How did you score it: Patterson Vs Ellis 1968

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 22 Dec 2007, 03:18

Ok guys, I have just re-watched this fight with the pen and the paper and this is how I saw it. For whatever it is worth.

R 1 Patterson 9 Ellis 10
R 2 Patterson 10 Ellis 9
R 3 Patterson 9 Ellis 10
R 4 Patterson 10 Ellis 9
R 5 Patterson 10 Ellis 9
R 6 Patterson 10 Ellis 9
R 7 Patterson 9 Ellis 10
R 8 Patterson 10 Ellis 9
R 9 Patterson 9 Ellis 10
R 10 Patterson 10 Ellis 9
R 11 Patterson 10 Ellis 9
R12 Patterson 9 Ellis 10
R 13 Patterson 10 Ellis 9
R 14 Patterson 10 Ellis 9 (Should be a 10-8 round as Ellis was knocked down)
R15 Patterson 10 Ellis 10

Patterson 145
Ellis 141

The whole referee being the sole judge at this period of history in
boxing especially for a title fight is just plain silly.

One thing for certain is that if Patterson had of won the crown, his reign
no doubt would have been as short lived as Ellis' was. Frazier was to much for Floyd, who would have made it a fun, exciting fight...though short.

Kym

yancey · Post by **yancey** » 22 Dec 2007, 05:39

Well, looks like you have it 9-5-1 for Floyd and I'll buy it.

I only watched the fight when it actually happened, but I remember Patterson finishing strong, some very good flurries he would throw, and being horribly disgusted with the decision.

That knockdown, was it a overhand right and Ellis kind of sagged in to him? (going by nearly 40 year old memory, so I may have it wrong)

Granberry says Dundee brought the ref who had the only vote....if this is right....I think I can put 2 + 2 together. :(

p.s. you are right, Frazier would have way too much for Floyd to handle....I reckon anywhere from 2 to 5 rounds it would go.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 22 Dec 2007, 10:11

Patterson was far below his best level by this time,

but he was still far superior to Ellis.

As far as I know, Dundee's stooge "referee" Harold Valan was never used again in a major fight.

The day after the fight the headlines in the Swedish papers read,

"Still a Sparring Partner"

referring to the fact that Ellis had been Ali's sparring partner.

Look at the crap Dundee got away with in overseas fights---Ali Cooper I,
Ellis-Patterson, Ali-Foreman.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 22 Dec 2007, 10:18

Patterson (far past his best) handled Bonavena much easier than Frazier did.

Patterson (far past his best) knocked out Henry Cooper for a ten count.

Ali (supposedly as the "greatest of all time") fought Cooper twice and never knocked Cooper down.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 22 Dec 2007, 16:35

granberry wrote:Patterson was far below his best level by this time,

but he was still far superior to Ellis.

As far as I know, Dundee's stooge "referee" Harold Valan was never used again in a major fight.

The day after the fight the headlines in the Swedish papers read,

"Still a Sparring Partner"

referring to the fact that Ellis had been Ali's sparring partner.

Look at the crap Dundee got away with in overseas fights---Ali Cooper I,
Ellis-Patterson, Ali-Foreman.

Hehehehehehe, here we go. I've been waiting for pseudo boxing historian Crankberry to mention this one.

I have always thought of this as Ali's 2nd greatest win. Beating a very good champ into the ground when no one gave him a chance but, no doubt, Crankberry has some 'info' that will show I am wrong.

I do hope he isn't referring to the ropes and the drugged water stories that were considered feeble excuses at the time and reflected badly on George.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 22 Dec 2007, 18:06

Norman Mailer and George Plimpton were thrilled with the Ali-Foreman crap too.

Collins, Mailer, and Plimpton. Three boxing "experts."

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 22 Dec 2007, 18:10

granberry wrote:Norman Mailer and George Plimpton were thrilled with the Ali-Foreman crap too.

Collins, Mailer, and Plimpton. Three boxing "experts."

Perhaps you could point us to some experts, outside the forman camp, who weren't thrilled...

Come on, blowhard.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 22 Dec 2007, 18:32

Poor colliins doesn't comprehend that I use the word "expert" in a sarcastic manner.

Notice how buzz and his butt-boy collins endlessly return to the SAME saw--
that their "experts" say this or that.

Those who are competent in a subject see and comprehend WITH THEIR OWN EYES.

