Should Floyd Patterson have defended his title against Eddie Machen and Zora Folley?

"Johnson who did fight and defeat his top challengers before he was champion"

True, but does beating a middleweight Langford in 1906 actually justify never fighting him again when he was a bigger and better fighter?

If Schmeling fought and beat Braddock in 1937, would his victory over Louis in 1936 have justified his never giving Louis a title shot ever (assuming there was no WWII and Schmeling held onto the title a number of years) regardless of Louis beating all the other top contenders?

"So in six years he fought 2 men"

One--he wasn't champion six years. One of those years Johansson was champion. Patterson was actually champion for something less than five years in actual time.

Two--He defended against three number ones--Jackson, Johansson, and Liston, not two. And Johansson and Liston were clearly the outstanding contenders at the time Patterson defended against them.

"The other five fights were all against lower second-tier opposition"

Actually Harris was ranked #3 by the NBA, and Johansson was the ex-champ fighting an eagerly anticipated rubber match. "lower second-tier" strikes me as a bit over-the-top.

"read the coverage of the day"

I read it in the day.

"Cus and Floyd were badly ripped for who they fought"

As have been other champions, sometimes in their own time, and sometimes later. One point of a board like this is to evaluate how fair the criticisms are. Certainly there is more than enough room for criticism of Floyd, especially for the Rademacher and McNeeley defenses. London is tougher to figure as it appears to have been a warm-up fight. Does a heavyweight champion have a right to a warm-up if he is going to meet the outstanding challenger in less than two months? No one would have questioned a lower-weight champion having this sort of tune-up in an over-the-weight match.

 

That opinion can only be reached without the knowledge of the chronological order of events.

Harris and London were worthy. McNeely and Radmacher just tune ups.

Machen and Folley were too good to be tune ups and were always behind Ingo and Liston WHEN it counted.
On the face of it of Course machen and folley deserved title shots ahead of Radmacher and London but I understand the sequence of events. It just didn't pan out.

Folley never quite over shadowed machen and machen blew 3 elliminators during Floyd's time at the title. The draw with Folley. The knockout loss to Ingo and the draw with Williams. Then he lost to Harold Johnson and Liston during the Ingo serries then lost a vacant title fight with Terrell. Machen got his chances.

Folley blew his elliminator too. Then he lost to Cooper. by the time folley reversed that Cooper loss Liston beat him. He beat Machen during the Ingo serries when the title was basically frozen.. then Doug Jones knocked him out.

 

Again with the meaningless Ring magazine ratings? Why not post Boxing Monthly's ratings? Or Boxing Illustrated (oh wait, Boxing Illustrated actually used the NBA ratings which were the only ones that mattered).

 

By the time of the July ratings, Pattetson vs Harris was already set. And Folley had already accepted an offer before even fighting Machen to pass on a summer title bout and meet Rademacher for big money instead.

I already posted the article.

Rademacher basically said he would pay big money if the winner of Folley vs Machen would fight him instead of Patterson. Folley said he was taking the offer win or lose, Machen refused but got injured anyway,


And Notice Ingo is champ on the second set of ratings. Not Patterson's contender.


The NBA named Folley and Machen as co number ones.

 

The NBA ratings he listed are from July with Patterson already training for August Harris fight and Folley weeks away from Rademacher, whom sent him offers even before the Machen draw.

And I don't see why Patterson is being held accountable for Folley not getting a crack at Ingo...

 

Patterson\Mcneeley and Liston/Westphal was a double header to build up the inevitable 62 clash between Liston and Patterson. Obviously a soft touch for both. Liston was the #1.

This is like claiming Wlad ducked someone like Fury to face Pianetta. Ignoring the Pianetta fight was just an interim while he was working on making a fight with his outstanding leading contender. Of course there was higher rated fighters than Mcneeley and Pianetta, but champions take fights like this.

Nobody argued Harris as being more deserving, just that under the circumstances he was the best fighter that wasn't injured or occupied, and a deserving contender in his own right.

 

"are you turning from Ring Magazine"

No. They remain a good historical tool if properly used, as do the NBA ratings. The NBA ratings just have not been easily available so it has been natural to use The Ring ratings. Still, whether anyone considers them "official" or not, the public respected The Ring ratings and the public does count for something in this.

I do think the NBA rating of Harris at #3 better reflected his accomplishments to this point. He was #5 but was undefeated and had beaten the #3 Pastrano, as well as Baker.

 

"a rubber match needed to be made"

Actually, this was a rematch. I honestly think Folley should have gotten the shot with Patterson matched with another top contender to prove his right to fight for the title. As this top contender most likely would have been Liston, Floyd might have been out of luck.

Ingo had no choice in the matter because of the return bout clause. Still, Floyd was a draw and perhaps Johansson would have elected to fight him regardless.

The third fight was the rubber, with Patterson the champion. I agree that it should have been made as the public wanted it.