Jimmy Ellis: The forgotten Champ

[stephenmc]

But Patterson due to his skills and boxing ability is viewed as being one of the greatest Heavyweights who ever lived... Better than every behemoth you care to mention, "Lewis, Bowe, Carnera, Willard, Terrell, Cooney, Klitschko's etc etc etc".....

So what if he was a cruiserweight?? Would you agree that he would of accomplished alot more?? Same thing as ellis

[juggernaut666]

So what if he was a cruiserweight?? Would you agree that he would of accomplished alot more?? Same thing as ellis

He cant agree to that ,then sonny boys world comes crashing down because then he will inadvertainly admit size is important .

[sonnyboyx2]

So what if he was a cruiserweight?? Would you agree that he would of accomplished alot more?? Same thing as ellis

No, How could Floyd Patterson possibly accomplish any more than what he achieved as a Heavyweight.. Floyd had a fantastic career and was a truely fantastic fighter..

[sonnyboyx2]

He cant agree to that ,then sonny boys world comes crashing down because then he will inadvertainly admit size is important .

There was no Cruiserweight division in 1957 and fighters were not taking steroids back in those days, so we had no need for that division.. Patterson fought Muhammad Ali in 1965 and put up an excellent performance against him even with a very bad back injury. Muhammad Ali was 6ft 4ins tall which is half an inch smaller in height than Lennox Lewis.. please don't reply to me claiming Ali to be 6ft 3ins tall or i will make a fool of you again... Ali was the fastest most skilled Heavyweight of all times and the 1965 version, was the greatest version of the great man... But you are going to tell me that Lennox Lewis would just "Bomb Out" Patterson in the first round because he was 6ft 5ins and weight 250lbs ...

[stephenmc]

There was no Cruiserweight division in 1957 and fighters were not taking steroids back in those days, so we had no need for that division.. Patterson fought Muhammad Ali in 1965 and put up an excellent performance against him even with a very bad back injury. Muhammad Ali was 6ft 4ins tall which is half an inch smaller in height than Lennox Lewis.. please don't reply to me claiming Ali to be 6ft 3ins tall or i will make a fool of you again... Ali was the fastest most skilled Heavyweight of all times and the 1965 version, was the greatest version of the great man... But you are going to tell me that Lennox Lewis would just "Bomb Out" Patterson in the first round because he was 6ft 5ins and weight 250lbs ...

Could you not just agree that Ellis would of been alot better off and an all around better fighter had their been a cruiserweight?? Im not doubting that patterson wasnt great,but im not on about patterson or any other fighter, im saying Ellis was a real talented boxer who won a title in one of the best eras of boxing,gave absolutly everything to the sport including his mind,hes the man who won the title as a HUGE underdog when ali got stripped of his title,and at the end of the day had no buisness being in whit such big punchers, he is a boxer that has slipped on by in peoples mind,and like i said will never be knowen as a great or be mentioned as a middleweight who won the heavyweight title and stuck around whit the best of them. The only time you might here about him is when people talk about ali and his sparring partners, and that he might of been remembered and got the regonision he deservers had their been a cruiserweight divsion wher he MIGHT of been able to take big punches from boxers whit a same weight,patterson wasnt able to take a punch,he was however able to get up,,if he had been a cruiser,im almost positve he wouldnt have been floored as many times....

[sonnyboyx2]

Could you not just agree that Ellis would of been alot better off and an all around better fighter had their been a cruiserweight?? Im not doubting that patterson wasnt great,but im not on about patterson or any other fighter, im saying Ellis was a real talented boxer who won a title in one of the best eras of boxing,gave absolutly everything to the sport including his mind,hes the man who won the title as a HUGE underdog when ali got stripped of his title,and at the end of the day had no buisness being in whit such big punchers, he is a boxer that has slipped on by in peoples mind,and like i said will never be knowen as a great or be mentioned as a middleweight who won the heavyweight title and stuck around whit the best of them. The only time you might here about him is when people talk about ali and his sparring partners, and that he might of been remembered and got the regonision he deservers had their been a cruiserweight divsion wher he MIGHT of been able to take big punches from boxers whit a same weight,patterson wasnt able to take a punch,he was however able to get up,,if he had been a cruiser,im almost positve he wouldnt have been floored as many times....

I have already said Jimmy Ellis was an excellent fighter, But to invent some mythical division 50yrs ago is ridiculous. Jimmy Ellis measured up to almost all of the top ranked heavyweights of his era. Quarry, Patterson, Mildenberger, Cooper, Spencer, Folley, Machen and he performed with credit against every fighter he ever faced. He achieved something less than a handful of fighters ever achieved, a middleweight winning the heavyweight title..

