Was Floyd Patterson an ATG?

NO was not an ATG, he was better than some. What I do like about him is he was still competitive up into the end of his career but he was just another contender post Liston. In a way he is in the same boat as Ezzard Charles a fighter who fought out of his best weight class but EC is an ATG just not an ATG heavy....had FP fought at 175 (He won the 56 Olympics at 156) he would have been an ATG without a doubt.

The problem some have with FP was he was truly the bridge between the smaller era and the larger era where Liston was the new modern sized fighter. Liston could have been competitive in every era up until this super heavy era that started with Bowe and Lewis. The way Liston blew through FP was impressive and really puts FP into proper perspective of the evolution.

 

Floyd gets criticized for fighting too infrequently when he was champ. I believe the US federal income tax laws at that time were the major reason for his inactivity. Back then the maximum tax bracket was 90 percent. With the amount of money Floyd was earning per fight it would have been foolish to risk his title more than once a year. Floyd got good advice from his lawyer Julius November and, I'm sure, others.

 

An ATG natural light heavy who fought at heavy. An ATG man in general.

 

There were a ton of ways around those taxes back then. You form an entity (s-corp, etc), have the money paid into the entity, pay yourself from the entity, just keep the money in the entity long term while slowly paying yourself to avoid the taxes. And of course, have the entity pay directly for what it can -- for a fighter, real easy, because what isn't a legitimate business expense for a fighter? Hard to argue a grocery bill or a meal isn't a legitimate expense for a fighter, for example.

 

He’s just outside the ATG door, looking in through the window imo.

But you bring up great points. And his longevity given his style kind of makes a mockery of how Mike Tyson (literally same style and same system under the same guru) was destined to be a shooting star who burned out quickly, that it was inevitable that he have an early decline … in which case, why wasn’t Floyd?

I’d argue Floyd fought a much higher level of opposition past his early rise (comparing him after Ingo — or even Liston II — to Tyson after Douglas for instance) and Patterson was battered and stopped three times and yet still had a second act that was among the best in heavyweight history, while Mike … not so much.

 

Can't believe you asked this.

 

Was Holyfield really better than Patterson? Bigger? Yes. Better against modern sized heavyweights? Yes because of his size in comparison to Patterson. But if Holyfield fought Patterson at cruiserweight, it would be anyone's fight. I could see a 190 pound Patterson vs a 190 pound Holyfield turning into a trilogy in which both men lose one.

 

Won the title twice back when there was only one title, was I think the second youngest heavyweight champ ever.

Yes, certainly. I don't rank him super high, but top 30 sure.

 

I think most fans will agree that Patterson was admirable for multiple reasons -- as a fighter and as a man. However, when we talk about greatness we're talking about something else which has to do with dominance. Floyd was never considered a dominant heavyweight. He was fast, highly skilled, exciting in the ring, well-schooled, always in shape. He was quietly religious, likable, soft-spoken and respectful of opponents, writers and fans. He was never seen in a state of drunkenness. He never cursed in public. He had many good qualities. But he was known for being sensitive and vulnerable, not for being tough, fearsome and dominant. He never lost to a second-rate fighter but when facing an ATG heavyweight (Liston, Ali), he was clearly inferior.

 

Completely different work ethic...Patterson still wanted at 37, Tyson stopped at 21. Floyd trained and fought, Tyson celebrated. It's like saying - damn, this 30-year-old drunk doesn't run as fast as this 60-year-old who jogs every morning, how weird is that...

 

He could most likely beat Johnson, Sharkey, Schmeling, Charles and Walcott. Although I can see him losing to them as well. Dempsey and Marciano are clear favorites. And he's not beating Joe Louis at all.

 

Didn't Patterson split with D'Amato after Liston II? Wonder whether new trainers adapted his style to something more viable at an older age.

He was also closer in height to a lot of his opponents compared to Mike, which may have helped?

 

You forgot to mention Patterson had stopped his number one contender, Jackson, just 3 weeks previous to Rademacher. How likely would that date have been filled by another leading contender, anyway?
Last year, Fury took on a debutant with far less credentials than Pete, nearly a year after pummelling punchbag, Chisora, for a third time!

 

Quality heavyweight for a long time.

If Cruiser weight had existed in Floyd Patterson's day, we might be having a somewhat (but not fundamentally) different conversation.

 

Agreed. Fury fighting Nganu was a disgrace. Problem is I wasn’t comparing Fury and Patterson but thanks for that perspective . And Patterson fighting a tuneup against anyone he wanted is fine just as long as it wasn’t billed as a world title fight