BoxRec

kasimirkid wrote: ↑11 Dec 2021, 17:51

Billy Tully wrote: ↑09 Dec 2021, 07:17

DrDuke wrote: ↑07 Dec 2021, 15:09 Schmeling's biggest win is prime Joe Louis covers every Patterson's win, while Patterson's wins over ageing, but credible Moore and prime Johansson cover the remaining wins of Schmeling.

Schmeling wasn't consistent during his prime, Patterson was.

Schmeling wasn't the man of his era, Patterson was. That's the most decisive factor with all circumstances.

Patterson rates higher for me easily.

Would Patterson be the man of his era if he was around in Joe Louis' day? No.

Patterson wasn't the man of his era anyway. Sonny Liston was.

Would Schmeling be the man if he was around in Patterson's day? Not if he fought Sonny Liston. But against Patterson's soft opposition? This is a man who squashed Joe Louis!

Schmeling would knock Patterson's brains out.

Billy Tully, I agree with you.

Patterson during his reigns was consistent in that most of the fighters he defended his title against could knock him down or out. Rademacher, Harris, Johansson, Harris, McNeeley, and Liston.

Patterson was the man of his era? What kind of era was it in the heavyweight division? An era in which the champion made no effort to clean out his division against several of his perennial his top challengers and, of the top challengers he did fight, he lost three times if you include both his fights against Liston, both of which were first-round kayos. Floyd only fought one challenger per year in 1958, 1960, and 1961. And and in 1957, 1958, and 1962, his second defenses were at best against lower-tiered contenders, even if you choose to call Rademacher a "contender."

Not all that impressive an "era," in my opinion. As to the match-up against Schmeling, Max had as good a right hand as Johansson and was a much better all-around fighter. He undoubtedly would have landed his right and very likely have knocked Floyd down. He was smart enough to come up with a plan against Joe Louis, and I think he would have been able to come up with a plan to defeat Patterson during Floyd's championship years.

DrDuke wrote: ↑07 Dec 2021, 15:09 Schmeling wasn't the man of his era, Patterson was. That's the most decisive factor with all circumstances.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 07:33

DrDuke wrote: ↑07 Dec 2021, 15:09 Schmeling wasn't the man of his era, Patterson was. That's the most decisive factor with all circumstances.

DrDuke's argument that being the man of your era is the most decisive factor and that swings it for Patterson is what I took issue with (and which the esteemed doctor has struggled to defend, retrofitting history rather than conceding that he was wrong). One, such an argument ignores the fact that one era might be much stronger than the other - for instance, does anyone see Wladimir Klitscho having a nine year reign in the 1990s? Didn't think so.

But the main issue is Patterson was never the man. This simply isn't up for debate. He famously fought weak challengers and was protected by Cus. This is extensively covered in the print media of the time and in books today, such as Remnick's King of the World. Arguing that the dangerous opponents he ducked didn't sustain winning records is ridiculous because neither did his weak opponents, bar Ingo who knocked him down 7 times and KOd him! Liston cleaned up the dangerous guys and when Floyd finally fought him, years too late, he was demolished with ease, twice. It's hard to picture Floyd making it through a defense versus a humongous puncher like Cleveland Williams, given that he was down against feeble opponents like debutante Rademacher and Roy Harris, not to mention Ingo 7 times and Liston 4 or so times in two quickies.

Schmeling KOd Louis, and lost a disputed 15 round decision to Jack Sharkey. He got KOd by Max Baer but it's hard to imagine Floyd surviving a killer puncher like Baer, given how badly Roy Harris et al could hurt him. It's similarly hard to imagine Floyd surviving a precision puncher like Schmeling. Schmeling rates so might higher it's hard to believe this is being discussed.

DrDuke wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 07:43

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 07:33

DrDuke wrote: ↑07 Dec 2021, 15:09 Schmeling wasn't the man of his era, Patterson was. That's the most decisive factor with all circumstances.

