Were Patterson and Ingo the worst heavyweight champs ever ?

[MaxT]

Liston's best win was Patterson, a man who became champion by feeding on Marciano's leftovers.
.

True, but there are few other good wins for Sonny.

1) Zorah Folley. Great boxer with Holmes caliber skils, but with weak chin.

2) Eddie Matchen. Very good footwork and skils, heavily underestimated due to fist round KO loss in Sweeden.

3) Cleveland Wiliams. Fast, explosive, hard-hitting heavyweight. Something in between Donnovan Ruddok and young Shannon Brigs - easy to outbox, hard to outpunch.
His matches with liston is a rare case - 2 once beaten knokout artist in peak form and near prime.

4) Nino Valdez. Big tougth heavy. As with Williams, easy to outbox, hard to outpunch. Liston beats him in exchanges.

5) Wayne Bethea. Tougth, durable guy. Get blasted in one minute (his only KO loss).

[Rusty Tromboni]

I love the radio analogy...Lets not even forget that in the 70's even the most pop tune was arrianged, had brass instruments usually, etc. My dear departed Dad who was a musician...when I was a kid could actually relate to something I liked as a kid... He had played Baritone horn for the New York Philamonic so he was world class, and I remember as a kid playing for him a commodores tune and the theme from swat. I can't imagine playing something on the radio now if he was still with us lol.

That's really special. I very much appreciate you sharing that. Youu definitely had something that these kids today drowning in technology do not. I see it with my own in middle school. When they're all home we're practically amish.

I always felt, teaching high school, most kids didn't need it: they should have been doing something else to prepare for a productive adulthood. But music and athletics are always vital. It's something you can carry with you throughout a lifetime, and it benefits a person, regardless of their occupation or station in life.

Ultimately I could see arguments for putting spinks about where Holly is on the scale of accomplishments.

That's an interesting point. It really come down to opinions, I guess, but Holyfield is hard to compare with Spinks. Vander suffered a Catch 22: He was too big for Cw and too small for Hw. He was looking stellar at 190; too bad the Cw limit was not 200 pounds then, and the division more established. I think he could have done amazing things, had he more time to fight men his own size. He always reminds me of a perfect mix of Howard Davis Jr. and Aaron Pryor. Unlike those guys, and Michael Spinks, he had to move up to fight bigger men. Financially it was a boon, but we probably never saw the best of Holyfield. And that's not mentioning the permanent and severely deleterious effects on his body.

A lot of Hoylfield's setbacks were self-inflicted: he often didn't fight smart. He relished in being the little man who brought the fight to the bigger, slower opponent. He adapted over time, but he was the antithesis of Spinks both literally in the ring, and figuratively speaking about their careers.

Spinks was a genius. As dumb as Leon was, Michael was smart. He should have been swooped up by NASA. I don't doubt that Michael loved Boxing. I don't doubt that he had the heart of a killer. I don't doubt that if he set his mind to it, he'd defy Hell itself. But I am also pretty sure he looked at Boxing and realized "if those idiots can do it, I'll make a killing". He's probably living the life of Reilly all these years later. It's not unlike Floyd or B-Hop, but those guys took the scenic route, and gingerly side-stepped the epic challenges which Spinks sought head-on: cleaning out a tough, tough division overnight, dethroning one of the greatest Heavyweights ever, engaging Tyson.

Holyfield is remembered for an unnecessarily long career as an undersized Heavyweight who always came up short when it mattered most. And I am certain his career could have never happened the way it did if he were fighting today, in the VADA/USADA era. That dude, for all his heart and talent, was more lab experiment than human. Sure, Spinks could have been on the sauce, too. But surely not to the extent Holyfield was.

Spinks like a lot of fighters has been pulled to and from the tides of the historical dialectic. I can remember as a fighter when he was a boxer's name...kind of like how people pull out Burley's name, most of whom probably never watched the bit of footage that actually shows Burley in action... Then when light heavies come up of course...which is a division I think it is hard to understand.

Let me illustrate this point of the division being inscrutible with an example: Lets take two fighters who fought it and are highly regarded by historians: Max Rosenbloom and Gene Tunney. Rosenbloom, aside from beating Nova, who at the time of the fight may not have even been a heavyweight, Maxie reigned supreme in that division. Tunney on the other hand, was a guy who could be a heavyweight...I would agree with you that if he kept fighting it would have been a natural exchange. Very different kind of fighters in terms of trajectory.

