Should Floyd Patterson be criticized for for defending his title against

That's not logic or an excuse. That's just what happened.

They were the top two contenders. They fought to a draw. So Floyd fought the third-rated guy. Would it have been nice if he fought either Folley or Machen, sure.

After beating Harris, Machen, Folley and Pastrano were up for a title shot again, and, in a one-month span, they all got beaten by the top Europeans.

That's how Johansson, London and even Cooper got offered title shots. Johansson starched Machen. London stopped Pastrano. Cooper outpointed Folley.

Patterson offered all three of them title shots, Johansson and London accepted.

The real "time suck" in Patterson's reign was the period between the Rademacher and Harris fights when he was waiting for Rocky Marciano to decide if he was going to take the offer for a superfight or not.

Patterson's reign would be viewed quite differently if he'd faced Marciano in 1958. Nobody would be harping about Zora Folley and Eddie Machen, who couldn't maintain their ranking anyway.

 

Just for the hell of it I went back and read all of my Ring magazines from 1957, 1958, 1959 and whats readily apparent is that while Machen and Folley were #1 and #2 they certainly hadnt captured the public imagination or wide support and their eliminator killed any support they may have had. Right after that eliminator, when it was apparent that Machen and Folley were dull and colorless Ring magazine had a cover feature on Roy Harris in which Nat Fleischer discusses the relative merits of the top guys with Jack Dempsey. Dempsey dismissed Folley and Machen as not being ready. Fleischer consistently through this period made it clear that he thought Patterson was head and shoulders above Machen and Folley and time and time again reported on their poor performances in fights. He criticised Machen as not being ready in 1957 when he beat Jackson and stated that Jackson put up such a poor effort and was so out of shape that it proved nothing for Machen. The article focused on Jackson's poor performance, not Machen's showing and made note that Jackson was no longer allowed to box in California. The Folley debacle has been discussed ad naseum, he was knocked out in his next fight in one round and his next televised fight after Johannson against Ruben Vargas was so dull and so controversial (the letters section featured readers blasting Machen and saying Vargas won) that an immediate rematch had to be fought. So essentially the four performances that would have been before the public (3 national TV appearances and a big international fight) In the span of a year and a half were all very harmful to Eddie. The one thing that keeps coming through with guys like Folley and Machen was that neither was very popular with the public. Another thing that is in almost every issue of both Ring and Boxing Illustrated is Cus' war with the IBC. Fleischer stated numerous times that this was why a fight with Machen and Folley (who had ties to the IBC) wouldnt get a shot. Although Fleischer made mention that Machen had been offered a shot in 1957 or 1958 and turned it down (which angered Cus and made him less willing to work with Machen). Whereas Roy Harris was popular. Another thing is that the Ring went out of their way more than once to state that he had moved down the ratings twice and would have been rated higher but for the fact that he was being kept inactive by his military service. There was a great deal of interest in him and he was painted as a sort of red neck crocodile wrestling lil abner type. Dempsey and Fleischer decided in their article that Harris was the type of fighter the division needed to add some color. I found another article comparing Harris and his stablemate Cleveland Williams which stated Harris was a better boxer, faster, and had a better jab. This is later though. As for Williams, as Ive stated before, he wasnt even a factor in the division at this point and I have yet to find him ever being close to #1 in the division. So like Ive said before: A lot of people are trying to boil this down into a black and white issue without having even half of the facts and while taking everything completely out of the context of the times in order to suit their argument or agenda. The issue was a lot more grey than that and there was a lot more happening on the ground at the time than one guy simply being scared of another.

 

This is what I have discovered too. I can't find a rating for him higher than #4 and why should there be? Who was the highest rated guy Williams beat?

Archie Moore beat #1 and #2 to get his shot but many consider Williams a better heavyweight contender!

 

We only have two losing fights of Harris to view. Let's be fair here. If all we had of Liston was him losing to Ali and chuvalo I would be laughing at you just like you are at Harris.

People who saw both at the time thought Harris was the better boxer with faster hands. It is documented.

 

Very kind I am sure. But there is a reason why Harris was rated ahead of Williams. Harris was just beating better guys with better records.

The Bob Baker and Willie Pastrano wins put Harris ahead of Williams in 1957. A year earlier and only at the 17-0 stage Harris beat J.D Marshall in two rounds. At 33-2 with twice as many fights Williams was doing no better against the same guy a year later!

 

This should be the last word on the matter.

 

Pastrano beat Maxim who was the #3 LHW at the time, as you know heavies got kudos for beating top light heavies than. I think this got him in the top 10.

Articles show writers were impressed with his handling of the still fringe Layne and undefeated McMurty who was coming off the Charles win, factor in the win over Holman and you have a genuine top 5 contender who did more than Williams at this point.


Writers were gushing over Pastrano and calling him a future title challenger.

 

Darn right! Klompy nailed the whole thing down. That is the history and fact of the matter. The sequence of events as the World understood it at the time ...and at face value.