The Patterson-Rademacher titlefight of 1957

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 31 Mar 2006, 12:18

Can the boxing historians explain why Rademacher went straight to Patterson in his pro debut? Why didn't he take the normal route - 10, 20 bouts to get used to pro-style?

Did people think at the time Rademacher would have a serious chance?

Finally, Rademacher had a disappointing pro-career, with a UD over Chuvalo as the only signficant win. Was he just not any better, or did over-eager managers break his career?

Here's some info by Wikipedia, but it doesn't quite satisfy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rademacher

P

john2345 · Post by **john2345** » 31 Mar 2006, 12:39

He got the fight with Patterson largely because Cus D'Amato didn't want to risk Floyd against anyone who might have a chance of beating him.

They "justified" (and that's too strong a word to use) the fight on the basis that Rademacher was an Olympic Champ and a match for Patterson. Bit like suggesting that Teofilio Stevenson might have had a chance of winning the World title (Pro) in his first fight - except that Stevenson could actually fight

Rademacher - in my view - was too old to make a successful conversion to the pro game, and probably didn't have the hunger or desire anyway.

J

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 31 Mar 2006, 12:50

Radematcher must have had something to have been able to beat Chuvalo and he managed to floor Patterson in their bout.... but he was never given the chance to develop as a pro and was really thrown to the wolves.....

Dempsey1238 · Post by **Dempsey1238** » 31 Mar 2006, 17:57

Protection of Patterson is the main reason.
Patterson was defended his title vs 2nd raters, as Champ. And relly duck the top guys like Folley and Eddie Machen. Of couse Ingo ko Machen, But Cus took the fight because he belive the Sweed to be a soft touch.

Patterson went against Cus to face Liston. Had it been Cus's way, Liston would have just got a ring side seat at the fight lol.

Trent · Post by **Trent** » 31 Mar 2006, 18:57

Back then fighters didnt wear head gear in the amateurs ?

If they didnt then wouldnt it be the same as fighting 6 round pro fights? so it wouldnt be so bad back then to come from the amateurs straight to pro, not like today.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 31 Mar 2006, 19:11

It was one of the worst moves in boxing history, it should never have happened, leave it to Floyd and company.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 01 Apr 2006, 04:38

..oh, i know i shouldn't work ezzard charles into every post i can...but this is relevant, i think. it isn't widely known that ezzard was a freak about conditioning....as much so in his own way as marciano and tunney. when the match was announced he said that it took him, as a professional six weeks to get into condition to START getting into REAL condition, and that radamecher simply couldn't do that jumping right from amateur to his first pro fight.

a dumb match. maybe pete figured he should grab a bit of cash right away and take his chances. well, he did embarrass paterson by knocking him down, before he got his own ass kicked.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 02 Apr 2006, 14:59

what I don't see is how you can rank a fighter, let alone put him in the top ten rankings---when the man never even had a professional fight, gold medal or not.

enrique · Post by **enrique** » 03 Apr 2006, 07:09

For the self managed Rademacher it was a smart move. He had his title shot right away and even though he did not win, he did not shame himself.

The former army lieutenant and college graduate was a good boxer and his record denotes some decent wins.

Rademacher went on to become a high ranking executive in corporate America and has been a good will ambassador for boxing everywhere.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 03 Apr 2006, 08:09

enrique...I agree it was good for Pete, but it was all for Pete's sake, I see nothing gained for boxing by Pattersons's decision to allow him that quick of a shot. But yes Pete gained much and that should be pointed out.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 03 Apr 2006, 08:22

Yes, its a crime really that the likes of Williams, Folley and Machen never got a shot at the title... all three were capable of beating Patterson imo... Liston himself had to wait about 4 years before he finally got his shot... the shame of it also is that I think Patterson could have been a much better champion but lacked confidence partly because of D'amato's influence. Floyd was a much tougher and more confident fighter in the late 6os imo its a shame that his title reigns have been tainted by the mismatches and the fights that never happened...

locoxelbox · Post by **locoxelbox** » 03 Apr 2006, 20:14

The fight was hyped as the best amateur vs the best professional. The olympic champion vs the world heavyweight champion.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 03 Apr 2006, 22:52

Iono what fight was worse....the Rademacher affair, or Patterson facing the amateur-like tank town bum Tom McNeeley?