They don't need anyone else to tell them what they see.

buzz and collins live in the world of the the media "experts" and clutch to the written word of these clueless media "experts" as the entirety of what they think "boxing" is.

People who hack out a living writing are not "experts" at anything except hacking out a living writing.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 22 Dec 2007, 18:45

granberry wrote:Poor colliins doesn't comprehend that I use the word "expert" in a sarcastic manner.

Notice how buzz and his butt-boy collins endlessly return to the SAME saw--
that their "experts" say this or that.

Those who are competent in a subject see and comprehend WITH THEIR OWN EYES.

They don't need anyone else to tell them what they see.

buzz and collins live in the world of the the media "experts" and clutch to the written word of these clueless media "experts" as the entirety of what they think "boxing" is.

People who hack out a living writing are not "experts" at anything except hacking out a living writing.

Come on Mr Blowhard, enough of the waffle.

What respected writers, pundits, commentators etc agreed with you that there was something wrong with Ali's great win over Foreman?

I've NEVER seen you able to back up one of your crazy claims.

I wonder why...

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 22 Dec 2007, 19:43

Collins2000 wrote:
What respected writers, pundits, commentators etc agreed with you that there was something wrong with Ali's great win over Foreman?

Respected by whom???, you halfwit.

Just as I said

and as he proved YET ANOTHER TIME

collins in his cluelessness is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT

on his phony

"respected writers, pundits, commentators."

The pathetic crew of Thomas Hausers, Bert (Give me another Drink) Sugars, Norman Mailers, Howard Cosells, Larry Merchants,

and the rest of the endless list of those hacking out a living shilling for Don King, TV networks, and 'politically correct' media publications

are the object of disgust and revulsion to anyone with a background in boxing.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 22 Dec 2007, 21:15

Patterson for all his faults in my opinion gets over looked for his mid 60's to early 70s fights. It is always over shadowed by his losses those BS and those legitimate. To me that is pretty sad.

For the Ellis fight it can be argued that Ellis was jabbing and trying to drop the right hand, where as Patterson with his jab and double jab would fight the fight in flurries. Now these flurries were for the most part a lot more and did more than anything Ellis threw for most rounds.

The judging was poor.

The 'KD" was after a right that dropped Ellis, who pulled Patterson down with him. It seemed as though Ellis was getting an 8 count then the Judge-Ref decided no, it was a slip. I wouldn't be suprised if that round was rulled for Ellis also.

Kym

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 22 Dec 2007, 22:51

granberry wrote:
Collins2000 wrote:
What respected writers, pundits, commentators etc agreed with you that there was something wrong with Ali's great win over Foreman?

Respected by whom???, you halfwit.

Just as I said

and as he proved YET ANOTHER TIME

collins in his cluelessness is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT

on his phony

"respected writers, pundits, commentators."

The pathetic crew of Thomas Hausers, Bert (Give me another Drink) Sugars, Norman Mailers, Howard Cosells, Larry Merchants,

and the rest of the endless list of those hacking out a living shilling for Don King, TV networks, and 'politically correct' media publications

are the object of disgust and revulsion to anyone with a background in boxing.

Come on blowhard surely you can find someone from that era who agreed with your nonsense.

Even another nutter like you will do.

Surely someone else saw through Ali's great win.

No?

And you wonder why you get no respect in here?

Pathetic.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 22 Dec 2007, 23:02

Collins is totally dependent on his "commentators, writers, experts" for anything he thinks.

Your "experts" are frauds, collins.

That makes YOU a fraud.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 22 Dec 2007, 23:07

granberry wrote:Collins is totally dependent on his "commentators, writers, experts" for anything he thinks.

Your "experts" are frauds, collins.

Come on, Blowhard, surely you can name one or two names outside the foreman camp who saw it the bizarre way you saw it.

No?

Now isn't that surprising?

Once again you have painted yourself into a corner and now can only respond with idiotic one-liners that prove nothing other than the fact that you have been shown to know fekk all. Yet again.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 23 Dec 2007, 01:44

I still do not get how anyone can say Patterson was passed his best when he was fighting the likes of Chuvalo and Bonavena and Cooper, and doing much better against those guys than the likes of Frazier done against Bonavena (as made an example before).

Patterson, if anything, proved that he got better, if not peaked twice, after his first and second title reign. How can you compare the Patterson who fought such weak opposition in Pete Rademacher, Brian London, Roy Harris, and Tom McNeeley to the Patterson who whooped Chuvalo, who knocked out Cooper (arguably the greatest British heavyweight to never win the world title), who decisioned Bonavena and was robbed against Ellis?

