View Full Version : Rocky Marciano vs Floyd Patterson


osamabinwayne
02-17-2006, 12:45 AM
I don't know much about Patterson but from what I hear he was greatly skilled, used the same defense as Tyson, and had hand speed under Ali's. He however had the weakest chin of all heavyweights and anyone that comes in the ring with Rocky is going to get dropped on their face. Patterson however had alot of heart and would probably get up several times to continue the the fight. I see Patterson stinging Rocky in the first several rounds losing on the score cards until Rocky starts to heat up and unleashes bombs after bombs until the Ref calls the fight. Rocky TKO by 9. Please give me your insights.

wmute
02-17-2006, 01:19 AM
patterson boxes beautifully in the first few rounds, he fights a perfect fight until he eventually slows down and is caught mid-late and sent down for the count in a very appealing fight

RockyMarcianofan00
02-17-2006, 01:32 AM
i did this thread and everybody said Marciano would beat the **** out of Patterson

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61015
________
Avandia settlement (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

Dempsey 1919
02-17-2006, 01:39 AM
i believe this would be marciano's toughest fight yet, cause marciano has never fought anybody as good as patterson. but marciano would pull it off, cause patterson's chin is too weak. marciano ko patterson in eight.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-17-2006, 02:19 AM
i believe this would be marciano's toughest fight yet, cause marciano has never fought anybody as good as patterson. but marciano would pull it off, cause patterson's chin is too weak. marciano ko patterson in eight.
i thought you said this would be an easy fight for Marciano
w/e

i don't think Patterson was good enough to go the full distance to get the decision
Marciano in 6-7 rounds KO
________
SexyBadBoy cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/SexyBadBoy)

Kid Achilles
02-17-2006, 06:25 AM
Ezzard Charles was better than Patterson.

king4fore
02-17-2006, 06:43 AM
i did this thread and everybody said Marciano would beat the **** out of Patterson

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61015
marciano would win, but it would be alot tougher than people think

Dempsey 1919
02-17-2006, 02:23 PM
Ezzard Charles was better than Patterson.

yeah, sure he was. charles was a lhw.

Yogi
02-17-2006, 02:42 PM
yeah, sure he was. charles was a lhw.

Charles was a former Light Heavyweight who, over the span of the last five years before facing Marciano, had grown into a solid 190 lbs Heavyweight...much like Patterson, who also spent a good portion of his early career as a Light Heavyweight, and was fighting at that weight shortly before winning the title against Moore.

Dempsey 1919
02-17-2006, 04:26 PM
Charles was a former Light Heavyweight who, over the span of the last five years before facing Marciano, had grown into a solid 190 lbs Heavyweight...much like Patterson, who also spent a good portion of his early career as a Light Heavyweight, and was fighting at that weight shortly before winning the title against Moore.

patterson was 180+lbs. by the time he was 21. charles was a lhw for alot of years. big difference.

sleazyfellow
02-17-2006, 04:31 PM
floyd was in no way better than ezzard, ezzard could do it all in the ring, well mayb not all but more than patterson thats for sure, but yeah id choose the rock in this one over patterson, unless patterson caught him early

Dempsey 1919
02-17-2006, 04:33 PM
floyd was in no way better than ezzard, ezzard could do it all in the ring, well mayb not all but more than patterson thats for sure, but yeah id choose the rock in this one over patterson, unless patterson caught him early

if floyd and charles ever fought, floyd would hand him his ass!

Kid Achilles
02-17-2006, 04:50 PM
You are simply incorrect my friend. Charles was better than Patterson in every way except for handspeed. Patterson is pretty overrated on this forum as a boxer. He had a great attack, quick hands and good power, but his defense was one of his big weaknesses. Ingemar Johansson himself, by no means an especially quick or skillful heavyweight, remarked that Patterson was extremely easy to hit after their first fight. I believe he said something to the tune of "I couldn't miss him". How can you defend the defensive ability of a man who was caught and floored by Pete Rademacher, who was making his pro debut?

In terms of accomplishments, head to head, or in any other way you want to compare them, I see Charles as the better fighter.

Dempsey 1919
02-17-2006, 05:00 PM
You are simply incorrect my friend. Charles was better than Patterson in every way except for handspeed. Patterson is pretty overrated on this forum as a boxer. He had a great attack, quick hands and good power, but his defense was one of his big weaknesses. Ingemar Johansson himself, by no means an especially quick or skillful heavyweight, remarked that Patterson was extremely easy to hit after their first fight. I believe he said something to the tune of "I couldn't miss him". How can you defend the defensive ability of a man who was caught and floored by Pete Rademacher, who was making his pro debut?

In terms of accomplishments, head to head, or in any other way you want to compare them, I see Charles as the better fighter.

alright, fine. charles and walcott had better defense than patterson. but patterson's power would lay them both out.

