View Full Version : who beat better competiton liston or marciano?


SuzieQ49
03-13-2006, 07:01 PM
who do you think beat better competiton?

Brockton Lip
03-13-2006, 07:35 PM
Oh damn; get ready for the controversy haha. I predict Smasher and Butterfly arguing against NextRocky and Rockyfan with some posts by myself thrown into the mix. I'm not even going to post my opinion because either way I'll be racist :rolleyes:. I'll see how the thread goes first.
But it is a good thread!

Dempsey 1919
03-13-2006, 07:36 PM
liston beat patterson, who is better than anyone marciano fought, so i'd say liston.

Dempsey 1919
03-13-2006, 07:37 PM
Oh damn; get ready for the controversy haha. I predict Smasher and Butterfly arguing against NextRocky and Rockyfan with some posts by myself thrown into the mix. I'm not even going to post my opinion because either way I'll be racist :rolleyes:. I'll see how the thread goes first.
But it is a good thread!

pretty good analysis Chum12788. that's probably what would happen! :D

Dempsey 1919
03-13-2006, 08:10 PM
since i don't hear any other replies, then i guess liston wins! :D

Yogi
03-13-2006, 08:46 PM
****ing Heavyweights!

Anyways, I personally think that both fought better competition that they're often given credit for on here. But off the top of my head, if I was forced to choose between the two resumes, I'd probably & maybe slightly lean towards Marciano having the better "victims" out of the two.

****ing Heavyweights!

Dempsey 1919
03-13-2006, 11:54 PM
****ing Heavyweights!

Anyways, I personally think that both fought better competition that they're often given credit for on here. But off the top of my head, if I was forced to choose between the two resumes, I'd probably & maybe slightly lean towards Marciano having the better "victims" out of the two.

****ing Heavyweights!

yeah, but they were over the hill.

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 12:20 AM
marciano beat 2 great heavyweights: ezzard charles and jersey joe walcott


liston beat 1 great heavyweight: floyd patterson



marciano beat 4 very good heavyweights/dangerous top contenders: Archie Moore, Roland Lastarza, Rex Layne, past prime Joe Louis



liston beat 3 very good heavyweights/dangerous top contenders: Eddie machen, cleveland williams, zora folley






IMO beating charles, walcott, moore, lastarza, past prime louis, layne are better wins than patterson, machen, williams, folley, mike de john, wayne bethea

Dempsey 1919
03-14-2006, 12:48 AM
marciano beat 2 great heavyweights: ezzard charles and jersey joe walcott


liston beat 1 great heavyweight: floyd patterson



marciano beat 4 very good heavyweights/dangerous top contenders: Archie Moore, Roland Lastarza, Rex Layne, past prime Joe Louis



liston beat 3 very good heavyweights/dangerous top contenders: Eddie machen, cleveland williams, zora folley






IMO beating charles, walcott, moore, lastarza, past prime louis, layne are better wins than patterson, machen, williams, folley, mike de john, wayne bethea

patterson, williams, folley and machen were in their primes. charles, watcott, moore, and louis were not.

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 12:54 AM
patterson, williams, folley and machen were in their primes. charles, watcott, moore, and louis were not.


walcott and moore were in there primes.

charles of the 1st marciano fight was still better than anyone liston beat.

louis was well past it, but was still a formidable fighter



the 1950s version of louis is just as good as folley, williams and machen.

dansweeney
03-14-2006, 12:56 AM
Folley, williams and machen were ****ing bums

Dempsey 1919
03-14-2006, 12:57 AM
walcott and moore were in there primes.

charles of the 1st marciano fight was still better than anyone liston beat.

louis was well past it, but was still a formidable fighter



the 1950s version of louis is just as good as folley, williams and machen.

moore was 42, lol!

and prime floyd patterson was better than anyone marciano ever beat, so there you go.

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 12:58 AM
moore was 42, lol!

and prime floyd patterson was better than anyone marciano ever beat, so there you go.


moore was 38! not 42, check ur facts son!


charles and walcott were better heavyweights than patterson IMO, however u can make a case for floyd. floyd is certainly an underated heavyweight. he rated in my top 20 all time heavies.



only reason why u think patterson was better is because he fought ali

dansweeney
03-14-2006, 12:59 AM
moore was 42, lol!

and prime floyd patterson was better than anyone marciano ever beat, so there you go.


prime patterson had the chin of a welterweight idiot, marciano would have checked it faster than liston did. case closed

Dempsey 1919
03-14-2006, 01:06 AM
moore was 38! not 42, check ur facts son!


charles and walcott were better heavyweights than patterson IMO, however u can make a case for floyd. floyd is certainly an underated heavyweight. he rated in my top 20 all time heavies.



only reason why u think patterson was better is because he fought ali

moore was either 39 or 42, cause his birth year is debated as either 1913 or 1916. most experts agree however that it is 1913, so he was 42.

i think floyd was better. look at who they fought and beat and how difficult it was. check out the power and speed of hands of patterson as opposed to walcott and charles.

patterson was better not cause he fought ali, but because he just was. if he didn't fight ali it would make no difference.