DrDuke's argument that being the man of your era is the most decisive factor and that swings it for Patterson is what I took issue with (and which the esteemed doctor has struggled to defend, retrofitting history rather than conceding that he was wrong). One, such an argument ignores the fact that one era might be much stronger than the other - for instance, does anyone see Wladimir Klitscho having a nine year reign in the 1990s? Didn't think so.

But the main issue is Patterson was never the man. This simply isn't up for debate. He famously fought weak challengers and was protected by Cus. This is extensively covered in the print media of the time and in books today, such as Remnick's King of the World. Arguing that the dangerous opponents he ducked didn't sustain winning records is ridiculous because neither did his weak opponents, bar Ingo who knocked him down 7 times and KOd him! Liston cleaned up the dangerous guys and when Floyd finally fought him, years too late, he was demolished with ease, twice. It's hard to picture Floyd making it through a defense versus a humongous puncher like Cleveland Williams, given that he was down against feeble opponents like debutante Rademacher and Roy Harris, not to mention Ingo 7 times and Liston 4 or so times in two quickies.

Schmeling KOd Louis, and lost a disputed 15 round decision to Jack Sharkey. He got KOd by Max Baer but it's hard to imagine Floyd surviving a killer puncher like Baer, given how badly Roy Harris et al could hurt him. It's similarly hard to imagine Floyd surviving a precision puncher like Schmeling. Schmeling rates so might higher it's hard to believe this is being discussed.

Schmeling's era wasn't really better than Patterson's one. Jack Sharkey, who fought on par with Primo Carnera, and Max Baer, who was schooled by Jim Braddock, could have hardly been better than Archie Moore or Ingo. And Patterson's performances against his opponents were more decisive, than Schmeling's one against his, apart from Max' win over Joe Louis. Even that Ingo loss, which apparently makes ya horny, was avenged twice by a KO.

So, overall your post is recycling of your initial ideas, which had already been proven wrong, so it's pretty amusing to see ya imposing theories about someone somehow struggling to defend his arguments.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 08:13

DrDuke wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 07:43

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 07:33

DrDuke's argument that being the man of your era is the most decisive factor and that swings it for Patterson is what I took issue with (and which the esteemed doctor has struggled to defend, retrofitting history rather than conceding that he was wrong). One, such an argument ignores the fact that one era might be much stronger than the other - for instance, does anyone see Wladimir Klitscho having a nine year reign in the 1990s? Didn't think so.

But the main issue is Patterson was never the man. This simply isn't up for debate. He famously fought weak challengers and was protected by Cus. This is extensively covered in the print media of the time and in books today, such as Remnick's King of the World. Arguing that the dangerous opponents he ducked didn't sustain winning records is ridiculous because neither did his weak opponents, bar Ingo who knocked him down 7 times and KOd him! Liston cleaned up the dangerous guys and when Floyd finally fought him, years too late, he was demolished with ease, twice. It's hard to picture Floyd making it through a defense versus a humongous puncher like Cleveland Williams, given that he was down against feeble opponents like debutante Rademacher and Roy Harris, not to mention Ingo 7 times and Liston 4 or so times in two quickies.

Schmeling KOd Louis, and lost a disputed 15 round decision to Jack Sharkey. He got KOd by Max Baer but it's hard to imagine Floyd surviving a killer puncher like Baer, given how badly Roy Harris et al could hurt him. It's similarly hard to imagine Floyd surviving a precision puncher like Schmeling. Schmeling rates so might higher it's hard to believe this is being discussed.

Schmeling's era wasn't really better than Patterson's one. Jack Sharkey, who fought on par with Primo Carnera, and Max Baer, who was schooled by Jim Braddock, could have hardly been better than Archie Moore or Ingo. And Patterson's performances against his opponents were more decisive, than Schmeling's one against his, apart from Max' win over Joe Louis. Even that Ingo loss, which apparently makes ya horny, was avenged twice by a KO.

So, overall your post is recycling of your initial ideas, which had already been proven wrong, so it's pretty amusing to see ya imposing theories about someone somehow struggling to defend his arguments.

