the underrated patterson vs the overrated hw version of ezzard charles

Patterson not giving mâchén and folley one title shot from 1957-1959 was disgraceful.

 

Crixus


Here is the July 1958 rankings RING

https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,2647652&hl=en

Champion Floyd Patterson

1. Zora Folley
2. Eddie Machen
3. Willie Pastrano
4. Archie Moore
5. Roy Harris
6. Nino Valdes
7. Ingemar Johansson
8. Alex Miteff
9. George Chuvalo
10. Harold Carter


Folley reached number 1 status with NBA . Mâchén number 2 status with NBA

https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...0,494524&hl=en

 

"washed up Nino Valdes"

No matter how washed up, Valdes stopped London in fewer rounds than Patterson needed a couple of months earlier, and he lasted longer and did more damage against Liston in one fight than Patterson did in two.

"timelines" or other reasons for not fighting top opponents may or may not be valid, but the bottom line is you beat the top men or you don't, and Patterson didn't.

 

And knocked out an undefeated joe Erskine in one round. Erskine beat Willie Pastrano.

 

Weve been through this death suzie. Folley was #1 contender for all of a month, maybe two, while patterson was already obligated. As I recall the last time we hatched this all out you ended up running for the hills because the facts and timeline just dont support your righteous indignation. The bottom line, and my point originally point was to illustrate how weak the argument is against Patterson in favor of Charles due to Pattersons numerous knockdowns (far less than Charles) and Pattersons losses. Particularly comical is the call that Charles "at least fought the best of his era" and then rattle off a totally shot and inactive Louis, a totally shot lhw Gatti i mean Lesnevich, Baksi, etc as if those guys were a badge of honor. Yes Patterson lossed to Liston and Ali badly (the first time) but in losing to those men he was actually facing real, big, dangerous, great hws. Charles never once did this. Not even against the 5'11" trex armed 185 pound Marciano. In getting robbed against Quarry Ellis Patterson fought two men better than anyone Charles defended beat at HW with the POSSIBLE exception of Walcott and I say possible because Walcott managed to lose to plenty of men who werent as good as Quarry or Ellis. The bottom line is that if you stack up Liston, Ali, Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Johannson, Machen (who you always forget Patterson dominated), etc my bet would be Charles has a lot more losses, kds, ko losses, etc because those guys were almost to a man more dangerous when Patterson fought them than the guys Charles fought. Anyone care to guess how Marciano (the most daunting name on Charles record) would fair against Liston or Walcott against Ali? How about Baksi against Ellis or Lesnevich against Quarry? No? I didnt think so. You think Jerry Quarry couldnt have been a champion in Charles era? Please. When a 37 year old journeyman gets 5 shots at the title in just over three yrs it tells you how week the post war era was. Unless you really believe that Hoff, Tandberg, Shkor, Agramonte, and a then unknown Harold Johnson were really impressive enough to warrant such deferential treatment. The counter argument would be: "Nobody else was doing anything better." And my response would be EXACTLY.

 

What "top" men did Patterzon not fight? He defended against his #1 everytime. Folley was #1 for about 2 months maximum. Now, you can pretend that timelines dont matter and that the sport moves in the blink of an eye as it moves in your imagination but thats nothing more than a rejection of reality. To claim Patterson ducked Folley and Machen but then defended against the guy who beat both, against public opinion i might add, is pretty ridiculous. Its like claiming an alligator wrestler is scared of geckos.


We can pretend all day long that Patterson was scared of Valdez but do me two favors: 1. Tally up for me how they did against common opponents, ALL common opponents. 2. Tell me exactly when Patterson SHOULD have fought Valdez and when he ducked him. Get back to me on that.

 

"He defended against his #1 every time"

Fair enough that he defended against Johansson who knocked off Machen. And he did end up defending against Liston.

"scared" "ducking"

I didn't say anything about either. I said he didn't beat most of the top men. Well, he didn't beat Folley, Williams, Terrell, Liston, Ali, and Frazier, and only beat Machen after he had an emotional breakdown and was on the cusp of a severe decline.

Beating Folley, Machen, and yes, Valdes, in the late fifties would certainly have added stature to his resume which is not there with Rademacher, Harris, and London--although Harris was a decent defense.

On Valdes, I merely said that even "washed up" he was better than London. Valdes was brought up by me in the context of Patterson's title reign, and none of the men Patterson defended against, except Liston, actually beat Valdes.

 

"The bottom line is that if you stack up Liston, Ali, Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Johansson, Machen, etc.---my bet is Charles has a lot more losses, kd's, ko losses, etc

Well, Patterson was 4-7-1 against these men. He was stopped five times. He suffered 18 knockdowns.

Liston--as Patterson absolutely flopped against Liston, it is difficult to imagine Charles doing worse.

Ali--two stoppage defeats in two fights.