There is no comparison. The younger Patterson was spoon fed to the title and his stay was made longer through his managers under-handed schemes of having him face undeserving opponents rather than face genuine challengers like Eddie Machen. The older Patterson seemed to duck nobody, and won convincingly more times than not.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 23 Dec 2007, 02:03

All that shows is Patterson was handled more carefully than was necessary.

After his second reign closed, Patterson was still good enough to best some top Heavyweights, but he was slowing. His back was getting progressively worse, & this impeded his natural style. By the late 60's there was a visible reduction in handspeed & consistent combination-punching as well. Put it all together in a 30+ body that's been fighting pro since the age of 17 & you'll start to pick it up.

What I still do not get is why people keep referring to Tyson as the youngest Heavyweight champion ever, when that is in fact still Patterson at 21. If you want to say Tyson is the youngest man to win a piece of the title, then say so. Don't mislead casual & even some more devoted observers by taking away a Patterson achievement that still stands.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 23 Dec 2007, 02:09

In a way its not Tyson's fault that he won a strap of the title as opposed to the whole pie. But Patterson should still be considered the man.

It is true that in his ;ater years Patterson fought better fights against harder and more respected guys. But his skills and attributes were by far on the slide.

In regards the Machen challenge, Eddie was eliminated by his KO loss to Johannsen. That was an eliminator fight, Machen lost in in a round.

Patterson did go on to fight Machen and beat him.

Kym

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 23 Dec 2007, 02:14

I'm not blaming Tyson at all. I'm pointing at the people that consistently make that misleading statement about him (in documentaries, reports etc.). Tyson's accomplishment was stellar for a 20-year-old, & he was justified in taking the fight. But he is not the youngest champion ever.

For that matter & by that measure, you could say the same about those reports that Tyson is a two-time champ, Lewis is a three-time champ, & Holyfield is a four-time champ. That is wrong on all counts.

"Champion" &, "title-holder" need to be more adequately clarified.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 23 Dec 2007, 02:17

agreed.

and sadly for the most part the 'media' only know a hand ful of names
and Tyson seems to be one of them. So 'Youngest HW champion' is simple and easy for them to say.

HOw complicated and retarded can our sport seem at times.

yancey · Post by **yancey** » 23 Dec 2007, 07:42

I watched Patterson and Cooper for the first time on youtube recently and was very impressed with how Floyd put away Cooper.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 23 Dec 2007, 13:19

yancey wrote:I watched Patterson and Cooper for the first time on youtube recently and was very impressed with how Floyd put away Cooper.

Yancey,

I have never seen that.

Tell some more about it.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 23 Dec 2007, 15:05

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 23 Dec 2007, 15:09

DaveV17 wrote:Granberry, excellent posts, I enjoy reading your comments. You talk to the real boxing people while most who post on boxing boards regurgitate what Mailer, Cosell, Hauser, Merchant, Sugar, and the other half wits have written or said.

It seems that the less one knows about boxing, the more impressed with Ali he or she is, the more one knows about boxing, the less impressed he'she is by the Ali "legend".

Dave, aren't 80% of your posts about Ali?

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 23 Dec 2007, 16:36

DaveV17 wrote:
It seems that the less one knows about boxing, the more impressed with Ali he or she is, the more one knows about boxing, the less impressed he'she is by the Ali "legend".

Yes sir.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 23 Dec 2007, 17:21

I think the Patterson cooper fight is only a fragment of it on
youTube.

I have the full fight and Patterson is in control and does things
againts Cooper that few others have especially when Cooper in
1966 was still a handy fighter.

Patterson was throwing excruciating tripple left hooks, fast crosses
and his speed made Cooper look third rate. Is an interesting contrast
to the two Ali fights, which many seem to base Coopers career on.

The shameful thing is that Patterson never seemed to 'let go' in his
two fights against Ali. Back injury or not he seemed to struggle with
the range and thoufgh while Ali during the fights is respectful of Patterson
and his speed-power (contray to what doco's would say years later that
Ali was toying with Patterson) and seems to be cautious and clever as
he out fights the clearly much smaller Floyd.

After Cus, Patterson seemed to be self coached, though he had a trainer
it appears that he was the driver in his own camp. Which sometimes spreads a man thin.

]Kym