[billeau2]

Could you not just agree that Ellis would of been alot better off and an all around better fighter had their been a cruiserweight?? Im not doubting that patterson wasnt great,but im not on about patterson or any other fighter, im saying Ellis was a real talented boxer who won a title in one of the best eras of boxing,gave absolutly everything to the sport including his mind,hes the man who won the title as a HUGE underdog when ali got stripped of his title,and at the end of the day had no buisness being in whit such big punchers, he is a boxer that has slipped on by in peoples mind,and like i said will never be knowen as a great or be mentioned as a middleweight who won the heavyweight title and stuck around whit the best of them. The only time you might here about him is when people talk about ali and his sparring partners, and that he might of been remembered and got the regonision he deservers had their been a cruiserweight divsion wher he MIGHT of been able to take big punches from boxers whit a same weight,patterson wasnt able to take a punch,he was however able to get up,,if he had been a cruiser,im almost positve he wouldnt have been floored as many times....

The reason people....some quite knowledgable about the sport, do not believe that size is an automatic advantage that trumps all others is because history does not bare that observation out. Ray Corso has said over and over that the heavyweight division is an open weight class....this is not just whistlin dixie. It means that when a gifted cruiser wanted, or when the heavyweight division was weak, then a cruiser could challenge for the heavyweight crown...notice that there are two primary reasons and not one, i.e. its not just a weak division.

If you look historically at the cruiserweight division since its inception and if you look at size as a contributing factor to success as a heavyweight fighter you will find that excellent cruiserwweights generally did well as heavyweights and that great size, to this day is not a factor that triumphs all others when measuring the success of heavyweights.

For example, Holyfield was a cruiser, what about Foster? no slouch, got beat by Ali....etc. point being that cruisers have had relative success coming up.

Regarding size, if we look at Vlad and Lewis as exceptionally large heavyweights, well two fighters a trend does not make! What about other modern heavyweights like Tyson and Holyfield? there is no correlation that size is a determining factor in heavyweight success....if we look at fighters coming up? Well, Fury is talented and large....a cruiserweight fighter put him on his duff (Cunningham, just an aside), but then we have David Haye, a guy who is also a cruiser originally and whom most people think would at THE VERY LEAST be competative with Fury. And the other contenders? there does not appear to be a situation where bigger fighters are becoming the norm... where is the correlation between size and dominance in the heavyweight division?

considering nutrition and social science we should see an average size increase that is about 5 to ten pounds or so...this would indicate that people, via better nutrition (not evolution!!!) have gotten a little bigger. And that is exactly what we do see...If size was so exceptional a category we should expect to see greater size difference than what is normative to society and we do not! furthermore this difference is explained and hardly indicates some modern leap, rather it is due to putting vitamins in processed food, that is a fact.

Again, an example: I have coached MMA guys since the early days of those tourneys. now, when MMA started the standard was that a guy had to be proficient in Brazilian Ju Jutsu. At least able to neutralize a takedown with a proper sprawl... Now a days things have changed considerably. MMA guys have to know how to box vis a vis modifiying the jab techniqe etc....they have to know about wrestling and actually...an argument could even be made that as some talented guys came in with nice legs, an MMA guy has to know how to at least defend against knees, high kicks and elbows...In other words things have changed and even a great champion like Rorian or his brother could not have the same success, despite their technical exellence...Because the sport has evolved! and there is a direct correlation between what one has to know now to fight succesfully and what one had to know in the late eighties (when the Gracies first started being known).

In boxing there is no such correlation. One should certainly have an average size that is normative for the division....i.e. a kid wanting to fight heavyweight at 180-190 would probably be discouraged, but unlike an MMA trainer dealing with a Brazilian Jitz phenom who thinks his art alone will suffice.... succesful heavyweights have not shown that size as an independent variable, is instrumental to success today. Yes because of training, because of the rounds fought, etc the older heavyweights CAME IN lighter...so would the guys today if they had to fight the championship rounds. Guys gas earlier and throw less punches in the heavyweight division...not a good thing BTW.

Hope this helps, it is why some of us take the time and effort to deconstruct nonsense...when in doubt look at the date itself....today? a guy who wins an MMA type championship in a credible league will probably not be exclusively a specialist....Today guys who are considered succesful heavyweights probably will not be on average considerably bigger than past guys. Remember that coming in ten pounds lighter because of a stragegy is not the same as being considerably smaller or bigger....Its a training decision and anyone who thinks Chris Ariolla should walk around at 230 should get on the Leroy short bus. Take the fat off chris and he would walk in about the size of a prime Louis. He would be maybe ten pounds heavier than a prime Marciano.

[juggernaut666]

There was no Cruiserweight division in 1957 and fighters were not taking steroids back in those days, so we had no need for that division.. Patterson fought Muhammad Ali in 1965 and put up an excellent performance against him even with a very bad back injury. Muhammad Ali was 6ft 4ins tall which is half an inch smaller in height than Lennox Lewis.. please don't reply to me claiming Ali to be 6ft 3ins tall or i will make a fool of you again... Ali was the fastest most skilled Heavyweight of all times and the 1965 version, was the greatest version of the great man... But you are going to tell me that Lennox Lewis would just "Bomb Out" Patterson in the first round because he was 6ft 5ins and weight 250lbs ...

