BoxRec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXMv_i8H6MM

This looks like a pretty blatant example of holding behind the neck and hitting.

The real damage seemed to have taken place before the possible foul. Not sure what kind of trouble he was in on the ropes from that left but it looks pretty serious. PROTECT YOURSELF AT ALL TIMES....as the saying goes.

BoxBuzz wrote:The real damage seemed to have taken place before the possible foul. Not sure what kind of trouble he was in on the ropes from that left but it looks pretty serious. PROTECT YOURSELF AT ALL TIMES....as the saying goes.

I mean the left hook before Patterson gets to the ropes. Liston is blocking Patterson's head with the right and is hitting with the left.

pundit wrote:www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXMv_i8H6MM

This looks like a pretty blatant example of holding behind the neck and hitting.

why dont u make a thread about how ur boy max baer hits max schmeling with backhand girly slaps? if thats not fouling, i dont know what is

Liston fouled Patterson alright: He dared to hit him after having been ducked for years.

I think Charles did what Zora Folley, Eddie Machen and other high rankings heavyweights would have liked to do to Floyd, who instead went on to defend the title against the McNeeleys and the Radamachers of the world.

I see no need for fuss on this one, Patterson had no shot and even if he was fouled once he surely was going down again. Dominance by Liston.

Aldo Pravisani wrote:Liston fouled Patterson alright: He dared to hit him after having been ducked for years.

I think Charles did what Zora Folley, Eddie Machen and other high rankings heavyweights would have liked to do to Floyd, who instead went on to defend the title against the McNeeleys and the Radamachers of the world.

Clear, concise, to the point, remarkable in it's brevity and succint.

Good call Pundit. Actually Liston used rough house tactics on Patterson in both fights. But on the Boxers Of The Past Forum, that kind of thing go's unnoticed. Unless your name's Lennox Lewis.

Seamus wrote:Good call Pundit. Actually Liston used rough house tactics on Patterson in both fights.

At least it didn't decide the bout in the second fight

sockdollanger wrote:I see no need for fuss on this one, Patterson had no shot and even if he was fouled once he surely was going down again. Dominance by Liston.

Yeah, I'm not going to discredit Liston for whipping Patterson's ass. Not only that there was a rematch and Liston dominated again.

Ooooops!! You're absolutely right Decagon. I should have thought of it.

By tha way, I think that if Ezzard was fighting today, he'd clean up the mess of all these phoney champions in no time at all.

How I wish there would be once again only one World Boxing Ruling Body and only seven weight divisions.

Aldo Pravisani wrote:Ooooops!! You're absolutely right Decagon. I should have thought of it.

By tha way, I think that if Ezzard was fighting today, he'd clean up the mess of all these phoney champions in no time at all.

How I wish there would be once again only one World Boxing Ruling Body and only seven weight divisions.

You're in good company here, especially if you meant 8 weight divisions.

Ezzard wrote:

Aldo Pravisani wrote:Ooooops!! You're absolutely right Decagon. I should have thought of it.

By tha way, I think that if Ezzard was fighting today, he'd clean up the mess of all these phoney champions in no time at all.

How I wish there would be once again only one World Boxing Ruling Body and only seven weight divisions.

You're in good company here, especially if you meant 8 weight divisions.

Ezzard wrote:

Aldo Pravisani wrote:Ooooops!! You're absolutely right Decagon. I should have thought of it.

By tha way, I think that if Ezzard was fighting today, he'd clean up the mess of all these phoney champions in no time at all.

How I wish there would be once again only one World Boxing Ruling Body and only seven weight divisions.

You're in good company here, especially if you meant 8 weight divisions.

You win by KO

Aldo...Welcome to my group of associates that have been "Ranteing" about this multiple belts quagmire since before it even became an issue.

I'll sign you up as a charter member...

http://www.screenthem.com/images/spots/ ... uality.jpg

Patterson fouled Liston.... by keeping him waiting for years for a shot at the title.

J

Decagon wrote:If Ezzard Charles were fighting today, he'd be a hell of a welterweight.

BoxBuzz wrote:Aldo...Welcome to my group of associates that have been "Ranteing" about this multiple belts quagmire since before it even became an issue.

I'll sign you up as a charter member...

http://www.screenthem.com/images/spots/ ... uality.jpg

Thankyou I am flattered.

Aldo Pravisani wrote:Liston fouled Patterson alright: He dared to hit him after having been ducked for years.

I think Charles did what Zora Folley, Eddie Machen and other high rankings heavyweights would have liked to do to Floyd, who instead went on to defend the title against the McNeeleys and the Radamachers of the world.

Machen got his chance in 64. He got creamed by Floyd.
As for Folley... He didn't hit as hard as Floyd & wasn't fast enough for him. Come to think of it, he wasn't good enough for Lavorante or Cooper either.

bill.lockhart wrote:

Aldo Pravisani wrote:Liston fouled Patterson alright: He dared to hit him after having been ducked for years.

I think Charles did what Zora Folley, Eddie Machen and other high rankings heavyweights would have liked to do to Floyd, who instead went on to defend the title against the McNeeleys and the Radamachers of the world.