Both men had no business in the ring with Patterson, D'Amato just wanted to keep his golden goose longer than it should have been---ironic how D'Amato did same for Tyson...all of 85 was nothing but bums and relative no namers.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 04 Apr 2006, 02:18

McNeeley was popular in Boston, but relatively unknown anywhere else, look at his record, and I could say he was more a talented amatuer than a professional---because most of his professional fights were against people with no records or were well-known losers, thus his kayo streak.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 02:40

silkov wrote:Yes, its a crime really that the likes of Williams, Folley and Machen never got a shot at the title... all three were capable of beating Patterson imo... Liston himself had to wait about 4 years before he finally got his shot... the shame of it also is that I think Patterson could have been a much better champion but lacked confidence partly because of D'amato's influence. Floyd was a much tougher and more confident fighter in the late 6os imo its a shame that his title reigns have been tainted by the mismatches and the fights that never happened...

please silk,

patterson literally destroyed machen in 64, it was a massacre. patterson knocked him down 4 times and totally outboxed him. to say machen was "outclassed" would be an understatement. patterson told my father he carried machen in the later rounds.

zora folley? glass jaw folley crumbles in under 6 rounds to patterson combination of speed and power

cleveland williams, now this is a legit fight, i give patterson a good chance

if archie moore couldnt beat patterson, neither will machen and folley. moore was a better heavyweight than both even in 1956.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 02:42

* anyone that wants to hear interesting news, radamacher did NOT knockdown patterson. i replayed it in extra slow motion 10 times, no punch landed. it was a slip.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 04 Apr 2006, 06:57

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
silkov wrote:Yes, its a crime really that the likes of Williams, Folley and Machen never got a shot at the title... all three were capable of beating Patterson imo... Liston himself had to wait about 4 years before he finally got his shot... the shame of it also is that I think Patterson could have been a much better champion but lacked confidence partly because of D'amato's influence. Floyd was a much tougher and more confident fighter in the late 6os imo its a shame that his title reigns have been tainted by the mismatches and the fights that never happened...

please silk,

patterson literally destroyed machen in 64, it was a massacre. patterson knocked him down 4 times and totally outboxed him. to say machen was "outclassed" would be an understatement. patterson told my father he carried machen in the later rounds.

zora folley? glass jaw folley crumbles in under 6 rounds to patterson combination of speed and power

cleveland williams, now this is a legit fight, i give patterson a good chance

if archie moore couldnt beat patterson, neither will machen and folley. moore was a better heavyweight than both even in 1956.

Please Brock... the Machen of 64 was a long way past his best and a long way from the fighter he had been in the late 50s... he had already been hospitalised with Psychiatric problems by the time he finally fought Patterson.... how would the Patterson of the late 50s take Williams punches when he was koed by Ingemar?.... Williams was a far superior boxer and puncher to Ingmar... I'm glad you take such interest in my views Brock but looks like we disagree again...

john2345 · Post by **john2345** » 04 Apr 2006, 14:13

silkov wrote: Please Brock... the Machen of 64 was a long way past his best and a long way from the fighter he had been in the late 50s... he had already been hospitalised with Psychiatric problems by the time he finally fought Patterson.... how would the Patterson of the late 50s take Williams punches when he was koed by Ingemar?.... Williams was a far superior boxer and puncher to Ingmar... I'm glad you take such interest in my views Brock but looks like we disagree again...

Patterson could have taken on Folley, Machen and Williams had he really wanted to but he let D'Amato match him against lower level challengers till he caught a tartar in Ingemar. At the time I used to think that any of the above would have beaten Patterson... and I still do. His performances up to and including Liston suggested that he was vulnerable to any top ranking heavyweight with a punch

His reputation recovered somewhat after he fought Ali, but to some extent that was because the mood of the time saw him as the good guy versus the hate figure that Ali had become for much of the population. To be fair to Floyd he fought well against Ali, and showed a lot of courage.

Machen was well past it when he fought Patterson, and my feeling is that he'd have beaten him had they met when he was at his best. But if they had met at that stage then at least we'd have known! Williams would have blasted Floyd out of it had he connected. Patterson was vulnerable to a banger...fact.

J

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 04 Apr 2006, 14:57

I think you have to figure that Patterson gave it everything he had in the Ali fight hoping that it could change his legacy.... he was highly motivated. I think he surprised a sleepy Ali who never took him the least bit seriously and was probably surprised by Floyds determination. Had Ali been even more sleepy and Floyd more determined maybe there would have been a surprise simply because Ali did not train as if his life depended on it for that one. But all things being equal they were not in the same league whatsoever.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 04 Apr 2006, 15:31

BoxBuzz wrote:I think you have to figure that Patterson gave it everything he had in the Ali fight hoping that it could change his legacy.... he was highly motivated. I think he surprised a sleepy Ali who never took him the least bit seriously and was probably surprised by Floyds determination. Had Ali been even more sleepy and Floyd more determined maybe there would have been a surprise simply because Ali did not train as if his life depended on it for that one. But all things being equal they were not in the same league whatsoever.