Dempsey 1919
03-14-2006, 01:07 AM
prime patterson had the chin of a welterweight idiot, marciano would have checked it faster than liston did. case closed

and i guess walcott, charles, and moore have chins of stone, right? :rolleyes:

Yogi
03-14-2006, 01:16 AM
moore was either 39 or 42, cause his birth year is debated as either 1913 or 1916. most experts agree however that it is 1913, so he was 42.

The 1920 U.S. census came out a long time ago, Butterfly, and in that Moore's birthday was listed in Dec of 1916...The debate as to Moore's actual age was laid to rest a long time ago (every record that I see of Moore's nowadays list his birthday in Dec of 1916), and he was 38 at the time of the Marciano fight.

hellfire508
03-14-2006, 01:51 AM
I'd say Marciano. Walcott, charles, Moore, Louis and LaStarza is a fine list of fighters. Liston beat Folley, Machen, Williams and Patterson. Also an excellent resume, however Marciano's takes the cake.

hellfire508
03-14-2006, 01:51 AM
Folley, williams and machen were ****ing bums
Are you serious? Why did you draw this conclusion?

Dempsey 1919
03-14-2006, 01:52 AM
Are you serious? Why did you draw this conclusion?

cause he doesn't know **** about boxing.

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 03:04 AM
moore was either 39 or 42, cause his birth year is debated as either 1913 or 1916. most experts agree however that it is 1913, so he was 42.


wrong, listen to yogi. moore was born in 1916, making him 38 when he fought marciano.




i think floyd was better. look at who they fought and beat and how difficult it was. check out the power and speed of hands of patterson as opposed to walcott and charles.


ok

at heavyweight, charles beat elmer ray, jersey joe walcott, jimmy bivins, harold johnson(robbery), archie moore, past prime joe louis.


thats a better resume than patterson's


can u imagine ezzard charles being knocked out by ingemar johannsen?


charles in the 1st two walcott fights won clear decisions over walcott. and walcott was a better boxer than floyd.

charles completley dominated a post prime but still dangerous louis


charles dominated and knocked out elmer ray, a very good heavyweight

charles knocked out archie moore with 1 punch OUT COLD in a even fight entering the 8th.

charles beat jimmy bivins 3 times in clear fashion



patterson struggled to win a trilogy with ingo johannsen, losing 1 of the fights by KO

patterson knocked out ill prepared archie moore, but he lost the first 4 rounds before he knocked out moore

patterson was robbed twice vs quarry, and vs ellis

patterson beat chuvalo, but struggled

patterson was dominated lasting less than 2 rounds in 2 fights with liston. no way liston knocked walcott and charles out in 1.

patterson did not fight the best fighters of his era during his title reign.



I favor charles





the harold johnson-charles fight is a must see by everyone. charles was clearly robbed, like holyfield-lewis I.

I thought ezzard won about 7 rounds out of the 10

according to a huge ezzard fan, this fight was the only decision ezzard ever claimed was a "bad decision" and ezzard claimed it was a hometown decision.




walcott beat joe louis(total robbery), ezzard charles, harold johnson, jimmy bivins, elmer ray


thats a better resume than patterson



walcott knocked down twice and outboxed joe louis and was robbed. louis was better than any fighter patterson ever beat. even the 1947 version of louis was better than patterson.

walcott beat elmer ray in convinsing fashion knocking him down 3 times

walcott knocked harold johnson down and was dominating the fight until johnson got hurt

walcott knocked a peak jimmy bivins down and won a close decision

walcott twice beat HOF great ezzard charles, including a 1 punch KO. charles was better than any fighter patterson beat.



can u picture walcott in his prime being knocked out by ingo johannsen?


can u picture patterson beating joe louis and knocking out ezzard charles?



patterson, walcott, charles were all great underated heavyweights


however i rate them as heayvweights

1. ezzard charles
2. jersey joe walcott
3. floyd patterson


all 3 are in my top 20








pattersons problem is he loved to brawl, yet he wasnt strong enough and didnt have a chin to do that. if he brawled vs walcott, theres a good chance walcott would knock him out.



check out the power and speed of hands of patterson as opposed to walcott and charles.


yes patterson had incredible handspeed, the best. he also had excellent power.