Yogi
02-17-2006, 05:14 PM
patterson was 180+lbs. by the time he was 21. charles was a lhw for alot of years. big difference.

Nah, there's no difference because by the time he faced Marciano, Ezzard Charles had grown into a solid 190 pound fighter & had been doing so for a number of years, and that weight was about the same as was what Patterson weighed when he was at his best at Heavyweight...I don't know about you, Butterfly, but I certainly don't see any excess body weight when I watch the Heavyweight version of Ezzard Charles.

Yogi
02-17-2006, 05:21 PM
In terms of accomplishments, head to head, or in any other way you want to compare them, I see Charles as the better fighter.

Absolutely!

With the exception of handspeed and possibly punching power, Ezzard Charles was simply a better & more skilled fighter than was Floyd Patterson...Much better defense, footwork, versatility, pure boxing technique, counterpunching skills, overall balance, quicker upperbody reflexes, toughness, chin, etc., etc.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-17-2006, 05:25 PM
Absolutely!

With the exception of handspeed and possibly punching power, Ezzard Charles was simply a better & more skilled fighter than was Floyd Patterson...Much better defense, footwork, versatility, pure boxing technique, counterpunching skills, overall balance, quicker upperbody reflexes, toughness, chin, etc., etc.
very true, something i liked about the 50's which is over looked many of the fighters only got better as they got older, like they were prime in there late 20's to mid 30's unlike usually when ppl are prime from there early to mid 20's - late 20's


example-Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott
________
new developments in Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

Dempsey 1919
02-17-2006, 05:26 PM
Nah, there's no difference because by the time he faced Marciano, Ezzard Charles had grown into a solid 190 pound fighter & had been doing so for a number of years, and that weight was about the same as was what Patterson weighed when he was at his best at Heavyweight...I don't know about you, Butterfly, but I certainly don't see any excess body weight when I watch the Heavyweight version of Ezzard Charles.

patterson at 21 weighed about 182. when charles was 21 he weighed about 166 at the most. by the time charles was 182, he was already 28!

Dempsey 1919
02-17-2006, 05:27 PM
Absolutely!

With the exception of handspeed and possibly punching power, Ezzard Charles was simply a better & more skilled fighter than was Floyd Patterson...Much better defense, footwork, versatility, pure boxing technique, counterpunching skills, overall balance, quicker upperbody reflexes, toughness, chin, etc., etc.

but head-to-head, i still see patterson flattening charles, though.

El Guapo
02-17-2006, 05:36 PM
i think the great rock would win, but no easily! patterson was a great boxer-the true meaning of boxer- but a bomb from marciano would turn the fight in a round!

Brockton Lip
02-17-2006, 05:36 PM
Charles is incredible and very underrated by some people; he would beat Patterson.

For the thread - Marciano by mid rounds KO.

Yogi
02-17-2006, 05:38 PM
but head-to-head, i still see patterson flattening charles, though.

Because it suits your pro-Ali and anti-Marciano agendas, all you're doing is stating what you personally want to see happen, Butterfly, and not neccessarily what would actually happen had the two met at their respective Heavyweight primes...But that's really no different than what most do when it comes to these fantasy fights, which is why I usually don't bother too much with these matchups.

Dempsey 1919
02-17-2006, 05:40 PM
Because it suits your pro-Ali and anti-Marciano agendas, all you're doing is stating what you personally want to see happen, Butterfly, and not neccessarily what would actually happen had the two met at their respective Heavyweight primes...But that's really no different than what most do when it comes to these fantasy fights, which is why I usually don't bother too much with these matchups.

patterson has more power and handspeed. that means that patterson would catch charles before charles would catch him, cause of his superior handspeed.

Dempsey 1919
02-17-2006, 05:42 PM
Because it suits your pro-Ali and anti-Marciano agendas, all you're doing is stating what you personally want to see happen, Butterfly, and not neccessarily what would actually happen had the two met at their respective Heavyweight primes...But that's really no different than what most do when it comes to these fantasy fights, which is why I usually don't bother too much with these matchups.

why does everytime i seem to make a post, everyone brings muhammad ali into it, when i never mention ali myself even? it seems to be a habit with posters here. :rolleyes:

Yogi
02-17-2006, 05:51 PM
patterson has more power and handspeed. that means that patterson would catch charles before charles would catch him, cause of his superior handspeed.

Your overly simple and entirely false logic doesn't mean anything, Butterfly (did you think to factor anything else in the equation, like Charles' defense, counterpunching skills, proven ability to slow an opponent's attack, Patterson's wild & inaccuracy at times, how they coped with the style matchups, etc., etc.?), and besides, whatever edge Patterson may have in power & handspeed would be pretty small because Charles himself threw some very quick combinations and also had good pop in his punches.

