Rocky Marciano vs Floyd Patterson

[sleazyfellow]

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

[butterfly1964]

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]

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.

[butterfly1964]

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]

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]

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]

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

[butterfly1964]

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!

[butterfly1964]

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]

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!