HOWEVEWR, walcott had just as much power as he did. check out walcotts left hook that nearly took the head off of ezzard charles when he knocked him out cold. check out the shots that put hall of fame greats like joe louis and rocky marciano on there asses.


a one punch KO over ezzard charles means more than a KO over ingo johannsen


walcott also floored joe louis 3x and rocky marciano


floyd patterson never floored sonny liston or muhammad ali






as far as handspeed goes, patterson tops them all. in fact, HE TOPS ALI!


but charles had faster footspeed than patterson and was overall the more skilled boxer. charles was a lot smarter, had better footwork and movement, better defense, etc. charles was overall clearly the better skilled fighter.

plus ezzard could hit too, dont think he couldnt. charles had a lot of snap on his punches. charles timing was also better than pattersons. charles was a cutter as well like muhammad. charles cut peoples faces to shreds.

check out charles amazing footwork vs pat valentino. watch the way charles knocks out valentino. he knocks him out with the most beutiful 1-2 combo of all time IMO

charles also is a better counterpuncher than floyd. charles unlike floyd was NEVER off balance and he could throw counterpunches at all inconsieveable angles.

check out walcott II 9th round where charles leaning the other way still manages OUT OF NOWHERE to throw a lightning fast left hook counter which sends walcott to the canvas. the way charles threw it was amazing, it seemed like he had no leverage, but then again charles was special!

charles was also a smarter and better inside fighter than floyd. floyd got pushed around on the inside and outmuscled. charles throughout his career demonstrated masterpiece work on the inside, see joe louis fight.



walcott on the other hand had far better movemeand and footwork than patterson. walcott with his movement and tricks made fighters look foolish. walcott was very unpredictable. walcott was also a lot stronger than patterson and had just as much power as patterson. walcott had a better jab than patterson and was a better counterpuncher than floyd. i think in terms of overall boxing skill, walcott is better than floyd. walcott was faster, more elusive, better ring smarts. walcott was clearly the better ring technician.


watch joe louis I for best results of walcotts movement, footwork and boxing skills.

watch marciano I for walcott best display of aggresion and punching power

walcott was a master at defense. he was great at feinting, making his opponents miss and become off balance, blocking shots with his elbows, using his incredible head movement to make opponents miss with jabs, shoulder rolls, upper body movement, parrying punches.

just when walcott made u feel like u were content, BOOOM!!!!! A SNEAKY RIGHT HAND OR A POWERFUL LEFT HOOK COMES OUT OF NOWHERE! watch ezzard charles III for best results

walcott and charles were also more durable than patterson

walcott rated 65th on RINGS TOP 100 GREATEST PUNCHERS. patterson wasnt even ranked(though he should be)

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 03:05 AM
I'd say Marciano. Walcott, charles, Moore, Louis and LaStarza is a fine list of fighters. Liston beat Folley, Machen, Williams and Patterson. Also an excellent resume, however Marciano's takes the cake.


i agree


both have excellent resumes

Da Iceman
03-14-2006, 08:35 AM
wrong, listen to yogi. moore was born in 1916, making him 38 when he fought marciano.





ok

at heavyweight, charles beat elmer ray, jersey joe walcott, jimmy bivins, harold johnson(robbery), archie moore, past prime joe louis.


thats a better resume than patterson's


can u imagine ezzard charles being knocked out by ingemar johannsen?


charles in the 1st two walcott fights won clear decisions over walcott. and walcott was a better boxer than floyd.

charles completley dominated a post prime but still dangerous louis


charles dominated and knocked out elmer ray, a very good heavyweight

charles knocked out archie moore with 1 punch OUT COLD in a even fight entering the 8th.

charles beat jimmy bivins 3 times in clear fashion



patterson struggled to win a trilogy with ingo johannsen, losing 1 of the fights by KO

patterson knocked out ill prepared archie moore, but he lost the first 4 rounds before he knocked out moore

patterson was robbed twice vs quarry, and vs ellis

patterson beat chuvalo, but struggled

patterson was dominated lasting less than 2 rounds in 2 fights with liston. no way liston knocked walcott and charles out in 1.

patterson did not fight the best fighters of his era during his title reign.



I favor charles





the harold johnson-charles fight is a must see by everyone. charles was clearly robbed, like holyfield-lewis I.

I thought ezzard won about 7 rounds out of the 10

according to a huge ezzard fan, this fight was the only decision ezzard ever claimed was a "bad decision" and ezzard claimed it was a hometown decision.




walcott beat joe louis(total robbery), ezzard charles, harold johnson, jimmy bivins, elmer ray


thats a better resume than patterson



walcott knocked down twice and outboxed joe louis and was robbed. louis was better than any fighter patterson ever beat. even the 1947 version of louis was better than patterson.

walcott beat elmer ray in convinsing fashion knocking him down 3 times

walcott knocked harold johnson down and was dominating the fight until johnson got hurt

walcott knocked a peak jimmy bivins down and won a close decision

walcott twice beat HOF great ezzard charles, including a 1 punch KO. charles was better than any fighter patterson beat.



can u picture walcott in his prime being knocked out by ingo johannsen?


can u picture patterson beating joe louis and knocking out ezzard charles?



patterson, walcott, charles were all great underated heavyweights


however i rate them as heayvweights

1. ezzard charles
2. jersey joe walcott
3. floyd patterson


all 3 are in my top 20








pattersons problem is he loved to brawl, yet he wasnt strong enough and didnt have a chin to do that. if he brawled vs walcott, theres a good chance walcott would knock him out.






yes patterson had incredible handspeed, the best. he also had excellent power.