So when we look at Spinks the question naturally arises as to what was his trajectory? Floyd is another example ... It is obvious that he was greatest at 130ish and not at 150ish and above. Was Spinks great because he beat Holmes? I would tend to agree with you on the slippage but I also think this happens a lot in the fight game. You have to be a hell of a boxer to beat Holmes that is for sure...Or is Spinks great because of the great fighters like Qami and Mustafa that he beat?

I see Spinks as really being balanced in this respect: He beat some heavyweights up... including of course Holmes and Cooney and had some decent wins against two sluggers Qami and Mustafa. Here is the problem: You have to either be lucky enough to get a fight against a great in a division where greats are limited, or you have to beat a great heavyweight.

Tunney had Greb before he ever fought Dempsey, Maxi had a whole lotta fights! enough to have fought many great fighters in the division, coming through the division, etc... Spinks did not have that.

The other thing about Spinks is that he is the consumate boxer puncher... He makes everything look natural, with nothing standing out. He had decent power, but not exceptional, was an accurate puncher, but not on the level of someone like Ward, or Fury... He had decent feet, but not the raw athletic ability of a Roy Jones, who would have been an interesting fight for the Jinx!

Michael Moore to me is similar in some respects. the Michael Moore who beat Holly the first time? I would have put against any top light heavy and expected a competative fight. But what exactly stands out with Moore? Maybe accurate combo punching....Maybe. Like Spinks its just being well rounded and having boxing wisdom and the right chops.

Ultimately I could see arguments for putting spinks about where Holly is on the scale of accomplishments.

This is a beautfiul post. It deserves its own thread. I really think it's a subject worth exploring; not exclusive to the Light HEavyweight division, but certainly definitive of it. Frankly, most Light Heavyweights had meaningful Heavyweight careers, but fans and pundits conflate them. With Tunney, it's the opposite: he had a tremendous Light Heavyweight career - albeit, fast paced and judiciously managed - before commencing a Heavyweight career that lasted a whopping 3 fights. For this, he's remembered as one of the ATG Heavyweights.

Certainly, converting from the Sullivan prototype to the Corbett one had a lot to do with his lasting imprint on the Boxing consciousness.

Really, there's a lot of directions to go in response to this post, but I think Spinks is like a watered-down Tunney. Less meaningful Light Heavyweight tenure, less convincing reign as Heavyweight king. But taking the belt (by the skin of his teeth) from (a faded) Holmes is more impressive, even if only superficially, than anything so many Light Heavyweights ever achieved upon their arrival to the Heavyweight division. Even though, for so many of them, their Heavyweight careers were as extensive as their Light Heavyweight careers!

[Rusty Tromboni]

True, but there are few other good wins for Sonny.

1) Zorah Folley. Great boxer with Holmes caliber skils, but with weak chin.

2) Eddie Matchen. Very good footwork and skils, heavily underestimated due to fist round KO loss in Sweeden.

3) Cleveland Wiliams. Fast, explosive, hard-hitting heavyweight. Something in between Donnovan Ruddok and young Shannon Brigs - easy to outbox, hard to outpunch.
His matches with liston is a rare case - 2 once beaten knokout artist in peak form and near prime.

4) Nino Valdez. Big tougth heavy. As with Williams, easy to outbox, hard to outpunch. Liston beats him in exchanges.

5) Wayne Bethea. Tougth, durable guy. Get blasted in one minute (his only KO loss).

Yeah, Patterson was NOT Liston's best win. Maybe his best performance, but not his best scalp.

Seriously, Patterson fought that fight all wrong. Arcel or Dundee would have given us a completely unrecognizable Patterson. One much better prepared for Tyson, if not as effective a killer.

[Rusty Tromboni]

1. I have better things to do in life.

2. I never even knew that the 2 of you had any enmity with each other. To be honest Queenie’s posts have recently devolved so deeply into ye olde English that I have stopped understanding them and so I’m not really sure what he thinks of anything.

could've fooled me, bro. I've alreayd been brushing up on my barry manilow and neil sedaka, I know Queenie will be impressed when I can sing along to her favorite songs.


BTW, how much weight did you cut when you competed?

No way Fedor and Wilder could drop the weight you suggest. Fedor's success was dependant on him being bulked up and explosive. Wilder, too, is explosive and possess strong stamina, but he's about as lean as he can get while maintaining functional strength and stamina.

