BoxRec

how do you rate their careers and accomplishments against each other obviously H2H Tyson wins most probably but
both at the time were the youngest HW champions ever im not sure who was younger to win the lineal title though, but it seems to me Patterson fought and beat some better overall comp and was more competitive for longer. thought this would make for an interesting discussion

Tyson was clearly the better heavyweight. He beat better overall competition and certainly his losses were less embarrassing.

If we are talking pound for pound, are we doing that literally? ie Patterson's around 185-190 and Tyson around 220? Then it's hard to say.

If we are just comparing in them in the weight class that they were in (heavyweights) Tyson was better.

I agree that Tyson was clearly a better heavyweight But I would argue Patterson had better longevity and while the losses to Liston were quick but he only lost to top fighters at the time while Tyson had some pretty embarrassing losses himself

Tyson would've decapitated Patterson around the second round.

I don't think too many people would argue that Tyson would have too much trouble. However, he had a huge size advantage. If they were the same size, who knows.

If you are looking at who had the better career as a fighter, you have to look at their key wins and their losses; both amount and the competitiveness of the fights. It is pretty interesting.

Tyson did not have any one particular win over an opponent that was outstanding. however, he had quite a few wins over good fighters-Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs, Tubbs, Bruno 2x, Williams, Ruddock 2x etc. In most of these he was pretty impressive.

Patterson had some nice wins at light heavyweight-Jimmy Slade,Willie Troy,Yvon Durrelle, and Dave Whitlock. He also fought well and got robbed in a fight against Joey Maxim, which was his only loss at light heavyweight.
At heavyweight, he is remembered for wins over Archie Moore, tommy Jackson twice, and Ingemar johansson 2x.
He also had some underrated wins-Eddie Machen and at the age 36 he beat Oscar Bonavena.

Hard to compare, but I would give Tyson a slight edge. Certainly arguable.

However, you also have to look at the losses. Patterson lost some decisions that could have gone his way-Quarry and Ellis, and as mentioned earlier Maxim. Those aren't embarrassing, though you would expect a great fighter to have made it more decisive against Quarry and Ellis. Still not a huge negative against him. Losing to Ali obviously was no embarrassment.
However, he got blown out by Liston twice. no embarrassment losing to liston, but you have to hold it against him for not being competitive at all.
The ko loss to Johannson has to count against him as well.

Tyson had losses to Douglas and a 34 year old Holyfield. True Douglas fought the fight of his life, but still Tyson didn't look good. His loss to Lewis should not count to much against him and his last loss not all. The DQ loss to Holyfield has to count heavily against him. The TKO loss not as much but still has to be factored in..
I would argue that Tyson's losses were not as bad as Patterson.

Have to rank Tyson ahead of Patterson when rating fighters regardless of weight class.

Ambling Alp wrote:Tyson did not have any one particular win over an opponent that was outstanding. however, he had quite a few wins over good fighters-Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs, Tubbs, Bruno 2x, Williams, Ruddock 2x etc. In most of these he was pretty impressive.

The Holmes win was outstanding regardless of Larry's inactivity prior to the bout. No one threw the Easton Assassin around like a wet rag like that before or after.
Spinks was also a good win even if Michael dogged it.

I rank Tyson ahead in practically any category. I think Patterson gets a little over-rated b/c he was such a fan favorite and humble fighter. I also think his late career is over-rated; he was good enough to be a spoiler type but IMO he didn't deserve to win either Quarry fight, should've lost vs Bonavena, and justly lost vs Ellis. At his peak his comp was generally weak as he avoided the likes of Williams, Machen and Folley, although he did beat Machen later on (in '64 when Eddie was slipping as a fighter). He basically fought Liston when he was forced to as Sonny had cleared out the division. Very good fighter but Tyson was better suited for the flawed D'Amato style.

dempseyfire wrote:I rank Tyson ahead in practically any category. I think Patterson gets a little over-rated b/c he was such a fan favorite and humble fighter. I also think his late career is over-rated; he was good enough to be a spoiler type but IMO he didn't deserve to win either Quarry fight, should've lost vs Bonavena, and justly lost vs Ellis. At his peak his comp was generally weak as he avoided the likes of Williams, Machen and Folley, although he did beat Machen later on (in '64 when Eddie was slipping as a fighter). He basically fought Liston when he was forced to as Sonny had cleared out the division. Very good fighter but Tyson was better suited for the flawed D'Amato style.

I agree with all of this except for your take on the Ellis fight. Floyd won that fight clearly and quite impressively imo. In hindsight it's probably not so bad that he got the shaft in that fight because a win would have lead to a severe beat down at the hands of Frazier.

In Patterson's defense:
I had never heard that there was any controversy with the Patterson-Bonavena fight.
The Quarry-Patterson fights were very close.
Machen was 32 when he fought Patterson; no spring chicken but not that old. He had not shown any signs of decline. Patterson won the fight pretty easily.

Still going with Tyson, though I am a little surprised that Patterson isn't get more support here.