HOWEVEWR, walcott had just as much power as he did. check out walcotts left hook that nearly took the head off of ezzard charles when he knocked him out cold. check out the shots that put hall of fame greats like joe louis and rocky marciano on there asses.


a one punch KO over ezzard charles means more than a KO over ingo johannsen


walcott also floored joe louis 3x and rocky marciano


floyd patterson never floored sonny liston or muhammad ali






as far as handspeed goes, patterson tops them all. in fact, HE TOPS ALI!


but charles had faster footspeed than patterson and was overall the more skilled boxer. charles was a lot smarter, had better footwork and movement, better defense, etc. charles was overall clearly the better skilled fighter.

plus ezzard could hit too, dont think he couldnt. charles had a lot of snap on his punches. charles timing was also better than pattersons. charles was a cutter as well like muhammad. charles cut peoples faces to shreds.

check out charles amazing footwork vs pat valentino. watch the way charles knocks out valentino. he knocks him out with the most beutiful 1-2 combo of all time IMO

charles also is a better counterpuncher than floyd. charles unlike floyd was NEVER off balance and he could throw counterpunches at all inconsieveable angles.

check out walcott II 9th round where charles leaning the other way still manages OUT OF NOWHERE to throw a lightning fast left hook counter which sends walcott to the canvas. the way charles threw it was amazing, it seemed like he had no leverage, but then again charles was special!

charles was also a smarter and better inside fighter than floyd. floyd got pushed around on the inside and outmuscled. charles throughout his career demonstrated masterpiece work on the inside, see joe louis fight.



walcott on the other hand had far better movemeand and footwork than patterson. walcott with his movement and tricks made fighters look foolish. walcott was very unpredictable. walcott was also a lot stronger than patterson and had just as much power as patterson. walcott had a better jab than patterson and was a better counterpuncher than floyd. i think in terms of overall boxing skill, walcott is better than floyd. walcott was faster, more elusive, better ring smarts. walcott was clearly the better ring technician.


watch joe louis I for best results of walcotts movement, footwork and boxing skills.

watch marciano I for walcott best display of aggresion and punching power

walcott was a master at defense. he was great at feinting, making his opponents miss and become off balance, blocking shots with his elbows, using his incredible head movement to make opponents miss with jabs, shoulder rolls, upper body movement, parrying punches.

just when walcott made u feel like u were content, BOOOM!!!!! A SNEAKY RIGHT HAND OR A POWERFUL LEFT HOOK COMES OUT OF NOWHERE! watch ezzard charles III for best results

walcott and charles were also more durable than patterson

walcott rated 65th on RINGS TOP 100 GREATEST PUNCHERS. patterson wasnt even ranked(though he should be)
but him mom says he was born in 1913, and his mom is more likely to know the date.

Da Iceman
03-14-2006, 08:36 AM
butterfly's right for the first time he was born in 1913

Yaman
03-14-2006, 09:55 AM
Easy! Marciano by a landslide.
Wallcott, Charles and Moore were NOT washed up. You can say it as many times as you want, but if you watch those fights, you would know they fought as good as they ever fought(You're lying or didn't see the fights if you disagree, they were the kind of fighters who were GREAT at an older age). Past prime (Former greatest puncher ever)Joe Louis was still a very good boxer because of his experience and the power he still possesed. He was still dangerous because of his punching. He was better than most fighters Liston fought.

Liston beat a smaller scared to ****less Patterson. Ofcource, that was his best win but overall, but Marciano fought way better competition and anyone who knows boxing would agree.

Butterfly, again you show how biased you are. Patterson fought Ali, so therefore he's better than anyone Marciano fought huh :rolleyes: You don't even have to defend yourself, we know.

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 10:29 AM
its been proven moore was born in 1916

Kid Achilles
03-14-2006, 10:47 AM
Really this could go on for a very long time but I'll just say it was very close. Charles and Walcott were both better than Patterson IMO, even at the advanced ages that Marciano fought them at. Patterson had the talent but a less than stellar defense as well as the frailest chin of any heavyweight champion.

To be honest I think Liston beating Williams in three and then two rounds is more impressive than his defeats of Patterson. Williams was a legitimate all time heavyweight puncher IMO and everyone who fought him had great respect for his power. His own chin wasn't very solid and that is the kiss of death at heavyweight.

Zora Folley had great skill but was neither a big man nor a big puncher and losing to Brian London and Henry Cooper on points does not bode well for his standing as a great contender.

