Patterson is greater than Tyson

Some people enjoy violence rather than skillful fighters, psychologically it has to do with a wishing type of mechanism, where they wish that they could emulate those type of people in real life, it is the other side of their personality. To each their own, but Floyd later in his life was not relegated to fighting a shark.

 

There are some good points here. Floyd did not make excuses and his heart was more in boxing than Tyson's ever was. Did you know Floyd had considered a 3rd fight with Liston during an interview?

I was on the fence for a while, but Im currently leaning toward Patterson. He was really an overachiever if you think about it. The guy could have easily made 175 without being skin and bones or could have been a cruiserweight champ if it was available. But he chose heavyweight and had a bad chin. He was the first 2x champion and yet still pursued a 3rd title after the Ali exile. He parted ways with his long time trainer after getting fed up with the critics claiming he was avoiding contenders to take on a new crop of young talented fighters in the 70's. He got dropped a lot but he also, to quote Patterson himself, "got up more times than anyone else". He was way more well rounded and always in good shape with good stamina.

In contrast, Tyson maneuevered his way around the division very strategically when he made his come back (he wasn't exactly taking on hungry young lions). Tyson fell apart without cus and Rooney. He was born with amazing talent and was a naturally stocky guy with great fast twitch fibers, a good chin, and power in both hands. But he was often out of shape, overconfident, and fairly predictable despite all his talent and skill. I think what may have convinced me is that Tyson did not live up to his full potential, not even close. Floyd went above any beyond what was expected of him and still remained relevant up to his last fight while Tyson's career ended in a train wreck.

 

I really liked Floyd a lot too, he gave Sonny Liston a shot at the title, even when President Kennedy was against such a fight, Patterson was a champion with class.

 

Absolutely! I've met guys in their 40's and 50's who are still in awe of Tyson not just because he was such an explosive fighter, but they sincerely think his hectic life was "awesome": the street fights, crazy divorces, cocain parties, blowing a bunch of money on tigers and cars, going to prison, being an unstable savage who knocked guys out and inspired a toxic aura of pseudo masculinity and fear, etc. They're projecting their own feelings on what they think peak manhood is. There's no convincing them so I don't bother.

Its got to be an American male thing. This might be why screw ups who lived crazy lives like Terrell Owens, Dennis Rodman, Tyson Fury, etc get so much media attention and admiration but athletes like Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, or boxers like Errol Spence, just arent embraced by the main stream media despite their accomplishments.

Having been through very painful and dramatic experiences in my own life, I would advise any young athlete to seek counseling and therapy if they have serious issues before pursuing a professional sports career. There's nothing cool or awesome about dealing with pregnancy scares, child support, divorce, losing all your money, brawling in the street, addiction, or going to prison. I've experienced some of that and I know people who have gone through all of that and then some. I'll take a quiet and peaceful family life over that for a million dollars. Some guys need to grow up.

 

I have my college degree in Psychology, no fooling. I took care of many young men on the units that I was assigned to. You are so right, especially when you can see thru people during an interview. I never did buy the Tyson thing, I thought that he was some kind of novelty, creating all this negative attention. But come on, what adult needs his hand held to be great? Esta Loco, which means in Spanish, he is crazy. But some people love very violent interactions my friend. You write a really good post.

 

OK. Here's your chance to tell us how Marciano over comes a near foot in height, and 60+ pounds, in the modern day behemoths?
Does he have a speed advantage? Is he more skilled? Is he a better boxer? Is he stronger? Is he more powerful? Oh let me guess, Rocky will "find a way" right?

Marciano has turned into the most overrated heavy here. Jesus christ.

 

OK and? Most thought he deserved the verdict against against Quarry 2X, Maxim and Ellis which would've made his only unavenged losses against Liston, and Ali which their is absolutely no shame in.

No. That wasn't his fault. But Douglas beat him badly, took his 0 and Tyson had no desire to reverse that loss. Liston, Ali, Louis, Patterson, among others all had their 0 taken and were eager to get back in the ring with their conquerors. Tyson on the contrary seemed like he wanted nothing to do with Douglas ever again. Other than that, he only rematched ONE person who'd ever beaten him, and was so intimidated he bitched out, and bit the guy's ear off in what is still the most embarrasing, pathetic, and disgraceful manner in boxing history.

Getting off the floor to win shows you are capable of overcoming adversity, and not a front runner which Tyson never proved. Ali, Frazier, Louis, Patterson, Holmes, Foreman, Holyfield, Marciano, Dempsey, Charles, Walcott, Johnson, Joshua, Wlad, ALL got off the floor to win. Tyson never did this. Others like Lewis, never got off the floor to win (but even he was only knocked down twice, and one of them was a referee stoppage where he was robbed of the oppurtunity to do so) but he avenged both his KO losses in a brutal manner. Tyson never did either, one of a select few ATGs who've never done so. This should absolutely be counted against him. The fact that you're denying this is laughable. L

Against Ellis, the Associated Press had it 7-4-4 in favor of Patterson. In a poll of ringside sportswriters by United Press International, 75% scored it for Patterson.

