BoxRec

I was thinking about this for a while who do you feel would win between these two fighters? Both had great left hooks and where similar weight the hand speed would go the Patterson while defence would go to Walcott. I'm edging towards Walcott just think he had a better chin and was smart enough to get the decision.

Floyd Patterson
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=9038
Jersey Joe Walcott
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=011028

I'm surprised people haven't responded to this thread. This would proably have been a close and interesting fight. It's easy to imagine either fighter winning by decision or knockout. It's a very tough call. If I had to pick one, I would lean toward Patterson.

Good, tough fight. I lean towards Walcott via decision.

any other thoughts?

Computer calls it this way.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=

Both fighters were trained by the Florio brothers, Nick & Dan. The sleek & tigerish young Patterson vs. the cagey, slippery, & smart moving veteran. I think if you added Ezzard Charles to this mix, they would all take turns beating each other. I lean to Walcott, by decision in a very close competitive fight. I think Floyd would have to knock out Walcott. He was certainly capable.

I lean towards Patterson because of his speed. Walcott might put him down, but wouldn't keep him down. I see Patterson landing more often than Joe, and aside from a few tense moments, Patterson should dominate the action and get a decision in a ten-round fight.

Cap

BoxBuzz wrote:Computer calls it this way.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=

Hmm, I'm surprised by that one. I slightly favor Walcott here, but I wouldn't expect him to knock Patterson out. I imagine he'd be likely to score a knockdown or two in the early rounds like he did with Louis, Marciano, etc., but unless he landed a Sunday punch right on teh sweet spot like he did in Charles III, I think the fight would probably ultimately go the distance.

Patterson quite possibly had the second fastest hands in HW history, while Walcott was one of the great innovators (created moves as his fights went along, was great at improvising). Walcott was very tricky, while Patterson could really move in and out of danger. Be a very interesting fight in my opinion---but the Patterson who was champion wasn't the best Patterson, while Walcott got only better with age and undoubtedly was one of the most deserving of title challengers in history at any weight.

The young Patterson who was champion would have lost to Joe by knockout in the middle to early-late rounds, if not be totally outclassed for the entire 15 rounds. Walcott was just too good.

BUT...

The Patterson who would beat Chuvalo, draw Jerry Quarry and 'lost' to Jimmy Ellis (total highway robbery, Patterson should have been the first three time HW champion) was the better Patterson. Now, had he fought Walcott then, it would have went the distance and more than likely end in a SD win for Patterson.

Quite a toss up really. This is one of those hypothetical fights I genuinely would have wanted to have seen, and if it was possible, would be willing to pay the $50-70 dollars to watch it on PPV.

Do I hear Floyd Patterson losing to Buster Mathis for the WBA Heavyweight read his opponents whom he fought in the pros he never fought his stablemate Mathis and Mathis never won the WBA. The WBA titlist at that time who fought Patterson is Jimmy Ellis who won the WBA title tournament, you should look at the fact straight.

Sorry. I always seem to get those two [Mathis and Ellis] confused. I don't know why I do, but always have. Probably because of the jumbled up state of the HW division after Ali left and all the tournaments to determine the next champion, and seeing as Frazier fought them both.

Again my apologies...I'll fix my post. And thanks for clearing that up.

That's okay, people makes the wrong information sometimes.

HomicideHenry wrote:Patterson quite possibly had the second fastest hands in HW history, while Walcott was one of the great innovators (created moves as his fights went along, was great at improvising). Walcott was very tricky, while Patterson could really move in and out of danger. Be a very interesting fight in my opinion---but the Patterson who was champion wasn't the best Patterson, while Walcott got only better with age and undoubtedly was one of the most deserving of title challengers in history at any weight.

The young Patterson who was champion would have lost to Joe by knockout in the middle to early-late rounds, if not be totally outclassed for the entire 15 rounds. Walcott was just too good.

BUT...

The Patterson who would beat Chuvalo, draw Jerry Quarry and 'lost' to Jimmy Ellis (total highway robbery, Patterson should have been the first three time HW champion) was the better Patterson. Now, had he fought Walcott then, it would have went the distance and more than likely end in a SD win for Patterson.

Quite a toss up really. This is one of those hypothetical fights I genuinely would have wanted to have seen, and if it was possible, would be willing to pay the $50-70 dollars to watch it on PPV.

I disagree with your asessment Patterson was better after he lost the championship. The truth is, his opponets were better, Ingo withstanding.
I agree he became stronger & more polished, but it was his speed
which set him apart from the field. Floyd never was coumted out on the canvas. You had to be a big puncher to beat him. Walcott would not have knocked him out. He may have won a decision. Floyd lost punching power as he aged. Cooper was his last big ko win. He had Quarry down in their first fight. Ellis too, though Harold Valan thought otherwise. The Patterson of his title days would have beaten them for sure. Not easily, but he had better stamina then, & was much much faster, & was a much sharoer, harder hitter. Folley & Machen would have been licked handily if D'amato
had relented his stand with the IBC.

Interesting takes on this. I suppose since I am of the belief that Moore would have beaten Walcott and Patterson did beat Moore I could be persueded by this discussion based on styles, punching power and speed, of Patterson's potential to beat Walcott. I have to wonder who the betting favorite would be. My guess at this point would be Patterson.

I dont see how:

Pete Rademacher
Roy Harris
Tommy Jackson (2x's)
Tom McNeeley
Ingemar Johansson (2x's)
Brian London

were better than....