Look at gomez: I don't doubt most people wanted him at Bw. He probably, today, would be fighting at 112 or Jr Bw (114?). Ridiculous. For his Fred Astaire-meets-Donovan smashing watermelons routine, he needed to avoid the steam-room.

WHy did Walker seem to get better as he moved up in weight?

Nothing personal (you're a good guy, but I kinda suspect you haven't done a lot of weight cutting, and haven't managed many weight cuts. I know too much about it: starting with its dangerous and should be much more aggressively regulated.

[ShoulderRoll]

It's not unlike Floyd or B-Hop, but those guys took the scenic route, and gingerly side-stepped the epic challenges which Spinks sought head-on: cleaning out a tough, tough division overnight, dethroning one of the greatest Heavyweights ever, engaging Tyson.

I can't let this statement go unchallenged as if it were a fact.

What are all these mythical, epic challenges that Hopkins or Mayweather supposedly side-stepped? Name them.

[Dempsey19]

could've fooled me, bro. I've alreayd been brushing up on my barry manilow and neil sedaka, I know Queenie will be impressed when I can sing along to her favorite songs.


BTW, how much weight did you cut when you competed?

No way Fedor and Wilder could drop the weight you suggest. Fedor's success was dependant on him being bulked up and explosive. Wilder, too, is explosive and possess strong stamina, but he's about as lean as he can get while maintaining functional strength and stamina.

Look at gomez: I don't doubt most people wanted him at Bw. He probably, today, would be fighting at 112 or Jr Bw (114?). Ridiculous. For his Fred Astaire-meets-Donovan smashing watermelons routine, he needed to avoid the steam-room.

WHy did Walker seem to get better as he moved up in weight?

Nothing personal (you're a good guy, but I kinda suspect you haven't done a lot of weight cutting, and haven't managed many weight cuts. I know too much about it: starting with its dangerous and should be much more aggressively regulated.

You're right in that I have never cut weight because I find it dangerous.

But we aren't talking about cutting- Wilder walked around at 195 at 21.

And Fedor carried around a LOT of fat that he could have lost without having to cut weight and been much lighter.

And this doesn't change the fact that most fighters today do cut weight despite the risks.

I also think you think I'm older than I am- I'm a young man starting my boxing career not a man who has retired. Though with my love of the old fighters I can see how you may be confused.

[billeau2]

That's really special. I very much appreciate you sharing that. Youu definitely had something that these kids today drowning in technology do not. I see it with my own in middle school. When they're all home we're practically amish.

I always felt, teaching high school, most kids didn't need it: they should have been doing something else to prepare for a productive adulthood. But music and athletics are always vital. It's something you can carry with you throughout a lifetime, and it benefits a person, regardless of their occupation or station in life.




That's an interesting point. It really come down to opinions, I guess, but Holyfield is hard to compare with Spinks. Vander suffered a Catch 22: He was too big for Cw and too small for Hw. He was looking stellar at 190; too bad the Cw limit was not 200 pounds then, and the division more established. I think he could have done amazing things, had he more time to fight men his own size. He always reminds me of a perfect mix of Howard Davis Jr. and Aaron Pryor. Unlike those guys, and Michael Spinks, he had to move up to fight bigger men. Financially it was a boon, but we probably never saw the best of Holyfield. And that's not mentioning the permanent and severely deleterious effects on his body.

A lot of Hoylfield's setbacks were self-inflicted: he often didn't fight smart. He relished in being the little man who brought the fight to the bigger, slower opponent. He adapted over time, but he was the antithesis of Spinks both literally in the ring, and figuratively speaking about their careers.

Spinks was a genius. As dumb as Leon was, Michael was smart. He should have been swooped up by NASA. I don't doubt that Michael loved Boxing. I don't doubt that he had the heart of a killer. I don't doubt that if he set his mind to it, he'd defy Hell itself. But I am also pretty sure he looked at Boxing and realized "if those idiots can do it, I'll make a killing". He's probably living the life of Reilly all these years later. It's not unlike Floyd or B-Hop, but those guys took the scenic route, and gingerly side-stepped the epic challenges which Spinks sought head-on: cleaning out a tough, tough division overnight, dethroning one of the greatest Heavyweights ever, engaging Tyson.

Holyfield is remembered for an unnecessarily long career as an undersized Heavyweight who always came up short when it mattered most. And I am certain his career could have never happened the way it did if he were fighting today, in the VADA/USADA era. That dude, for all his heart and talent, was more lab experiment than human. Sure, Spinks could have been on the sauce, too. But surely not to the extent Holyfield was.




