Something that Floyd Patterson is never given due credit for.

Where are we at here? I feel Patty gets his just due as being a solid fighter..... BUT! He does get dicked around a lot in the "Champion" department......... To me, that's understandable.........

MR.BILL:hat

 

Who could he have beat that put him into the top 10 at light-heavy by 1953? Wagner is probably his best win up to that period, seems rather fortunate to have cracked the top 10 by that time.

 

Floyd did get into the IBHOF in 1991 (the same year as Liston), and entering with the inaugural class wouldn't have been an outrage. I think his greatness might be more overlooked today because it was taken for granted for such a long time. He was a fixture on television in many superb matches, and a legitimate international star (fighting in Sweden four times, in London against Cooper, and Toronto against McNeeley). His post title career was impressive, and he could have remained a top ten heavyweight for a few more years, as his final big win over Bonavena suggests. (He actually had interest in a third match with Ali after Kinshasa, but even without a bad back or any cuts, he simply wasn't going to beat Ali, regardless of whether or not he was at his very best.)

He wasn't ranked in 1969 because he didn't compete, and he only had one relatively unimpressive outing in 1970, but the next year, he shut out Terry Daniels when Daniels was as good as he ever got. (All three times Floyd went the distance in 1971, he pitched a shutout, demonstrating fine skills as well as conditioning.) Judging off the tape (an admittedly flawed criteria), I also believed that he, not Ali, deserved to become the first three time HW title claimant in 1968. (The validity of a win over Ellis instead of Frazier would have been about the same as Ali's rematch over Leon instead of Holmes.)

Patterson-Bonavena deserves more attention when assessing Floyd. He remained a superb and fast competitor to the end, with little evident deterioration.

 

Jan,

Like I said earlier, dude......... Patty was a good fighter....... Is it so hard to digest he'd be a ranked contender for a long ass period of time? I think not..... BUT! As a champion, he was protected and generally fought dubious opposition from 1957 thru to his second reign that ended in '62......... STILL! Patty was not Superman at any particular time.......

NOTE!

Kayoing Ol' Archie Moore in '56 was no biggie of a deal........ Christ on Friday, Patty was age 21 to Moore's + or - 40 yrs...... Moore fought like a Mummy who'd been dead for 3,000 yrs.....

MR.BILL

 

Like him, or not, Patterson was a fighting force in boxing for 20 years or more. Very few men can make that claim! On top of that I met the man once, and he was a true gentleman, in and out of the ring! Thanks for the reminder, Janitor!

 

Patterson isn't given much credit for anything, sadly, by at least three quarters of boxing fans.

There are few losses more devastating to a fighters legacy then his two losses against Liston. Not in my eyes, mind you.

Think Tyson/Spinks made the boxing "public" look at Michael differently?

Think the same thing happened in the publics eye with Foreman/Frazier?

Ain't got **** on the two Liston/Patterson fights. :---(

 

Yep

Had Patterson become a LHW champion, would he have been more credit rather than just working his way as a contender and moving to the HW division. I mean... he beat the LHW champion anyway, just at HW.

 

Russ,

Good points, but Michael Spinks did the right thing by never fighting again after his blow-out loss to Tyson in '88.........

MR.BILL:deal

 

The right thing for himself, his interests.

There was no right choice that would have satisfied casual boxing fans however. Instead of a consensus top three LHW he's so much less in many "fans" eyes, which is ridiculous. No one on classic that is, but mainstream boxing fans, you know?