Muhammad Ali (2x's)
Jerry Quarry (2x's)
George Chuvalo
Henry Cooper
Zora Folley
Jimmy Ellis

The better opponents? Come on man.

HomicideHenry wrote:I dont see how:

Pete Rademacher
Roy Harris
Tommy Jackson (2x's)
Tom McNeeley
Ingemar Johansson (2x's)
Brian London

were better than....

Muhammad Ali (2x's)
Jerry Quarry (2x's)
George Chuvalo
Henry Cooper
Zora Folley
Jimmy Ellis

The better opponents? Come on man.

That Patterson was protected in the early going is not in questions at least until they signed to fight Sonny. As I said I lean to Walcott but am beginning to better understand the competitive nature of this theoretical.

HomicideHenry wrote:I dont see how:

Pete Rademacher
Roy Harris
Tommy Jackson (2x's)
Tom McNeeley
Ingemar Johansson (2x's)
Brian London

were better than....

Muhammad Ali (2x's)
Jerry Quarry (2x's)
George Chuvalo
Henry Cooper
Zora Folley
Jimmy Ellis

The better opponents? Come on man.

I said Floyd's opponets were better AFTER he lost the championship. Ingo withstanding. On that I agree with you. The best Floyd was Ingo 2.
A 25 year old, highly motivated, 190 lb. heavyweight. Floyd was better in the 50's . His opponets were better in the sixties.

bill.lockhart wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:Patterson quite possibly had the second fastest hands in HW history, while Walcott was one of the great innovators (created moves as his fights went along, was great at improvising). Walcott was very tricky, while Patterson could really move in and out of danger. Be a very interesting fight in my opinion---but the Patterson who was champion wasn't the best Patterson, while Walcott got only better with age and undoubtedly was one of the most deserving of title challengers in history at any weight.

The young Patterson who was champion would have lost to Joe by knockout in the middle to early-late rounds, if not be totally outclassed for the entire 15 rounds. Walcott was just too good.

BUT...

The Patterson who would beat Chuvalo, draw Jerry Quarry and 'lost' to Jimmy Ellis (total highway robbery, Patterson should have been the first three time HW champion) was the better Patterson. Now, had he fought Walcott then, it would have went the distance and more than likely end in a SD win for Patterson.

Quite a toss up really. This is one of those hypothetical fights I genuinely would have wanted to have seen, and if it was possible, would be willing to pay the $50-70 dollars to watch it on PPV.

I disagree with your asessment Patterson was better after he lost the championship. The truth is, his opponets were better, Ingo withstanding.

Yes, I agree that Patterson's peak was during the late '50s.

Floyd never was coumted out on the canvas.

Wrong. See both Liston fights.

You had to be a big puncher to beat him. Walcott would not have knocked him out. He may have won a decision.

I don't think Patterson was more durable than Charles, who Walcott flattened. I don't believe Walcott would have stopped Patterson, but I think it is a perfectly live possibility.

Walcott by KO. Better fighter than Patterson.

Floyds efforts against Ali in the 2nd fight were extraordinary considering his age and career...

actually one of floyds greatest performances

I think that Walcott would win by KO.

Patterson fades towards the end.....

Patterson ko 3. Walcotts hand speed and tricky footwork wouldn't be as effective against Patterson as it was against most of his opponents. As soon as Floyd lands the left hook cleanly its over.

theone wrote:Patterson ko 3. Walcotts hand speed and tricky footwork wouldn't be as effective against Patterson as it was against most of his opponents. As soon as Floyd lands the left hook cleanly its over.

ur totally underestimating walcott here. it took louis 26 rounds to put waloctt away, took marciano 13 yet patterson does it in 3?

Yeah no shit...Floyd hit hard, but that was mostly due to his accuracy and speed. If Walcott could fight with bangers like Louis and go toe to toe with Charles a million times and then fight his best fight with arguably the greatest HW swarmer (Marciano) and take their best shots----Patterson isn't going to stop Walcott in no three rounds. Not five, not seven, not ten. He isn't going to stop Walcott for shit.

ur totally underestimating walcott here. it took louis 26 rounds to put waloctt away, took marciano 13 yet patterson does it in 3?

Absolutely. Styles make fights as im sure you've heard. What troubled them about Walcott wouldn't pose the same type of problem to Patterson.

Yeah no shit...Floyd hit hard, but that was mostly due to his accuracy and speed. If Walcott could fight with bangers like Louis and go toe to toe with Charles a million times and then fight his best fight with arguably the greatest HW swarmer (Marciano) and take their best shots----Patterson isn't going to stop Walcott in no three rounds. Not five, not seven, not ten. He isn't going to stop Walcott for shit.

First of all, any slick fast moving Heavy would have troubled Louis by the time Walcott fought him. They way he moved around the ring made Foreman look like Willie Pep in comparison.
Although Charles is definitely greater all-time than Patterson, he was by no means a better heavyweight.
As for Marciano, didn't it take him 9 rounds of swarming to KO Moore, but than only a year later Patterson ko'd him in 5 with one punch?
And i don't want to here how suddenly faded Moore became between fights. He had shown no sign of slipping between the two bout and continued to be a dominant fighter for another five years.
At the very least to say Patterson had no shot of ko'ing Walcott, because Marciano and Louis had so much trouble doing it is nonsense