That wasnt the point ,i would or could respond any which way seemingly everything really does go over your head and i dont have to make you look like a fool you do it yourself without any help....

[juggernaut666]

The reason people....some quite knowledgable about the sport, do not believe that size is an automatic advantage that trumps all others is because history does not bare that observation out. Ray Corso has said over and over that the heavyweight division is an open weight class....this is not just whistlin dixie. It means that when a gifted cruiser wanted, or when the heavyweight division was weak, then a cruiser could challenge for the heavyweight crown...notice that there are two primary reasons and not one, i.e. its not just a weak division.

If you look historically at the cruiserweight division since its inception and if you look at size as a contributing factor to success as a heavyweight fighter you will find that excellent cruiserwweights generally did well as heavyweights and that great size, to this day is not a factor that triumphs all others when measuring the success of heavyweights.

For example, Holyfield was a cruiser, what about Foster? no slouch, got beat by Ali....etc. point being that cruisers have had relative success coming up.

Regarding size, if we look at Vlad and Lewis as exceptionally large heavyweights, well two fighters a trend does not make! What about other modern heavyweights like Tyson and Holyfield? there is no correlation that size is a determining factor in heavyweight success....if we look at fighters coming up? Well, Fury is talented and large....a cruiserweight fighter put him on his duff (Cunningham, just an aside), but then we have David Haye, a guy who is also a cruiser originally and whom most people think would at THE VERY LEAST be competative with Fury. And the other contenders? there does not appear to be a situation where bigger fighters are becoming the norm... where is the correlation between size and dominance in the heavyweight division?

considering nutrition and social science we should see an average size increase that is about 5 to ten pounds or so...this would indicate that people, via better nutrition (not evolution!!!) have gotten a little bigger. And that is exactly what we do see...If size was so exceptional a category we should expect to see greater size difference than what is normative to society and we do not! furthermore this difference is explained and hardly indicates some modern leap, rather it is due to putting vitamins in processed food, that is a fact.

Again, an example: I have coached MMA guys since the early days of those tourneys. now, when MMA started the standard was that a guy had to be proficient in Brazilian Ju Jutsu. At least able to neutralize a takedown with a proper sprawl... Now a days things have changed considerably. MMA guys have to know how to box vis a vis modifiying the jab techniqe etc....they have to know about wrestling and actually...an argument could even be made that as some talented guys came in with nice legs, an MMA guy has to know how to at least defend against knees, high kicks and elbows...In other words things have changed and even a great champion like Rorian or his brother could not have the same success, despite their technical exellence...Because the sport has evolved! and there is a direct correlation between what one has to know now to fight succesfully and what one had to know in the late eighties (when the Gracies first started being known).

In boxing there is no such correlation. One should certainly have an average size that is normative for the division....i.e. a kid wanting to fight heavyweight at 180-190 would probably be discouraged, but unlike an MMA trainer dealing with a Brazilian Jitz phenom who thinks his art alone will suffice.... succesful heavyweights have not shown that size as an independent variable, is instrumental to success today. Yes because of training, because of the rounds fought, etc the older heavyweights CAME IN lighter...so would the guys today if they had to fight the championship rounds. Guys gas earlier and throw less punches in the heavyweight division...not a good thing BTW.

Hope this helps, it is why some of us take the time and effort to deconstruct nonsense...when in doubt look at the date itself....today? a guy who wins an MMA type championship in a credible league will probably not be exclusively a specialist....Today guys who are considered succesful heavyweights probably will not be on average considerably bigger than past guys. Remember that coming in ten pounds lighter because of a stragegy is not the same as being considerably smaller or bigger....Its a training decision and anyone who thinks Chris Ariolla should walk around at 230 should get on the Leroy short bus. Take the fat off chris and he would walk in about the size of a prime Louis. He would be maybe ten pounds heavier than a prime Marciano.

You are talking night and day ,weight in boxing is more important because its a specific skill set ...MMA has more variables anyone telling me weight wouldn't be a major factor for 95 % of boxers in HW that were 200 pounders vs modern 230 plus ones would be a.... flag.

[sonnyboyx2]

You are talking night and day ,weight in boxing is more important because its a specific skill set ...MMA has more variables anyone telling me weight wouldn't be a major factor for 95 % of boxers in HW that were 200 pounders vs modern 230 plus ones would be a.... flag.

If Weight & size are so important like you try to profess, then why did your hero Lennox Lewis get poleaxed by Hasim Rahman. When he weighed 16lbs more and was 3ins taller?