Patterson is greater than Tyson

The difference between me and the Colonel is I don't troll smear campaigns on fighters I generally dislike. I come in to defend Mike or anyone that needs it against opinionated hackjobs.

 

Cool. Put me on ignore pud. Looks like your thread didn't pull according to your plan.

 

Patterson wasn't a great heavyweight. Tyson was. At least at least for a few years. Tyson unified the titles in a way that left no doubt who the best was. That was special.
Im not sure Patterson was ever the best heavyweight in the world. (Was he even top 3?)He certainly had the greatest manager ever. He even got paid well for defending (cheapening) the Heavyweight Crown against a guy in his pro debut. (Pete Rademacher) sadly he knocked Floyd down.
Floyd was a classy guy. One thing i can say for him is that was a better loser than Tyson. He lost with some grace and class. He more practice witht it. Floyd Patterson was an easier fighter to beat than Mike Tyson by far.
Floyd Patterson reign is still the bad old days

 

I'd say case closed.

 

Oh please. Now you're playing virtuous. Who are you is so kind in the ways of compassion? Mad your thread went through the garbage disposal? Take your own advice sometimes.
Tyson 40
Patterson 8

 

It does to me .. makes it pointless.

 

If Floyd Patterson was a great heavyweight then what are all the great heavyweights?

deep thoughts

 

Marciano was also small and he didn't have the athleticism or the skills that Patterson had. That doesn't make his accomplishments greater. No one forced Patterson to fight heavyweights. I'm pretty sure he knew he was small but he did it anyways.

What makes you think Patterson was a lot weaker than his opponents? Patterson was about 190 lbs. The biggest heavyweights he fought were Liston and Ali who weighed 210-215 at their best. Tyson was about 220 lbs and he faced 240-250 lbs heavyweights like Lewis, Bruno, and Golota. As I said before, Patterson wasn't that much smaller than Ingo, Machen, Quarry, Ellis, Folley, Moore etc.

Even if I did agree with you, it wouldn't make a difference. No one considers Charles a greater heavyweight than Frazier or Marciano just because he could mix it up.

TIL losing close decisions instead of getting stopped makes you a greater fighter. I agreed that Patterson was better at handling adversity. But Tyson was far more dominant than Patterson.

Tyson's win over Golota is what made him a top contender again. Michael Grant got a shot at Lennox by beating Golota. Golota dropped Grant 3 times and he was clearly winning the fight until he quit. Tyson dominated the same Golota and made him quit after 2 rounds. How is Tyson any less worthy of a title shot than Grant? Tua got his shot with a controversial stoppage over Rahman. Rahman got his shot by beating Sanders. Tyson was just as worthy as all these guys who fought for the lineal title.

I don't believe holding a certain title makes you a greater fighter. It's what you do with the title that counts.

That was my entire point. All Floyd did during his 5 year reign was separate himself for Johannson. He came out on top in the end, but that's not surprising since he was the superior fighter.

No matter how you put it, Tyson beat much better opposition than Patterson and did so in more dominant fashion. Having a better and deeper resume is what makes Tyson the greater fighter.

By your standard, 90s Foreman made more title defences than Tyson. I can't agree with that.

You're giving Patterson credit for fighting in a different era than Tyson. He didn't have to go through 4 different champions to unify the division. There was only one title around in the 50s and the only way to break the lineage was via retirement (Jeffries, Tunney, Marciano). On the other hand, Holmes was a champion for over 7 years and he never unified the division. Tyson came around and did it in less than 2 years. That's a great accomplishment no matter how you look at it. What did Patterson do that no one else could do? What makes his accomplishment more impressive?

But Spinks was the lineal champion. Something Johannson only accomplished because Patterson couldn't beat him. Spinks beat the man twice, Johannson beat a contender in Machen. Spinks was the better opponent.

Spinks was coming off a 12 month layoff when he lost to Tyson. Johannson was also coming off a 12 month layoff when he lost to Patterson. How is going 2-1 against a contender more impressive than blasting out a lineal champion?

Tyson fought Holyfield too. Unlike Patterson-Liston, their fight wasn't delayed because Tyson was ducking Holyfield. Everyone knows Patterson avoided some of the best challengers of his era. How can you be a champion for 5 years and only fight 1 elite opponent? And then he ended up losing to that one opponent. Yes I know he won the trilogy but remember that you're arguing Patterson is greater than Tyson. You can talk about Tyson losing to a fringe contender but that was after Tyson had established himself as one of the most dominant champions in heavyweight history. He didn't get KO'd the first time he faced an opponent who posed a threat.

I asked you what makes Johansson a better opponent than Bonecrusher and you said "beating a champion is better than beating a belt holder". You're basically saying Johannson is better because Patterson lost to him. So, for Bonecrusher to get to Johansson's level, Tyson would have to get KO'd by him and then beat him in a rematch. I don't agree with that logic. If we're talking about boxing ability, what makes Johansson better than guys like Tucker, Thomas, Williams, Bruno, Tubbs, Spinks, Holmes, Douglas?

 

Tyson never got off the floor to win. Nuff said.

 

That is a bad mark I agree and is something that is being overlooked in this thread but that doesn't automatically disqualify him from greatness. Lewis, Liston, among others never got off the floor to win.

 

Marciano mops em all.

 

H2H has absolutely NOTHING to do with all time greatness. For example most rank Rocky Marciano over Mike Tyson, but do you think they also believe Marciano would beat Tyson? Such an asinine comment. You're better than this He Grant.

 

Archie Moore was better.

 

44-8...in case anyone wasn't counting.

 

I pick 1960 Patterson to KO 1988 Tyson in 12 in an ATG fight where both men are floored and their corners have to pick them up off the stools to continue. But continue they do!