The later fights that impress me of Pattersons are his bouts against Quarry, Chuvalo, Bonavena and Ellis... it was a different Patterson in those bouts to the one of his title reigns...

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 04 Apr 2006, 20:52

I think what is ironic is...Patterson despite being a 2x time champion, in my personal opinion was better AFTER he was champion.

The stiffs he fought as champion would have been beaten easily by the men Patterson faced in later years.

And myself, even though I am not the best fan of Patterson, he was robbed in that decision against Jimmy Ellis for the WBA title, he shuld have been the first 3 time champion.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 21:44

silkov wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
silkov wrote:Yes, its a crime really that the likes of Williams, Folley and Machen never got a shot at the title... all three were capable of beating Patterson imo... Liston himself had to wait about 4 years before he finally got his shot... the shame of it also is that I think Patterson could have been a much better champion but lacked confidence partly because of D'amato's influence. Floyd was a much tougher and more confident fighter in the late 6os imo its a shame that his title reigns have been tainted by the mismatches and the fights that never happened...

please silk,

patterson literally destroyed machen in 64, it was a massacre. patterson knocked him down 4 times and totally outboxed him. to say machen was "outclassed" would be an understatement. patterson told my father he carried machen in the later rounds.

zora folley? glass jaw folley crumbles in under 6 rounds to patterson combination of speed and power

cleveland williams, now this is a legit fight, i give patterson a good chance

if archie moore couldnt beat patterson, neither will machen and folley. moore was a better heavyweight than both even in 1956.
Please Brock... the Machen of 64 was a long way past his best and a long way from the fighter he had been in the late 50s... he had already been hospitalised with Psychiatric problems by the time he finally fought Patterson.... how would the Patterson of the late 50s take Williams punches when he was koed by Ingemar?.... Williams was a far superior boxer and puncher to Ingmar... I'm glad you take such interest in my views Brock but looks like we disagree again...

well we dont necessrily disagree. although machen wasnt too far past it considering he beat quarry after and fought for the title.

i meant to say i give cleveland williams a good chance at beating floyd. williams is underated. i rate cleveland # 35 greatest heavyweight of all time.

consideirng how badly patterson beat machen, i cant see any version of eddie beating floyd.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 21:46

patterson said the only two fights he fought during his championship days where he felt at his peak were the moore and ingo II fights.

bill.lockhart · Post by **bill.lockhart** » 08 Apr 2006, 12:37

Patterson got a $250,000. guarantee put up by Rademachers backers
for the fight. A lot of loot back in 1957. Thats why the fight happened.
Machen & Folley were not fighters that had a lot of drawing power. Technically sound boxers with decent punching power. Perhaps a cut above Roy Harris, but that's about it. The tuth is, D'amato could make as much or more money with less risk vs. Rademacher, Harris & London.
Everytime Machen or Folley got close to a title shot, they lost fights that would have created a public demand for a showdown with Patterson. That demand would have created more $ for Patterson & D'amato would have had to accept their challenge. Machen & Folley fought to a draw in April 1958. In the fall of 58 Johannson stopped Machen & Cooper beat Folley. This trend continued for the balance of their careers.
Those are the facts. Machen & Folley have no one to blame but themselves.
I wish they had fought Floyd back then too. Floyd would have licked them both. Macjen & Folley are both made out to be a hell of a lot better than they really were because they didn't get title shots in their prime. They couldn't win when they had to.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 08 Apr 2006, 12:53

bill.lockhart wrote:Patterson got a $250,000. guarantee put up by Rademachers backers
for the fight. A lot of loot back in 1957. Thats why the fight happened.
Machen & Folley were not fighters that had a lot of drawing power. Technically sound boxers with decent punching power. Perhaps a cut above Roy Harris, but that's about it. The tuth is, D'amato could make as much or more money with less risk vs. Rademacher, Harris & London.
Everytime Machen or Folley got close to a title shot, they lost fights that would have created a public demand for a showdown with Patterson. That demand would have created more $ for Patterson & D'amato would have had to accept their challenge. Machen & Folley fought to a draw in April 1958. In the fall of 58 Johannson stopped Machen & Cooper beat Folley. This trend continued for the balance of their careers.
Those are the facts. Machen & Folley have no one to blame but themselves.
I wish they had fought Floyd back then too. Floyd would have licked them both. Macjen & Folley are both made out to be a hell of a lot better than they really were because they didn't get title shots in their prime. They couldn't win when they had to.

Well Machen did a hell of a lot better against Liston than Patterson did... the fact that they suffered the odd defeat here and there was because that they were fighting other top contenders (including eachother) most of whom were all ducked by Patterson...

The Patterson-Rademacher titlefight of 1957

The Patterson-Rademacher titlefight of 1957

Floyd - Rademacher

Re: Floyd - Rademacher