The rest I favor Charles against. I think he takes the best version of Machen, but the post breakdown Machen? No reason to think Machen was still anything like what he had been.

*in fairness to Patterson, he accomplished something at 37 in beating Bonavena, even if in a disputed decision, that I don't think Charles could have done after he reached 34.

"Anyone care to guess how Marciano would have fared against Liston or Walcott against Ali?"

Hard to imagine a point here, as Patterson didn't even survive the first round against Liston in two tries. Charles gave Marciano a tough fight. And he beat Walcott twice, while Patterson just lost badly twice to Ali, even a disinterested Ali in their second fight.

"How about Baksi against Ellis or Lesnevich against Quarry?"

As Charles beat Baksi and Lesnevich, and Patterson lost to Ellis and Quarry, the point is beneath feeble.

*The bottom line of this sort of reasoning seems to be arguing that because you judge Liston and Ali greater than Charles' opposition, Patterson somehow becomes better than Charles.

The flaw is that Charles was competitive with the best of his era.

The best of the sixties were Ali, Liston, and Frazier.

How did Patterson, Ellis, and Quarry do against these three?

They were 0-11 with 11 stoppage defeats, and none of the 11 fights were particularly competitive.

Claiming Ellis and Quarry (whom Patterson couldn't beat anyway) would have been champions of the earlier era is not a judgment I agree with so at least for me, it has no impact.

 

"Unless you really believe that Hoff, Tandberg, Shkor, Agramonte, and a then unknown Harold Johnson were really impressive enough to warrant such deferential treatment."

Harold Johnson was the #3 light-heavyweight contender in the yearly Ring rankings of 1949. I don't think he was unknown.

The probable reason for Walcott keeping getting title shots was that most felt he had beaten Louis in 1947 and had been robbed of the title. And Louis was not just a marginal champion, but the longest reigning champion. No one had come as close to taking his title away.

 

The significant difference in the two London fights is that Patterson, well ahead, won by knockout, in the true sense of the word, count of ten. Whereas London was ahead in the Valdez fight before falling foul of The 4 inches taller Nino's butting. The resultant cut eye caused by fouling stopped the fight, not a ten count.
And yes, timelines are important in looking back and putting the events in context - even Rocky Marciano was accused of avoiding Nino despite Archie Moore beating the much bigger Valdez twice.
Folley and Machen eliminated themselves with their drawn fight followed by their losses to Cooper and Johansson respectively. Leading/highly rated contenders Patterson fought were Jackson, Harris, Ingo and Liston. Even London and McNeeley were in the top ten while Olympic Pete was taken on for a fortune, 3 weeks after Patterson had stopped his No 1 contender Jackson, and why not? he was a professional boxer after all!

 

"timelines are important"

Okay. The timeline is Machen came out of 1957 the #1 contender. He was 24-0. He had just stopped Jackson, one of Floyd's two big wins, and had earlier stopped Valdes. He also had a couple of wins over a fading Maxim, not important in themselves, but Maxim was the guy who held a win over Patterson. Seems to me the time was right to make a match with Machen. What did Eddie have to do to establish himself as a worthy contender?

Was that fight made? No. Machen for some reason has to fight Folley.

"Folley and Machen eliminated themselves with their drawn fight"

This was D'Amato's logic. Wouldn't be mine. If the #1 and #2 contenders fight to a draw, my logic would be that the champion defends against the #1 contender in the early summer and the #2 contender in September.

What the logic is in avoiding both and fighting a lower ranked contender eludes me. Also why was the two defense norm broken in 1958 to have only one defense against Harris. I must point out that Harris, unlike Machen and Folley (or Valdes) doesn't bring any punch to the ring at all. Whatever, he wasn't going to KO Patterson.

"their losses to Johansson and Cooper"

The timeline here is these defeats came after the fight with Harris, in September and October of 1958, past the time for making a big outdoor fight with the champion. This is a fair point about why Johansson got a deserved shot in 1959, not for why Machen and/or Folley didn't get a shot in 1958.

"London and McNeeley were in the top ten"

That is the gold standard? Not being a top contender but just a fringe contender?

"Olympic Pete was taken on for a fortune."

So Floyd fought him for money. He got his money. That is his reward. But we're talking about how history views his legacy.

No dispute that Johansson and Liston earned their shots (and more than earned it in Liston's case), but Patterson defending against them is only doing what a champion is supposed to do. It doesn't really deal with what he was doing between the Jackson and Johansson defenses.

 

"The significant difference in the two London fights is that Patterson, well ahead, won by a knockout."

But in the 11th round. London didn't last that long against Valdes. Who knows if he wouldn't have been KO'd by Valdes before the final bell. He was fading at the end.

But I agree that Valdes had really gone back, whether "washed up" is fair or not.

"fouling"

London's spin. But why didn't the British ref do something about the alleged fouling? British refs generally are not known to be all that shy about DQ'ing fighters.

 

Bravo Edward Morbius