You've demonstrated that you don't know the era you're talking about, including really basic stuff like how Floyd was perceived at the time, how he was managed. You really showed everyone what cards you were holding in your opening post.

You also talk about fights you don't know anything about, such as Folley/Cooper 1, and now Sharkey and Primo. Sharkey made easy work of Primo Carnera, then lost in a rematch in a comically bad dive that is among the most notorious fights of all-time. The pair of them were hardly 'on par' as you claim. How do you not know this?

Could you explain specifically what I've said that you have proven wrong? Anything factual at all. Because I and others have pointed out specifically where you have your facts wrong. So far you've just said I'm wrong.

DrDuke wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 08:17

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 08:13

DrDuke wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 07:43

Schmeling's era wasn't really better than Patterson's one. Jack Sharkey, who fought on par with Primo Carnera, and Max Baer, who was schooled by Jim Braddock, could have hardly been better than Archie Moore or Ingo. And Patterson's performances against his opponents were more decisive, than Schmeling's one against his, apart from Max' win over Joe Louis. Even that Ingo loss, which apparently makes ya horny, was avenged twice by a KO.

So, overall your post is recycling of your initial ideas, which had already been proven wrong, so it's pretty amusing to see ya imposing theories about someone somehow struggling to defend his arguments.

You've demonstrated that you don't know the era you're talking about, including really basic stuff like how Floyd was perceived at the time, how he was managed. You really showed everyone what cards you were holding in your opening post.

You also talk about fights you don't know anything about, such as Folley/Cooper 1, and now Sharkey and Primo. Sharkey made easy work of Primo Carnera, then lost in a rematch in a comically bad dive that is among the most notorious fights of all-time. The pair of them were hardly 'on par' as you claim. How do you not know this?

Could you explain specifically what I've said that you have proven wrong? Anything factual at all. Because I and others have pointed out specifically where you have your facts wrong. So far you've just said I'm wrong.

Factual means idea + proof. So far you've just said "I'm right because I'm a profound old school era pundit and you don't know a sh!t about older eras".

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 08:27

DrDuke wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 08:17

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 08:13

You've demonstrated that you don't know the era you're talking about, including really basic stuff like how Floyd was perceived at the time, how he was managed. You really showed everyone what cards you were holding in your opening post.

You also talk about fights you don't know anything about, such as Folley/Cooper 1, and now Sharkey and Primo. Sharkey made easy work of Primo Carnera, then lost in a rematch in a comically bad dive that is among the most notorious fights of all-time. The pair of them were hardly 'on par' as you claim. How do you not know this?

Could you explain specifically what I've said that you have proven wrong? Anything factual at all. Because I and others have pointed out specifically where you have your facts wrong. So far you've just said I'm wrong.

Factual means idea + proof. So far you've just said "I'm right because I'm a profound old school era pundit and you don't know a sh!t about older eras".

I knew you would have nothing.

DrDuke wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 08:39

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 08:27

DrDuke wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 08:17

Factual means idea + proof. So far you've just said "I'm right because I'm a profound old school era pundit and you don't know a sh!t about older eras".

I knew you would have nothing.

Lol, another backed up argument. And what do you have?

You claim Patterson wasn't the man, but Liston was, everybody knew that. Try watching the HBO and Showtime documentaries about Sonny, dear pundit. The situation about the public perception of Patterson and Liston is demonstrated far more trustworthy there than in your super profound claims.

Apart from that, you've claimed tons of other nonsense, for instance, insisting that Folley-Cooper was a big robbery, while the article on this site doesn't describe it as such.

After all that stuff you keep trying to be smart-aleck super duper expert, the circus is missing ya, bruh.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 09:09

DrDuke wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 08:39

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 08:27

I knew you would have nothing.

Lol, another backed up argument. And what do you have?

You claim Patterson wasn't the man, but Liston was, everybody knew that. Try watching the HBO and Showtime documentaries about Sonny, dear pundit. The situation about the public perception of Patterson and Liston is demonstrated far more trustworthy there than in your super profound claims.