"Floyd Patterson, the 19 year old Olympic graduate, won a "newspaper decision" over Joey Maxim last night, but the cagey ex-light heavyweight champion grabbed the verdict that counts - a unanimous if unpopular vote by the three officials. A poll of 11 boxing writers at the ringside at Brooklyn's Eastern Parkway Arena was unanimous for Patterson over his 32 year old opponent. Patterson, using a spectacular leaping right hand lead battered Maxim in the 6th, staggering him twice. Joey fought back gamely under bursts of fire by Patterson grabbing when in danger." -Associated Press

The AP and UP both scored it for him as well.

When you say the "majority of ringside reporters" voted for Bonavena you mean 5 compared to the 4 who voted for Patterson.

OK and? Witherspoon, Thomas, Coetzee, Page, MARVIS, Biggs, all beat a younger Tillis easier than Mike managed. Mike was also in his prime against Tillis or at least relatively close to it. 3 Fights later JOE ****ING BUGNER (who was washed up) also beat Tillis far easier than Mike did. Also how did Corletti beat Chuvalo "with more ease"? The AP only gave him four out of ten rounds. He also stated after the fact that ""they don't come any tougher or stronger than george chuvalo". Doesn't sound like he beat him with relative ease.

I can't believe you're criticizing Patterson's wins over Quarry and Ellis because they weren't as good as Ali or Frazier. Also even if they were "way behind Frazier" (which was far from a given considering Frazier was still seen as green at that point) Ali was in exile so he was no longer in the mix. Pretty disingenuous to include him.

Patterson was 37 years old and you're criticizing him for holding wins over contenders! What the hell was Tyson doing at this age? Getting knocked out by Williams and Mcbride? Actually even there Tyson was younger than Patterson.

This is a double standard of breathtaking proportions. Let's at least TRY to be fair.

At least he got back in the ring with Liston. How many people do you know who would've gotten in the ring with a prime Liston at all, let alone after being brutally dispatched so easily, and violently in under a round? How many times did Tyson rematch anyone who beat him? Once. A shopworn aging Holyfield in his mid-30s and failed miserably, and laughably bitched out and disgraced himself by biting his ear. At least Floyd went down fighting and got up twice.

Absolute non-sense. Tyson was seen as a potential ATG for sure but not on par with Ali and Louis. Please show me your proof otherwise.

That is actually an excellent point. I'm of the opinion that Patterson ducked Williams, Machen, and Folley (or at least the former 2) which I seem to have missed out on when assessing the facts. I may need to reconsider my opinion on whether Patterson was greater or not. The rest of your post however was not objective at all, and laughably slanted. I expected much better from you as you are among one of our best posters most of the time.

 

57-9.

 

Reread so you get the point and stop trying to make your own .. you're way off target ..

 

This content is protected

 

This pretty much cover it. It is very odd that Mike never even tried to rematch Buster.

 

Yes it is. Most people are eager to reverse a loss ESPECIALLY against those who took their 0 such as Ali, Liston, Louis, Holmes, Patterson Joshua, among others. Tyson never even attempted to set the record straight. Mr. Thomas not only gave him a pass for this but actually praised him for it. While Patterson, after being brutally knocked out in the first go akin to a Foreman-Frazier blow out, not only climbs back in the ring with him which requires massive balls stepping in the ring with a man who'd just annihilated you, to reverse his loss, but he actually does so, knocking Ingo out in a brutal manner to regain his title, and Jason wants to criticize him for that! Just one of the many breathtaking double-standards of his laughably one-sided post.

 

Then the point of your comment escapes me.

 

Nothing wrong with disagreeing. Perhaps I was too pro-Tyson or anti-Patterson, but I think it also possible you might be guilty of the same in the reverse. You make a lot of good points, but some thoughts:

"Tyson was younger than Patterson"

No. He was 38 when he lost to Williams and McBride. The year he turned 37 he KO'd Etienne. But I also want to make the case that which one was the better fighter in his late 30's is not the issue. Walcott was better at 37 than Louis. Moore was better as an old man than Charles. The real issue is who had the better career and was better in his prime, not who faded less when old.

"Maxim and Ellis fights"

My point was these were not "robberies" for me. They were close fights. Off the films, I see Maxim and Ellis winning. I haven't seen films recently of the Quarry or Bonavena fights.

"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.

"Getting off the floor"

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.

"Not re-matching Douglas"

I was really busy and had a lot of responsibilities back in the 1990's and so couldn't pay close attention to what fights were considered or not considered. This is a decent point.

"never coming back in a fight"

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.

"Biting Holyfield"

Okay. This is impossible to defend and really hurts Tyson's stature.

"Taking a O"

Technically, Patterson did not re-match the guy who took his 0, Maxim. Still I accept your point. Tyson perhaps should have gone out of his way to get even with Douglas.

"Douglas"

If you are going to make a case against Tyson and for Patterson, this is where it has to be, I think. Douglas was considered a mediocre challenger. Tyson held him cheap, didn't train adequately, and lost badly. A quick re-match went by the board because of Douglas' terrible performance against Holyfield. Don King just wrote Douglas off and set up a Tyson-Holyfield match which fell through because of the **** conviction.

"Ali was not active"

He was still recognized as champion by The Ring.

"Who would get into the ring with Liston"

Almost everyone. How else did Liston clean out the division?

"Tyson was not a peer of Ali and Louis"

Lots of people were putting him in that class in the 1980's. As they had Liston earlier after he blew out Patterson twice. Hindsight is always 20/20 and of course we know now this was a stretch.

Anyway, lots to disagree about here.

 

This a much more objective and fair post. Don't have time to respond right now, but will get back to you later.