Eddie Machen was another solid contender and very good defensive boxer but again getting wiped out in one round by Ingemar Johansson tells you all you need to know about his chin.

Liston had an impressive march on the way to the top and really gave Floyd no chance whatsoever of winning in their fights. Liston is very underrated and I consider him in his prime a better and all around more dangerous fighter than Foreman (I can see the flames flickering in the distance).

However Marciano beat Charles, one of the greatest P4P fighters of all time, and Jersey Joe Walcott who pulled a Buster Douglas performance and fought the fight of his life, as well as underrated contenders on his way up like Rex Layne, Kid Matthews, and Roland LaStarza. These were guys who were very respected as prospects and contenders and may have won the title had they not been ruined by Marciano.

It's a close call but I think I may have to give it to Liston by a hair based on the youth, strength, and size of his opposition. However Charles, IMO Marciano's greatest opponent (and he beat him twice) was better than anyone Liston beat.

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 12:11 PM
folley had good power. he defintley packed some wallop in his fists. he was a skilled boxer-puncher who had very good all around boxing skills, tight defense, and good power.


however he had one HUGE downfall: he had a glass jaw





- folley flattened henry cooper in the rematch

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 12:15 PM
cleveland williams is defintley a very good heavyweight and was a huge powerful all time puncher. top 50 heavyweight for sure



but patterson wins are defintley more impressive. patterson was an all time great heavy, top 20 all time. liston put him out twice for 10 counts. ONLY TIME in pattersons career he was ever down for full 10 count was both liston fights. patterson was the better heavy than cleveland williams

Kid Achilles
03-14-2006, 12:46 PM
Patterson was the better heavyweight than Williams in terms of accomplishments and talents but man did he freeze against Liston. No way did he fight his best in that fight. He was just not in his element against a big intimidating heavy punching heavyweight like Liston. Williams fought back hard and tested Liston's chin and that's why I consider the wins over Williams as being more impressive. The Patterson who fought Liston (both times) was not the same one who nearly killed Ingo and bombed out Moore. It's like judging Golota entirely by the way he was KO'ed in one round against Lewis. Patterson did not fight to his best potential against Liston IMO.

Patterson was the better fighter than Williams when you compare their careers but against Liston, Patterson did not perform like the better fighter.

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 01:31 PM
Patterson was the better heavyweight than Williams in terms of accomplishments and talents but man did he freeze against Liston. No way did he fight his best in that fight. He was just not in his element against a big intimidating heavy punching heavyweight like Liston. Williams fought back hard and tested Liston's chin and that's why I consider the wins over Williams as being more impressive. The Patterson who fought Liston (both times) was not the same one who nearly killed Ingo and bombed out Moore. It's like judging Golota entirely by the way he was KO'ed in one round against Lewis. Patterson did not fight to his best potential against Liston IMO.

Patterson was the better fighter than Williams when you compare their careers but against Liston, Patterson did not perform like the better fighter.



i couldnt agree with u more! solid post!

smasher
03-14-2006, 01:53 PM
Patterson was the better fighter than Williams when you compare their careers but against Liston, Patterson did not perform like the better fighter.

This could be a whole different thread. What if Patterson had not been protected by Cus D'Amato in his choice of contenders he faced? Would we even consider him as a champion worthy of a comparison to Ezzard Charles?

Check out his title defences. Hurricane Jackson who he had already defeated, Pete Radamcher in his pro debut, Roy Harris, Brian London, Ingo X3 and Tom McNeeley. Before getting demolished by Liston. Ouch.

We know D'Amato wanted no part of Floyd fighting Liston so how would Patterson have fared in title defences against Cleveland Williams, Zora Folley, Nino Valdes, Eddie Machen, Mike Dejohn, Doug Jones etc...all who were better than Patterson's competition as champion.

Dempsey 1919
03-14-2006, 02:40 PM
can u imagine ezzard charles being knocked out by ingemar johannsen?

of course. other people ko'd charles who were alot worse than johannson.

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 03:12 PM
What does everyone think about some of the fringe contenders/journeyman/young prospects that marciano and liston beat?


for marciano: tiger ted lowry, phil muscato, lee savold, carmine vingo, freddie beshore, bernie renolds, johnny skhor, big bill wilson, keene simmons, eddie ross



for liston: marty marshall, albert westphal, johhny summerlin, willie besmanoff, amos lincoln, chuck wepner, scrapiron johnson, gerhad zhech, bert whitehurst, henry clark, emile brtko




ill do a post later about some of these guys, since many of the 50s heavyweights are understudied and unknown

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 03:13 PM
of course. other people ko'd charles who were alot worse than johannson.


in charles prime?? I DONT THINK SO


check out the years 1946-54, was charles ever knocked out by someone has bad as johannsen?