Apart from that, you've claimed tons of other nonsense, for instance, insisting that Folley-Cooper was a big robbery, while the article on this site doesn't describe it as such.

After all that stuff you keep trying to be smart-aleck super duper expert, the circus is missing ya, bruh.

Yes I watched the HBO doc on Sonny in 1995. If you mean the American public perceived Floyd as a 'good guy' and Sonny as a 'bad guy' then you're conflating two things. Floyd and Cus were correctly criticised by the press for ducking dangerous challengers and defending against hand-picked stiffs, regardless of whether he was likeable. He empirically was a protected fighter and empirically was criticised by the media for it. Is your argument here really that Floyd was more liked than 'evil' Sonny, therefore it proves he was 'the man'? Really?

Lol at 'Boxrec doesn't say Folley and Cooper was a robbery'. I have no idea what it does say because fortunately my frame of reference is not limited to Boxrec.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 10:18 I'm happy to do so. However, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who refuses to even concede widely known facts, such as the complaints about the quality of Floyd's title opposition, or that Cus was criticised for protecting Floyd, or that Sonny was ducked for years etc.

Do I really have to prove this on a forum called Boxers of the Past, in a thread about famous 30s, 40s and 50s boxers? Are these facts new to anyone else except Dr Duke?

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 10:18 I'm happy to do so. However, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who refuses to even concede widely known facts, such as the complaints about the quality of Floyd's title opposition, or that Cus was criticised for protecting Floyd, or that Sonny was ducked for years etc.

Do I really have to prove this on a forum called Boxers of the Past, in a thread about famous 30s, 40s and 50s boxers? Are these facts new to anyone else except Dr Duke?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 12:11

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 10:18 I'm happy to do so. However, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who refuses to even concede widely known facts, such as the complaints about the quality of Floyd's title opposition, or that Cus was criticised for protecting Floyd, or that Sonny was ducked for years etc.

Do I really have to prove this on a forum called Boxers of the Past, in a thread about famous 30s, 40s and 50s boxers? Are these facts new to anyone else except Dr Duke?

This forum doesn't have the as many knowledgeable people as it used to have, but I think most people on here know these things.
The real question is how does it affect his rating? What about the fights that he did have?
Patterson had his up and downs. He does have some good wins and some terrible losses. He had some big strengths and a glass jaw. (By great fighter standards)

Schmeling likewise had his ups and downs. Nobody ever wants to talk about the loss to Steve Hamas, but it happened. Just like the win over Louis happened. Schmeling had other nice wins that often get overlooked. He stopped Young Stribling and Johnny Risko, who were very hard to stop.

I don't think Schmeling was as skillful as some people think. He should have been able to outbox Baer but got hammered. Watching the Baer fight and the 2nd Louis fight, he didn't seem to react well when he got hurt. Instead of clinching or running, he just let the other guy continue to hammer him.

It is too bad that the first Schmeling-Sharkey fight is not available. That may have told us a lot about him.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 15:28

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 12:11

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 10:18 I'm happy to do so. However, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who refuses to even concede widely known facts, such as the complaints about the quality of Floyd's title opposition, or that Cus was criticised for protecting Floyd, or that Sonny was ducked for years etc.

Do I really have to prove this on a forum called Boxers of the Past, in a thread about famous 30s, 40s and 50s boxers? Are these facts new to anyone else except Dr Duke?

This forum doesn't have the as many knowledgeable people as it used to have, but I think most people on here know these things.
The real question is how does it affect his rating? What about the fights that he did have?
Patterson had his up and downs. He does have some good wins and some terrible losses. He had some big strengths and a glass jaw. (By great fighter standards)

Schmeling likewise had his ups and downs. Nobody ever wants to talk about the loss to Steve Hamas, but it happened. Just like the win over Louis happened. Schmeling had other nice wins that often get overlooked. He stopped Young Stribling and Johnny Risko, who were very hard to stop.