This is a beautfiul post. It deserves its own thread. I really think it's a subject worth exploring; not exclusive to the Light HEavyweight division, but certainly definitive of it. Frankly, most Light Heavyweights had meaningful Heavyweight careers, but fans and pundits conflate them. With Tunney, it's the opposite: he had a tremendous Light Heavyweight career - albeit, fast paced and judiciously managed - before commencing a Heavyweight career that lasted a whopping 3 fights. For this, he's remembered as one of the ATG Heavyweights.

Certainly, converting from the Sullivan prototype to the Corbett one had a lot to do with his lasting imprint on the Boxing consciousness.

Really, there's a lot of directions to go in response to this post, but I think Spinks is like a watered-down Tunney. Less meaningful Light Heavyweight tenure, less convincing reign as Heavyweight king. But taking the belt (by the skin of his teeth) from (a faded) Holmes is more impressive, even if only superficially, than anything so many Light Heavyweights ever achieved upon their arrival to the Heavyweight division. Even though, for so many of them, their Heavyweight careers were as extensive as their Light Heavyweight careers!

You know what is really funny? We have both taught High School and think the same way...probably diametric to what most people assume a teacher's opinion would be. It reminds me of when I went to a lecture in a philosophical tradition in India that came out of materialism. I knew what this guy was going to talk about, 50 other people? they all thought: "ahh the spiritual Guru from India how nice!" Boy was there silence in the room when the guy, a real prick by the way lol, asked them why they would assume because he was Indian that he was a Theist? And by the time he went into the doctrines of Charvaka Materialism, no soul, no eternity, no nothing! I think most of those people would have snuck out if they had the courage to do so...I didn't agree with the guy but knew the subject, same situation though isn't it? Everyone assumed this guy was of a certain opinion.

Here we are, both should be, according to the understanding of what teachers do and say, tell people more school for everyone!! So here is what I tell people after teaching in the worse school district in San Francisco... The most important thing is to get kids, all kids regardless of ability, in the early grades to be able to read and write. Even Arithmetic, which is obviously important, is in our brains already...Socrates proved that in the "Meno" dialogue written by Plato. We have an intuitive understanding of how to work with quan******, adding, subtracting, measuring them.

But if a kid does not get decoding by a certain age, they will have a lifetime of hardship. So if I owned the schools? I would actually take the Middle school period, and use it to focus intensively on remedial skills regarding reading and writing. All the kids who had not mastered these skills could now be the focus in the school system. WE DONT DO ANYTHING for bright kids anyway! As the other group, Let them proceed directly to High school, using the time to learn about science, math, critical thinking related to material, and learning languages. In this way, by dividing the kids up accordingly, the remedial kids get small classes and intense work on decoding and the smarter kids get the skills they merit with the same smaller classes and devoted teachers.

If this was done College would also really mean something. Essentially any kid could come through to college early, or very well prepared because we could nurture our bright kids as well as make sure our kids who needed it, were brought along. Now the other thing about doing school this way is that there would be plenty of time for kids to have music, athletics, vocational training as well. Vocational training should not be antithetical to college prep... All kids benefit from learning about computers, cars, plumbing, contracting in general, the electrical trades, engineering.

I sent my kids to an Arts school because they get college prep work and have to learn stage craft, how to build sets, engineer lighting, build projects. To me all kids need this as part of education. Project based learning is especially important to Bright kids. Music and athletics were integral to the original constitution of the ******* Arts. You need an intelligent body to have an intelligent brain Its in our genes. Kids love to spin around and move forcing the body to adjust and grow neuron paths... athletics is a way for kids to do this as they progress into adulthood.

The other thing is what you refer to as "Amish." Again...totally agree. Learning about how to use technology is not difficult and should not be the focus of education. learn how computers work, how they function, code, school is not to learn how to use Windows 10. Why use our educational resources to instruct in something that a kid of slow development can learn in a few hours?

Regarding Holy. Yup. He did not fight smart, and the few times he did, he was very succesful. the two times I watched him listen to his corner where when he won against Bowe, and when he beat Tyson. YOur absolutely right, he loved to mix it up. Ditto for the Jinx. One interesting characteristic of some of the smarter fighters: often nothing stands out because they learned to round out and do well in all areas. I think of Monzon, Spinks and even Tunney that way. These guys did not have a weakness so when you look at them, they punch really well, defend really well, move well, etc. Of course I think Tunney was ahead of the curve but its the same concept: Its hard to beat a man with no blueprint to look at.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I can't let this statement go unchallenged as if it were a fact.