Dempsey 1919
03-14-2006, 03:25 PM
in charles prime?? I DONT THINK SO


check out the years 1946-54, was charles ever knocked out by someone has bad as johannsen?

johannson is not that bad. and patterson didn't really take him seriously. think of it as sort of like lewis-rahman I. but in the rematch, you know what happened.

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 03:43 PM
This could be a whole different thread. What if Patterson had not been protected by Cus D'Amato in his choice of contenders he faced? Would we even consider him as a champion worthy of a comparison to Ezzard Charles?

Check out his title defences. Hurricane Jackson who he had already defeated, Pete Radamcher in his pro debut, Roy Harris, Brian London, Ingo X3 and Tom McNeeley. Before getting demolished by Liston. Ouch.

We know D'Amato wanted no part of Floyd fighting Liston so how would Patterson have fared in title defences against Cleveland Williams, Zora Folley, Nino Valdes, Eddie Machen, Mike Dejohn, Doug Jones etc...all who were better than Patterson's competition as champion.


patterson did win the title from archie moore in a big upset. archie moore was a better heavyweight than all of those guys u mentioned(excluding liston).

moore wasnt fully prepared and sought for a rematch but never got one.

i think a rematch would have been a very close fight, but i think moore does not matchup well vs patterson and would end up getting knocked out.

however, in there fight moore was outboxing patterson. on the scorecards, two judges had moore winning by a shutout.


another fighter who should have got a shot at pattersons title was harold johnson. harold johnson shutout nino valdes, and in 1961 when far past his prime johnson beat eddie machen.


btw, cleveland williams was never rated in the top 10 during pattersons title reign. interesting fact huh? fact is, cleveland williams was avoided and had to fight many journeyman and as a result, didnt get a high rating due to his lack of competition.

its funny cause cleveland williams was one of the best heavyweights in the world, yet he wasnt rated in the top 10 by the RING.



out of pattersons title defenses,

hurricane jackson was the only one who deserved a shot. he had a close 12 rounder with patterson a year earlier, so patterson had to remove all doubts. and patterson literally destroyed hurricane jackson. he won all 9 rounds before stopping him in 10. jackson took such a beating his liscense was suspended. hurricane jackson was a very good contender himself, 6'3 195 80" reach and he was somewut of a crazy durable nut, but also he could box.








however, bottom line is it was cus d amato who ducked these guys, not patterson.


i have no doubt patterson would have destroyed all the fighters you mentioned above.


glass jaw folley would have been stopped within 5



i will not even respond to machen. patterson showed when he fought machen who the superior fighter is. machen GOT THE **** KICKED OUT OF HIM for 12 straight rounds. it wasnt even a fight. patterson knocked him down 4 or 5 times and left machens face loooking like he went through a meat grinder. patterson even carried machen in the last rounds cause he felt bad for eddie. to say machen was outclassed would be an understatement.

be thankful for eddies sake and eddies fans sake that a fight between him and patterson did not happen in late 50s.



cleveland williams was a big powerful slugger who would be dangerous fight, but I believe patterson would win. cleveland williams was wild and had poor defense at times and his chin was very dentable. Williams had trouble with boxers like machen, terrell(rematch) and I feel a more skilled, faster, and more powerful patterson would outpoint or knockout williams



nino valdes was past his prime in late 50s. this would have been a one sided massacre win for patterson.


archie moore rematch? I think this fight would have been very close. moore gave patterson fits until the knockout and moore did not come into that fight 100%. however I think pattersons combination of speed and power is too much for moore. I see him knocking out moore again or winning a close decision. moore always claimed he would have won the rematch.


harold johnson- another very close fight. johnson was a masterboxer and a smart clever fighter. johnson was very hard to hit, however his chin was vunerable and that would be his downfall in this fight. patterson was a great puncher and threw very accurate and sharp combinations, and of course he had godly like handspeed for a heavyweiht. i see patterson by KO.




I think had D amato no patterson so much, floyd would have beat better competiton and would be rated higher today. he had the talent.



look what patterson did when he was aging, he was robbed against jerry quarry 2x and jimmy ellis(horrible decision). even at 37, patterson beat oscar bonavena.

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 03:45 PM
johannson is not that bad. and patterson didn't really take him seriously. think of it as sort of like lewis-rahman I. but in the rematch, you know what happened.



of course hes not that bad. johannsen often gets underated today. he was a very good heavyweight



think of it as sort of like lewis-rahman I


no because johannsen was A HELLUVA LOT better than rahman! plus rahman knocked lewis out with 1 punch, it took johannsen 7 knockdowns.



also u forget the 3rd fight where johannsen nearly knocked out patterson AGAIN

Dempsey 1919
03-14-2006, 03:49 PM
of course hes not that bad. johannsen often gets underated today. he was a very good heavyweight






no because johannsen was A HELLUVA LOT better than rahman! plus rahman knocked lewis out with 1 punch, it took johannsen 7 knockdowns.