I don't think Schmeling was as skillful as some people think. He should have been able to outbox Baer but got hammered. Watching the Baer fight and the 2nd Louis fight, he didn't seem to react well when he got hurt. Instead of clinching or running, he just let the other guy continue to hammer him.

It is too bad that the first Schmeling-Sharkey fight is not available. That may have told us a lot about him.

Glad to hear it. Thought I was going mad.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 15:28

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 12:11

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 10:18 I'm happy to do so. However, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who refuses to even concede widely known facts, such as the complaints about the quality of Floyd's title opposition, or that Cus was criticised for protecting Floyd, or that Sonny was ducked for years etc.

Do I really have to prove this on a forum called Boxers of the Past, in a thread about famous 30s, 40s and 50s boxers? Are these facts new to anyone else except Dr Duke?

This forum doesn't have the as many knowledgeable people as it used to have, but I think most people on here know these things.
The real question is how does it affect his rating? What about the fights that he did have?
Patterson had his up and downs. He does have some good wins and some terrible losses. He had some big strengths and a glass jaw. (By great fighter standards)

Schmeling likewise had his ups and downs. Nobody ever wants to talk about the loss to Steve Hamas, but it happened. Just like the win over Louis happened. Schmeling had other nice wins that often get overlooked. He stopped Young Stribling and Johnny Risko, who were very hard to stop.

I don't think Schmeling was as skillful as some people think. He should have been able to outbox Baer but got hammered. Watching the Baer fight and the 2nd Louis fight, he didn't seem to react well when he got hurt. Instead of clinching or running, he just let the other guy continue to hammer him.

It is too bad that the first Schmeling-Sharkey fight is not available. That may have told us a lot about him.

Glad to hear it. Thought I was going mad.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Dec 2021, 12:08

Billy Tully wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 15:28

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Dec 2021, 12:11

This forum doesn't have the as many knowledgeable people as it used to have, but I think most people on here know these things.
The real question is how does it affect his rating? What about the fights that he did have?
Patterson had his up and downs. He does have some good wins and some terrible losses. He had some big strengths and a glass jaw. (By great fighter standards)

Schmeling likewise had his ups and downs. Nobody ever wants to talk about the loss to Steve Hamas, but it happened. Just like the win over Louis happened. Schmeling had other nice wins that often get overlooked. He stopped Young Stribling and Johnny Risko, who were very hard to stop.

I don't think Schmeling was as skillful as some people think. He should have been able to outbox Baer but got hammered. Watching the Baer fight and the 2nd Louis fight, he didn't seem to react well when he got hurt. Instead of clinching or running, he just let the other guy continue to hammer him.

It is too bad that the first Schmeling-Sharkey fight is not available. That may have told us a lot about him.

Glad to hear it. Thought I was going mad.

I think we are on the same page, if not in complete agreement.
He certainly a true champion. He won the title fair and square. Title defense against Hurricane Jackson was legit. After that his title reign was not. How much you want to blame that on the IBC and/or D'Mato is arguable.

Would have been great if he had defended the title against Folley, Williams and Machen. (Though he did beat Machen later when he was not the champion.) Had he beaten those guys he would have deserved to be rated higher. He didn't.

He did have good big wins throughout his career and he should be given credit for that.

I think Patterson and Schmeling should be rated bear each other.

cfang wrote: ↑14 Dec 2021, 13:02 Had a look at their records and it’s not even close. Pattersons record is far superior. Schmelings record doesn’t have many good wins. Apart from the obvious he has the foul win over sharkey who he lost to and then stribling and a bunch of ok euro heavies and that’s it.

Patterson post Liston fights had some great results against quarry, chuvalo, machine, bonavena. His career much more impressive.

cfang wrote: ↑14 Dec 2021, 13:02 Had a look at their records and it’s not even close. Pattersons record is far superior. Schmelings record doesn’t have many good wins. Apart from the obvious he has the foul win over sharkey who he lost to and then stribling and a bunch of ok euro heavies and that’s it.

Patterson post Liston fights had some great results against quarry, chuvalo, machine, bonavena. His career much more impressive.