson
Did not avoid any contenders on his way up, or any
challengers after he won the championship.
Though both men had problems controlling their fears
(Patterson could be intimidated, Tyson used intimidation to hide his fear
but when he was seriously threatened, he would use dirty tactics, never
won a fight from behind or after getting put on his ass)
Tyson from 86' to 89' was indeed the baddest man on the planet.
That can't be said about Patterson at any point of his career, even
when he held the championship it was obvious he was
avoiding certain contenders .
Tyson gets my vote in this one. Slightly but I wouldn't argue
with anyone whom has a different opinion because it's that close.

 

Says the sh*t poster himself. Troll.