Yogi
02-17-2006, 05:52 PM
why does everytime i seem to make a post, everyone brings muhammad ali into it, when i never mention ali myself even? it seems to be a habit with posters here. :rolleyes:

Probably because you've made your agenda very obvious to all right from the get-go.

Dempsey 1919
02-17-2006, 05:53 PM
Probably because you've made your agenda very obvious to all right from the get-go.

this is not true. i just think patterson is better, that's all. it has nothing to do with ali.

Yogi
02-17-2006, 05:59 PM
this is not true. i just think patterson is better, that's all. it has nothing to do with ali.

Whether that's true or not, you do come across with what the rest of us may view as an obvious agenda...especially considering that your all-time top five Heavyweights all fought within the Ali era and were opponents of his.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-17-2006, 06:03 PM
i think charles was stronger then Patterson

maybe not by much but i've never heard patterson to have a great punch
but Charles i've heard a decent punch
________
Glass pipe (http://glasspipes.net/)

marvdave
02-17-2006, 06:32 PM
Marciano would put a tremendous beating on Patterson. Patterson would box well for awhile, but the thounderous shots of Rocky would eventually catch up. mid to late round stoppage for Marciano.

As far as Charles goes, he was a tremendous fighter in every way. Undersized at Heavy, but still a great one. I would definitely give him the edge over patterson as well.

Kid Achilles
02-17-2006, 07:23 PM
Charles was very strong for his size and could really punch, don't kid yourself. He had everything but killer instinct and he only lost that after he killed a man in the ring. Ezzard was that good of a boxer and fighter. He really was a cobra poised to strike at any opportunity: sleek, lethal, and with nerves of steel.

Ezzard Charles harks from a forgotten time in boxing when men were STUDENTS of the game and came up slowly developing their skills gradually in front of small audiences before moving up to the big time. They weren't rushed to become main event fighters like nowadays. The competition was fierce, the skill level was several notches above what you see today. When you compare the skills of Charles, Walcott, Moore, LaStarza, etc to everyone in the heavyweights except for James Toney, it's a joke. P4P Charles would slaughter any of the heavyweights alive today and even at 190 pounds he would give these brutes hell.

Boxing is about having a mastery over many small skills. It's not about being faster or hitting harder. Give me the quickest and most powerful man of all time, put him in there with a master like Charles, and he would get countered into a timid shell within a minute. Charles was an absolute master of various boxing skills. He was a counter puncher who could move, feint, slip, parry, handled himself in a clinch, fought well on the inside etc. When you compare Patterson to that, Floyd is just a forward moving puncher/stalker with decent reflexes, a paper mache chin, and great athleticism.

I just don't see the tiny edge in power (if any) and moderate edge in handspeed offsetting all of the skills Charles possessed in his arsenal as well as his cool, level headed relaxed mentality when fighting. Also it's not as if Patterson had the strength and determination of Marciano. You're making him out to be a tank when he would be the one having to look out for Charle's quick, fluid combinations.

I just don't see Patterson beating him bar a fluke left hook. If they fight fight ten times, I'd give 9 to Charles. Marciano beat Charles because he was incredibly strong for his size, hit a ton with every punch, and had the determination to walk through a hail of punches just to sneak in a punch. Patterson doesn't possess the qualities he'd need to take Patterson. Couldn't outfox him like Walcott, couldn't outslug him like Marciano. No, I just don't see it as being probable.

Dempsey 1919
02-17-2006, 08:09 PM
Charles was very strong for his size and could really punch, don't kid yourself. He had everything but killer instinct and he only lost that after he killed a man in the ring. Ezzard was that good of a boxer and fighter. He really was a cobra poised to strike at any opportunity: sleek, lethal, and with nerves of steel.

Ezzard Charles harks from a forgotten time in boxing when men were STUDENTS of the game and came up slowly developing their skills gradually in front of small audiences before moving up to the big time. They weren't rushed to become main event fighters like nowadays. The competition was fierce, the skill level was several notches above what you see today. When you compare the skills of Charles, Walcott, Moore, LaStarza, etc to everyone in the heavyweights except for James Toney, it's a joke. P4P Charles would slaughter any of the heavyweights alive today and even at 190 pounds he would give these brutes hell.

Boxing is about having a mastery over many small skills. It's not about being faster or hitting harder. Give me the quickest and most powerful man of all time, put him in there with a master like Charles, and he would get countered into a timid shell within a minute. Charles was an absolute master of various boxing skills. He was a counter puncher who could move, feint, slip, parry, handled himself in a clinch, fought well on the inside etc. When you compare Patterson to that, Floyd is just a forward moving puncher/stalker with decent reflexes, a paper mache chin, and great athleticism.

