Who was the bigger sore loser? Floyd Patterson or Ernie Terrell

Cus D said the same thing about Patterson in aka clay.

Funny how tyson, an advanced form of Patterson ended up losing to Buster who used a very similar style to Ali in the fight.

 

I don't think I would ever call or classify Floyd Patterson has a sore loser. To the contrary he often seemed solicitous after losses to the point did Howard Cosell questions his sincerity. Ernie Terrell was understandably bitter following the Ali fight, well he might not I have lost the fight due to being thumbed certainly the controversy surrounding the fight could be a rational emotive to lash out.

 

Of all the examples of what one might term poor sportsmanship in a sport rife with it throughout its history, THIS is the two examples you come up with? Really?

Pretty poor job of it.

 

I'm not sure exactly what Floyd said after the fight but he was never a sore loser. He had back problems in that fight; did Ali 'carry' him? Maybe, but, if so, that shoud put the onus on Ali with his patronization after the fight.
And Floyd fought a great fight (at almost 38) in their 72 s c r a p.
Devil Green ****** his eye up two years earlier and Ali took advantage of that. That fight may have gone much deeper (with an Ali UD) IMO.
Back to thread, Terrell the bigger sore loser. Not a very good thread. :?

 

Ali cruelly punished both men, although the second Patterson fight was competitive. Patterson was far from a sore loser. He was robbed against Ellis and the Quarry fights were questionable. Indeed, Ali refused for a long time to admit that Frazier beat him in their first fight, so who is the sore loser?

 

After both losses to Quarry and Ellis,...I think that they should have gone to Floyd,....he showed great sportsmanship in congratulating both men without a protest....he showed first class sportsmanship. After losses to Ali as well, he displayed dignity. Patterson was the furthest thing from a "sore loser" that you can get. Don't let you Ali fanboyism lead you into making stupid threads such as this.

 

boxfan22 must have taken these names out of a hat, I'm sure we can come up with more appropriate names. Well here's sportsmanship for you ;
"Clay fell headlong down the scale of sportsmanship. To half-paralyse an opponent with punches, to slash ugly slits under and over your man's eyes, to reduce him to a game but impotent wreck...these things may be ugly, but they come within the rules of the trade. Less forgivable was the ****y, arrogant manner in which Clay sneered, snarled and taunted, and even spat at the feet of the poor wreck of a Terrell. To hammer your man with a world title at stake is a champion's business. To humiliate your challenger is to demean yourself - and to me this Cassius Clay stood demeaned by unchivalrous conduct of the lowest possible order. He had tortured Terrell as he once punished Floyd Patterson - the only difference being that Terrell was half-blind, while Patterson had been afflicted by a back injury. Then at long last came the final bell. Terrell, summoning a final ounce of sap to walk over to Clay's exultant corner to offer a sad handshake, was met with yet one more humiliation...Clay had turned his back an called for a comb for his hair."
Just some parts of George Whiting's ringside report for the London Evening Standard.

 

Ho Hum the blanked out 4 stars begins with c and rhymes with rock, so there!

 

Patterson showed amazing grace and class after being robbed agains Ellis. The interviewer asked him if he thought he won (which in my opinion, he easily did) he replied "I really don't know, I didn't count the punches I landed or the ones Jimmy did. He was good." The ref was truly the best ref money could buy.

 

Go back and watch the first Ali vs Patterson fight. Patterson said something to the affect of claiming a back injury, but admitting that Ali would have beat him anyway.

 

Since when did buster Douglas fight like Ali?

I'm not even sure Tyson was a more "advanced" version of Patterson. He was stronger and more explosive certainly but in boxing terms about the same high technical standard.

Ali had every advantage over Floyd. Younger, bigger, fresher, unbeaten so it was just the natural order of things regardless but Floyd clearly was not Floyd in their first fight. And nor was he for both Liston Fights. Sometimes one guy can be so good on the night that the other man winds up looking ultra horrible.

Ali was better in every respect anyway and prime. It's just that Floyd should have been more of a test. The second fight proves it.

What the second fight showed was that Floyd had not done himself justice in their first fight. Floyd proved in his last ever fight that he surely must have had more to give than (for what ever reason) he was able to produce first time around. And even that would not have been enough.

 

This needs to be taken in the context of the time. Ali was not yet the Ali then that history has since painted him. His legacy came later.

Now Ali is rightly acknowledged as a remarkable icon but back then he was seen as an outrageously outspoken and unproven champion.

It would have been hard for the opposition to see much honour in the way Ali conducted himself toward them at that time. Remember, until that time (if they meant it or not) fighters and champions bent over backwards to appear graciously and patriotic. It was Ali who brought in the trash talking from wrestling.

 

Whiting lost me at "Clay."