Machen got his chance in 64. He got creamed by Floyd.
As for Folley... He didn't hit as hard as Floyd & wasn't fast enough for him. Come to think of it, he wasn't good enough for Lavorante or Cooper either.

Very true Bill, but by then Machen was no longer the same fighter (you may remember that for a short time he actually spent time in an institution, as it appears that he tried to commint suicide) and Floyd wasn't the champ any more.

Folley seemed to go hot and cold: He was outpointed by 'Enry Cooper, but then he knocked the Englishman out in a return.

I think you'll agree that both would have deserved a title shot. Whether they would have won, is another story.

Strange that both fighters (Eddie and Zora) should be dead at the same age, in rather mysterious circumstances.

Aldo Pravisani wrote:

bill.lockhart wrote:

Aldo Pravisani wrote:Liston fouled Patterson alright: He dared to hit him after having been ducked for years.

I think Charles did what Zora Folley, Eddie Machen and other high rankings heavyweights would have liked to do to Floyd, who instead went on to defend the title against the McNeeleys and the Radamachers of the world.

Machen got his chance in 64. He got creamed by Floyd.
As for Folley... He didn't hit as hard as Floyd & wasn't fast enough for him. Come to think of it, he wasn't good enough for Lavorante or Cooper either.

Very true Bill, but by then Machen was no longer the same fighter (you may remember that for a short time he actually spent time in an institution, as it appears that he tried to commint suicide) and Floyd wasn't the champ any more.

Folley seemed to go hot and cold: He was outpointed by 'Enry Cooper, but then he knocked the Englishman out in a return.

I think you'll agree that both would have deserved a title shot. Whether they would have won, is another story.

Strange that both fighters (Eddie and Zora) should be dead at the same age, in rather mysterious circumstances.

Machen may not have been as good in 64, but still dangerous. Remember, he fought & lost to Terrell in 65, beat Quarry in 66, & stood up to Frazier later the same year. I agree he or Folley should have got a title shot back in 58. They fought to a draw that April, & D'amato said they were both eliminated. That was wrong. Patterson could have fought one of them in the fall of that year after beating Harris. Their was no great public demand for the fight at the time. I am not sure if the IBC would have allowed Machen or Folley to fight under independent promotion anyway. They had tried to freeze D'amato out by locking up most of the top contenders at the time. D'amato would not allow Patterson to fight for the IBC. D'amato was proven right, but it hurt Patterson's career. Too bad, but it beats what's happening to-day.
You don't even know who is the champ anymore. Add me to the list Boxbuzz

bill.lockhart wrote:.......Too bad, but it beats what's happening to-day.
You don't even know who is the champ anymore. Add me to the list Boxbuzz

Gosh Bill, I dare say, boxing, as far as administration, rulings and champions are concerned, must be going through the worst perion in time EVER.

There was a time where I could have quoted every champion of every division and most likely also most ranked fighters (and then some who were not too highly thought of).

Nowadays I could not say who was whom, and while you could say that that is my problem, obviously I am not alone in experiencing this shortcoming.

Aldo Pravisani wrote:

bill.lockhart wrote:.......Too bad, but it beats what's happening to-day.
You don't even know who is the champ anymore. Add me to the list Boxbuzz

Gosh Bill, I dare say, boxing, as far as administration, rulings and champions are concerned, must be going through the worst perion in time EVER.

There was a time where I could have quoted every champion of every division and most likely also most ranked fighters (and then some who were not too highly thought of).

Nowadays I could not say who was whom, and while you could say that that is my problem, obviously I am not alone in experiencing this shortcoming.

The TV networks want to advertise every bout as a title fight. That can't be done with the 8 oriignal weight classifications. All the title fights would be pay per view events. Say, 16 title fights a year & none on tv. Now we've got how many weight classifications & paper titles? The damned networks can have a title fight every night of the week. It's probably good for the fighters, creating more opportunity, but the title doesn't mean a damn thing anymore. As long as the paying public puts up with it, it won't change. Ring magazine won't even list a champion anymore. I guess their in the networks pockets as well.

Decagon wrote:How can you say that it's a bad era, when you have access to tons of free fights at any time over the internet? If it's 3:00 AM and you're bored, you can download some Muhammad Ali, or chat with some guy who think's Sonny Liston is the #2 heavyweight of all time.

Modern technology is one thing. Watching a title fight for the WBO junior flyweight title is quite another. Back in the fifties you knew who the champs were. You knew who the contenders were. When you watched the Friday night fights, did you not tune in because their was no title on the line? You sure did. Why? The entertainment value of course, but you wanted to see the contenders battle their way up the ladder. Their was no paper title being contested. It comes down to credibility. If you don't have that, what do you have. It should mean something to be champ. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

i have the machen fight on tape. it was one of the most one sided fights i have seen. floyd completley dominated machen outboxing him easily and knocking machen down 5 times. outclass would be too little a word to describe what happened. floyd was just tooling on eddie machen. floyd told my father personally he could have knocked eddie out in the late rounds but held back because he felt bad for him. patterson was literally knocking eddie down and at one point he picked up eddie off the canvas, patterson was a gentlemen as well as a destructive machine.


after watching this fight.....no way does any version of machen beat patterson