I just don't see the tiny edge in power (if any) and moderate edge in handspeed offsetting all of the skills Charles possessed in his arsenal as well as his cool, level headed relaxed mentality when fighting. Also it's not as if Patterson had the strength and determination of Marciano. You're making him out to be a tank when he would be the one having to look out for Charle's quick, fluid combinations.

I just don't see Patterson beating him bar a fluke left hook. If they fight fight ten times, I'd give 9 to Charles. Marciano beat Charles because he was incredibly strong for his size, hit a ton with every punch, and had the determination to walk through a hail of punches just to sneak in a punch. Patterson doesn't possess the qualities he'd need to take Patterson. Couldn't outfox him like Walcott, couldn't outslug him like Marciano. No, I just don't see it as being probable.

i think marciano would ko patterson, but if the fight by some strange reason went the distance, then patterson would get the nod.

osamabinwayne
02-17-2006, 10:41 PM
That's where you're wrong. Anybody that goes the distance with Rocky is bound to get knocked out.

Dempsey 1919
02-18-2006, 01:23 AM
That's where you're wrong. Anybody that goes the distance with Rocky is bound to get knocked out.

no i mean if the fight went the full 15 rounds and no one was knocked out, then patterson would win a ud.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-18-2006, 01:40 AM
no i mean if the fight went the full 15 rounds and no one was knocked out, then patterson would win a ud.
yea thats probably true, only way that wouldn't be true is if Rocky knocked him down in more then 7 rounds and let me tell you if you get knocked down by rocky 3 times and get up you got heart, there's a chance rocky could win on points but Patterson's more flasy then Rocky, so i'd say IF it went the distance Patterson would probably win but i can't see this going past round 8 at most

Rocky wins by ko 5thish
________
AVANDIA HEART ATTACK (http://classactionsettlements.org/)

dansweeney
02-18-2006, 01:42 AM
patterson was notorious for having a weak chin.............end of discussion if he was to face the Rock

Dempsey 1919
02-18-2006, 02:00 AM
yea thats probably true, only way that wouldn't be true is if Rocky knocked him down in more then 7 rounds and let me tell you if you get knocked down by rocky 3 times and get up you got heart, there's a chance rocky could win on points but Patterson's more flasy then Rocky, so i'd say IF it went the distance Patterson would probably win but i can't see this going past round 8 at most

Rocky wins by ko 5thish

it would take a little longer than that.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-18-2006, 02:35 AM
i'm not sure i know Marciano was a slow starter and Patterson would box him but those blows would catch up to him, most of his KO's were before the 9th round and most of them tried to box him as well and they were probably as strong or stronger then patterson so i'd move it up say at least 6 no more then 9
________
Pattaya realty (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

Dempsey 1919
02-18-2006, 02:53 AM
i'm not sure i know Marciano was a slow starter and Patterson would box him but those blows would catch up to him, most of his KO's were before the 9th round and most of them tried to box him as well and they were probably as strong or stronger then patterson so i'd move it up say at least 6 no more then 9

IMO, patterson would be the best opponent he has ever fought in his career, so it would be tough. a ko in about nine, cause of patterson's weak chin.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-18-2006, 03:54 AM
IMO, patterson would be the best opponent he has ever fought in his career, so it would be tough. a ko in about nine, cause of patterson's weak chin.
Patterson really wouldn't be the best he'd probably be the biggest name fighter he ever fought though

because when you think about it besides being the youngest heavyweight champ (before tyson) he didnt' do anything that big

beside lose to ali
________
SynxXxRaine cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/SynxXxRaine)

Southpaw Stinger
02-18-2006, 06:34 AM
because when you think about it besides being the youngest heavyweight champ (before tyson) he didnt' do anything that big

He became the first man to win the heavyweight title twice.

Dempsey 1919
02-18-2006, 02:08 PM
Patterson really wouldn't be the best he'd probably be the biggest name fighter he ever fought though

because when you think about it besides being the youngest heavyweight champ (before tyson) he didnt' do anything that big

beside lose to ali

he also was the first to regain the hw championship.

Dempsey 1919
02-18-2006, 02:09 PM
He became the first man to win the heavyweight title twice.

oops, looks like i'm a little late. :o

RockyMarcianofan00
02-18-2006, 06:34 PM
he also was the first to regain the hw championship.
ah something else i had forgotten well i mean besides that cause after him there was the fact that Tyson became younger and Ali won it 3 times so...
ya see what i'm getting at he was good but not a great in the same sense
________
Medical marijuana seeds (http://marijuanaseeds.org/)

Dempsey1238
02-20-2006, 11:31 AM
of couse Patterson should had never lost the title to Ingo in the first place.

Had Dempsey, Louis, Charles and others had a shot to regain the title from Ingo. They would have done it.
But GREAT fighters like Charles, Tunney and Marciano stop these old greats to being the first to regain the title.