also u forget the 3rd fight where johannsen nearly knocked out patterson AGAIN

well, almost don't cut it. :D

RockyMarcianofan00
03-14-2006, 05:59 PM
Oh damn; get ready for the controversy haha. I predict Smasher and Butterfly arguing against NextRocky and Rockyfan with some posts by myself thrown into the mix. I'm not even going to post my opinion because either way I'll be racist :rolleyes:. I'll see how the thread goes first.
But it is a good thread!
ha ha, this how you know you've read to many threads :D

anyway, i wonder who i'm gunna pick, the only really good hw that liston beat was Patterson (IMO)

Marciano beat a prime, walcott and Moore

he also beat fighters like Layne,LaStarza,Ezzard Charles, etc

i'd have to say Marciano's comptetion was better
Liston was good but 75% of his fame came from losing to a young prospect that talked crazy and said that he was the greatest, Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali)

not to say Liston wasn't good but i just don't rank them the same

Dempsey 1919
03-14-2006, 06:25 PM
ha ha, this how you know you've read to many threads :D

anyway, i wonder who i'm gunna pick, the only really good hw that liston beat was Patterson (IMO)

Marciano beat a prime, walcott and Moore

he also beat fighters like Layne,LaStarza,Ezzard Charles, etc

i'd have to say Marciano's comptetion was better
Liston was good but 75% of his fame came from losing to a young prospect that talked crazy and said that he was the greatest, Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali)

not to say Liston wasn't good but i just don't rank them the same

clevland williams was a beast. so were folley and machen. those three are just as good as layne, lastarza, and savold, if not better.

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 06:29 PM
clevland williams was a beast. so were folley and machen. those three are just as good as layne, lastarza, and savold, if not better.


butterfly,


savold was nowhere near the level of these guys, so dont include him in this conversation.


williams, machen , folley were just as good as lastarza, 1950s joe louis, and rex layne. i agree

smasher
03-14-2006, 10:17 PM
[QUOTE=SuzieQ49]patterson did win the title from archie moore in a big upset. archie moore was a better heavyweight than all of those guys u mentioned(excluding liston). moore wasnt fully prepared and sought for a rematch but never got one. i think a rematch would have been a very close fight, but i think moore does not matchup well vs patterson and would end up getting knocked out. however, in there fight moore was outboxing patterson. on the scorecards, two judges had moore winning by a shutout.

another fighter who should have got a shot at pattersons title was harold johnson. harold johnson shutout nino valdes, and in 1961 when far past his prime johnson beat eddie machen.

archie moore rematch? I think this fight would have been very close. moore gave patterson fits until the knockout and moore did not come into that fight 100%. however I think pattersons combination of speed and power is too much for moore. I see him knocking out moore again or winning a close decision. moore always claimed he would have won the rematch.

harold johnson- another very close fight. johnson was a masterboxer and a smart clever fighter. johnson was very hard to hit, however his chin was vunerable and that would be his downfall in this fight. patterson was a great puncher and threw very accurate and sharp combinations, and of course he had godly like handspeed for a heavyweiht. i see patterson by KO./QUOTE]

Thanks for taking the bait. Any excuse to once more heap glowing accolades on the opposition that Walcott, Marciano or Charles faced. I knew you wouldn't let me down. No mention of Moore or Johnson in my original post but I gotta hand it to you, you found a way to do it. Gotta love those 50's heavyweights. By the way Fonzie, how's Eisenhower, the bomb shelter, and your family Studebaker sedan? By the way, can I borrow your Bill Haley 78's? I'm hosting a sock hop this weekend.

PS: I took it upon myself to attempt to condense your quote. You only have to hit the shift button once you know. It will provide an adequate space for breaking up paragraphs.

See?

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 11:18 PM
smasher,


who do u think beat better opposition, liston or marciano? and why?


you hadvnt offered us ur righteous, well qualified,"boxrec" opinion on this matter? ;)

smasher
03-14-2006, 11:37 PM
smasher,


who do u think beat better opposition, liston or marciano? and why?


you hadvnt offered us ur righteous, well qualified,"boxrec" opinion on this matter? ;)

On the interest scale this thread falls somewhere between I DON'T GIVE A FLYING **** and I REALLY DON'T GIVE A FLYING ****. Oh and did I mention I don't give a flying ****? Just checking.

How about something a little fresh like say an advance descriptive breakdown of the up-coming Toney-Rachman fight. That way we can see how accurate your analytical break down of fighters is, instead of the same redundant comparing of Marciano, Walcott, Charles and their opponents, all who have been pushing up daisies for the past few decades.

Just a quick warning to you. If you prepare by viewing recorded fights of Toney and Rachman on your Magnavox the fighters may look a little strange. That's because they are in color. They started taping the fights that way back in the 60's about ten years after the time frame you are obsessed with.