What are all these mythical, epic challenges that Hopkins or Mayweather supposedly side-stepped? Name them.

Oh, Safe Spaces, here you go again. Serious question: start something if you know you're just going to get your feelings first.

Let's side-step the make-believe. You've been down this path before. If you were intelligent and mature enough to accept reality, you wouldn't even be raising this non-issue. Instead, this is almost certainly a sore point for you, which you believe you can just argue away. Kinda like how Tom Cruise runs in every movie he's in, just to escape his gay thoughts.

Hopkins hovered beneath the radar at Middleweight for about 15 years. At that point, he finally couldn't make the Middleweight limit, and (more importantly) Jones' aurora of invincibility had vanished. There is footage of him admitting he delayed his move to Light Heavyweight.

Hopkins never out-right spent years on the run, avoiding challengers. But he didn't start pursuing big-name fights until deep in his career when the opportunity for money couldn't be achieved by any other means. Look at the fights with Jones and Kovalev: they happened when Hopkins lost the power to say no.



I am not sure what you want me to say about Mayweather. Do you recall him ever fighting a name fighter who was in his prime? I give him credit for issuing Castillo and Maidana immediate rematches. But there's no one with an IQ over 80 and half the scrupples of Al Haymon who would say Mayweather pursued potential foes with the fervor of Spinks.

LOL, forget the hoops he made little Manny Pacquiao jump through, forget the corpse of Oscar which he dug up, forget the ever-moving goal post that undersized Marquez had to chase, Floyd out-right refused to fight Paul Williams and Sergio Martinez - forget even considering Golovkin.


Again, you're known for having an agenda, and running away crying when people challenge it. So, I don't expect an adult reply. But really, I know I am telling you nothing you haven't heard before. Nothing you don't already in your heart of hearts know. But since I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, this is me trying. Maybe you'll finally man up?

[Rusty Tromboni]

You're right in that I have never cut weight because I find it dangerous.

But we aren't talking about cutting- Wilder walked around at 195 at 21.

And Fedor carried around a LOT of fat that he could have lost without having to cut weight and been much lighter.

And this doesn't change the fact that most fighters today do cut weight despite the risks.

I also think you think I'm older than I am- I'm a young man starting my boxing career not a man who has retired. Though with my love of the old fighters I can see how you may be confused.

I have passed out countless times cutting weight. I know I did myself a lot of harm. But I was also a beast on the mat. I accomplished a lot. I am deeply proud of those accomplishments. I know, if I set my mind to it, I can do anything. Most people can't handle minor stress. I have shrugged off massive injuries, and handle so really perilous situations because wrestling gave me the mentality, the gameness to survive. It really stops being physical very fast.

That being said. Be careful with combat sports and traiing your body. You really don't know what harm could befall you when you feel invincible. Just be smart.

As for the fighters. It's really complex. If you look at Anderson Silva, Anthony Johnson, Robet Whitaker, Kelvin Gastelum: they all had dog shyte Welterweight careers, and then became the stuff of legend when they stopped pushing the weight cut too far. That should tell you everything you need to know about Wilder and Fedor... yeah they could come in lighter, but that doesn't mean they should.

How about Cormier the Heavyweight vs. Cormier the Light Heavyweight? Do you see how this works?

[Dempsey19]

I have passed out countless times cutting weight. I know I did myself a lot of harm. But I was also a beast on the mat. I accomplished a lot. I am deeply proud of those accomplishments. I know, if I set my mind to it, I can do anything. Most people can't handle minor stress. I have shrugged off massive injuries, and handle so really perilous situations because wrestling gave me the mentality, the gameness to survive. It really stops being physical very fast.

That being said. Be careful with combat sports and traiing your body. You really don't know what harm could befall you when you feel invincible. Just be smart.

As for the fighters. It's really complex. If you look at Anderson Silva, Anthony Johnson, Robet Whitaker, Kelvin Gastelum: they all had dog shyte Welterweight careers, and then became the stuff of legend when they stopped pushing the weight cut too far. That should tell you everything you need to know about Wilder and Fedor... yeah they could come in lighter, but that doesn't mean they should.

How about Cormier the Heavyweight vs. Cormier the Light Heavyweight? Do you see how this works?

In my opinion Cormier cut an excessive amount of weight.

And whether the heavyweight Cormier can beat Jon Jones is a very debatable question.