the underrated patterson vs the overrated hw version of ezzard charles

I would to go with Charles. Wins over Moore and Burley and a hell of a fight against Marciano.

 

With all due respect to Patterson who seemed to be every bit of a first class gentleman as Charles I don't think Patterson is anywhere near Charles' class
At the Cobras peak he weighed under 13 stone and because he was giving weight away he was more cagey but was still stopping heavyweight opponents while although Floyd was winning, he was getting dropped.
Charles would flatten Patterson

 

I think Patterson wins.

I believe he is very underrated because of his 2 KO1 losses to Liston, but he was brilliant boxer with great speed.

 

I guess it depends on how highly you rate those guys. I think Bivins and Maxim are overrated spoilers. I also think that if Henry Hall and Leonard Morrow can beat Moore at the time that Charles did then I think that Patterson could pull that trick as well. If you give Patterson ten pounds on Burley like Charles had I think he could win that fight also. I just dont see Charles as having anything other than possibly ring smarts that Patterson didnt have. I dont think he was as fast, I dont think he hit as hard, I dont think he was any more durable, he wasnt more aggressive and didnt throw more punches, he MIGHT have been a better boxer but thats debateable and Im not sure it would have made much difference given some of the advantages that Patterson would have.

 

Charles was getting knocked down as much or more than Patterson. He was knocked down at least 30 times in his career, maybe more, and most of those came in his prime against smaller men that Patterson was facing. As for the weight Patterson himself was a natural LHW who worked hard to bulk up to a small HW.

 

"very underrated because of his 2 KO 1 losses to Liston"

Well, he should have been at his peak, at 27 and 28 years old.

In two tries he doesn't even get out of the first round against Liston.

I think these kind of poor performances should downgrade him some.

 

My take is that up to about age 34 Charles was clearly better in that he was thrown to the wolves and fought all the toughies.

Patterson?

He got to be the #1 lightheavyweight and heavyweight contender with wins over only three rated fighters--Jimmy Slade (2), Willie Troy, and Dave Whitfield. He had lost a close, and disputed, (although I think fair) decision to an aging Joey Maxim.

That got him to the fights with Jackson and Moore. The Moore victory in retrospect is by far his most impressive. I wouldn't be too critical at this point as he was only 22, but instead on building on these wins, he was matched with second-stringers for five years, except for Johansson. Somehow he did not fight Folley, Machen (at this point), Valdes, Williams, Harold Johnson, or Doug Jones.

A lot depends on how good one thinks Johansson was. He had blown out Machen and a slew of so-so Euros, and blew out Patterson, but then went Hollywood. He was all over TV during his year in the sun, even appearing the night before his rematch with Patterson.

So Patterson got the title back and then flopped totally against Liston. His comeback included wins over a past it Machen and also a past it Cooper, plus outpointing Chuvalo. In fairness, lots of guys outpointed Chuvalo.

At 32 and 33 he fought Quarry and Ellis three times in close fights and came out 0-2-1.

To that age, Charles had beaten a lot more proven dangerous fighters, including heavyweights.

Possibly because of not much wear and tear, Patterson proved able to continue pretty well up to 37, including the surprising and impressive win over Bonavena.

Bottom line for me--Patterson simply didn't fight and defeat the guys he should have during the summer of his career. Along with failing completely against Liston, and doing nothing much against Ali, for me there is not enough to put him up in a young Charles' class.

 

Charles hit the deck a lot less than Patterson during their peak years, he was indisputably a better body puncher and at least on a par for power.

 

What do you consider charles' peak yrs? Because the vast majority of his knockdowns occured in the period most would call his prime. Getting bounced up and down like a yoyo by Jimmy Bivins who was not a HW puncher doesnt give me a lot of confidence that Charles' chin was made of any more iron than Pattersons. I just dont know who all of these guys were at HW that Charles was knocking out much less fighting who were better than Patterson or the guys that beat Patterson. Its not a secret that Charles stay at HW was considered one of the weakest eras in the divisions history. Its precisely why the majority of defenses by he and Marciano were were aging ex lhws and nobodies. Im not saying Patterson's opposition as champ was great either but the guys being used to prove Charles would beat him: Liston, Ali, Quarry, Ellis, Johannson, etc were all far better/more dangerous than anyone Charles ever beat at HW as well. Then the goal post gets shifted to his career at lhw (where hes fighting smaller guys). Like I said, had Patterson chose to remain at LHW he could written his own ticket and would have had a lot of big lhw scalps as well. Would anyone favor moore, johnson, pastrano, torres, tiger, or foster over Patterson? Id make him a comfortable favorite over all of those guys at lhw.

 

His record vs. the following Hall of Fame fighters-

Joey Maxim 5-0
Jimmy Bivins 4-1 (1)
Archie Moore 3-0 (1)
Jersey Joe Walcott 2-2 (1 KO loss)
Lloyd Marshall 2-1 (2) (KO loss)
Charlie Burley 2-0
Joe Louis 1-0
Teddy Yarosz 1-0
Gus Lesnevich 1-0 (1)
Ken Overlin 0-1-1
Rocky Marciano 0-2 (1 KO loss)
Harold Johnson 0-1

21-8-1 (5) vs. these men. 3 KO losses. Only 1 of the 5 decision losses was a clear loss (J. Bivins). The man was special!

 

Impressive! Nice breakdown.

 

Lesnevich would have left the country rather than defend against Charles and for good reason.when Charles defended his heavyweight crown against him the Russian lion was annihilated.
Joe Baksi was a feared heavyweight till Charles cut him to shreds and stopped him

 

I favour Patterson here, but it's an intriguing fight.

 

Lesnevich was totally shot when Charles defended against him. After the war when gus title was unfrozen he was losing as much as he was winning and he was never the best lhw in the world to begin with.


We can post all of these hofers that Charles fought but the fact is that guys like Yarosz, Bivins, Overlin, and Marshall (is he even in?) are bottom of the barrel type inductions. Its not like any of them were legendary atg types. Even Lesnevich was known in his own day as more of a Gatti level and type of guy and like i said he was totally shot when charles got him. The argument is really how much credit you give those black murderers row guys who were fighting each other on the 1930s and 40s era chitlin circuit and made their current reputations almost exclusively from that. Ive never been convinced by the circular logic that fighter c is great because he beat fighter b who is great for beating fighter a who is great for beating c and around and around we go. I think guy like lloyd marshall and jimmy bivins are ridiculously overrated today so if you believe that, like i do, its easy to see how i would be skeptical of a guy who went from being a colorless, largely boring technician in his own time and the few decades afterwards, to suddenly being this monster. I dont see. I certainly dont see him destroying Patterson. You could argue that he might outpoint him but I sure dont see him blowing him out. If Charles could beat Patterson (and thats a big if) my money would be on it being a boring technical chessmatch and how many of those was Patterson in? Not many.

 

Charles was down seven times against Marshall (fight 1), once again (fight 2), three times against Bivins (fight 1) and once again in fight 2, three times against Marciano and once apiece against Walcott, Holman, Overlin and Fitzpatrick. That's 20 knockdowns in nine fights and there are probably others. All told, I wouldn't say his chin was significantly better than Patterson's.