Dempsey 1919
03-14-2006, 11:59 PM
On the interest scale this thread falls somewhere between I DON'T GIVE A FLYING **** and I REALLY DON'T GIVE A FLYING ****. Oh and did I mention I don't give a flying ****? Just checking.

How about something a little fresh like say an advance descriptive breakdown of the up-coming Toney-Rachman fight. That way we can see how accurate your analytical break down of fighters is, instead of the same redundant comparing of Marciano, Walcott, Charles and their opponents, all who have been pushing up daisies for the past few decades.

Just a quick warning to you. If you prepare by viewing recorded fights of Toney and Rachman on your Magnavox the fighters may look a little strange. That's because they are in color. They started taping the fights that way back in the 60's about ten years after the time frame you are obsessed with.

just answer the thread, *****! :D

SuzieQ49
03-15-2006, 12:43 AM
now that you mention james toney........


this heavyweight version of james toney reminds me a lot of archie moore.


;)

smasher
03-15-2006, 12:44 AM
now that you mention james toney........


this heavyweight version of james toney reminds me a lot of archie moore.


;)

??????????????It doesn't say that on boxrec...

SuzieQ49
03-15-2006, 01:34 AM
??????????????It doesn't say that on boxrec...


well u told me u want an analyisis of styles right?


well if i were going to make it short and to the point, toney fights a lot like archie moore.



as u prob know, toney actually studies a ****load of films on two peticuliar boxers, walcott and moore. if u look at the way toney fights now, hes very similiar in style and has the ring experience and smarts to go along with it.


toney is a master technician. if he ever decided to drop his weight down to 200lb area, no heavyweight today would beat him.

smasher
03-15-2006, 02:02 AM
well u told me u want an analyisis of styles right?


well if i were going to make it short and to the point, toney fights a lot like archie moore.



as u prob know, toney actually studies a ****load of films on two peticuliar boxers, walcott and moore. if u look at the way toney fights now, hes very similiar in style and has the ring experience and smarts to go along with it.


toney is a master technician. if he ever decided to drop his weight down to 200lb area, no heavyweight today would beat him.

This truly is killing me but I do agree. I posted on a previous thread that 'old school Toney' will school 'one dimensional' Rahman and most likely win by unanimous decision, with the stipulation that Toney is in reasonable shape.

Toney has been able to capitalize on fighting the ponderous, slow, less skilled fighters presently masquerading as legitimate heavyweight contenders. Fortunately for him there is no young Tyson or Frazier presently fighting.

You still didn't give your educated opinion with a prediction...

Da Iceman
03-15-2006, 08:18 AM
??????????????It doesn't say that on boxrec...
lol good one.

SuzieQ49
03-17-2006, 01:35 AM
here are some of the journeyman/fringe contenders/young prospects that marciano and liston beat that were tough capable men who deserve respect



ill start off with marcianos list:



6'5 220lb johnny skhor - hard hitting journeyman heavyweight with a good jab. skhors biggest reupuation however was that he was a rough and tough fighter. shkor's biggest win was a 7th round stoppage in a huge upset over top ranked contender tami mauriello.
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/5/59/Skhor.Johnny.jpg


5'11 180lb Tiger Ted Lowry- One of the best journeyman of all time. Ted was the emanuel agustus of his day, a lot better than his record indicates. tiger ted was a cutie in there who had top notch defense and ring savvy. lowry clowned around too much and was way too cautious throughout his career.
http://www.ibroresearch.com/Boxing%20Records/Lowry_Ted/lowry_ted.jpg


continued...........

SuzieQ49
03-17-2006, 01:36 AM
5'9 195lb freddie beshore- tough courageous journeyman who fought 100% everytime he went out there. beshores biggest claim to fame was fighting for the heavyweight title in 1950, he managed to last 14 rounds with ezzard charles.
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/1/1b/Beshore.Freddie.jpg



6' 200lb Lee Savold- a fringe contender who was a highly experience veteran. savold was a good puncher and agressive infighter. he was also very tough and durable. savold once was a world class boxer, but his best days were behind him when he met rocky in 52.
http://www.sports-photos.com/catalog/images/SavoldKOBuonvinoBW.tif.jpg



continued

SuzieQ49
03-17-2006, 01:36 AM
6'4 195lb over 80" reach Carmine Vingo- This 27-3 hard hitting 20 year old was a highly touted prospect. He had the size, power, youthness and heart to become a future world class fighter.
http://www.lafortezzaclub.it/boxe/marcianovingo.jpg



180lb phil muscato - 56-20 fringe contender who was ranked
# 10 heavyweight by RING in 1948.
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Arena/1047/pmusca1.jpg


6'1 200lb keene simmons- durable, strong, skilled boxer who was far better than his record indicated. Simmons lacked power, but he had good speed and boxing skills.
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/3/31/Simmons_Keene.jpg