Charles worked his way up to lt. heavy and heavy but Paterson like most heavies then was only in the 6 foot range anyway. In their primes and ASSUMING both are heavies in their prime...I see Charles knocking out Floyd in the same way Ingemar did when Ingenar got that punch in unexpectedly in their first fight. Floyd had one of the fastest left hands ever and good power but Charles fought the best, many in their prime, in the generation of fighters pre Floyd and is arguably top 10/15 or better all time heavyweight...ahead of Floyd. Charles by KO 6.
Interesting one. I'd expect a peak heavyweight Charles (49-50) to be two steps too smart for Patterson and to ultimately outbox him over 15, but Floyd has a live punchers chance, I think. Patterson's left hand dominant style might match well against Charles if the Harold Johnson fight is anything to go by & that D'amato crouch and come up thing makes for an interesting mesh with Charles' preference to duck & slip outside onto he back foot, too. Charles is my pick but there are interesting aspects to the fight.....it's a shame Patterson didn't stay at 175 for longer by the way, he'd be much more highly regarded if he did.
Charles at his heavyweight best is the better fighter... A little later on, he can't cope with Floyd's speed and very dangerous left hooks But I think that Ezzard, circa 1948 or 1949 against Floyd circa 1958 or so is a winnable fight for the smarter, more versatile Charles
As is he isn't top 200 p4p because he's ranked as a heavyweight. He's regarded as one of the poorest champions in his divisions history, a protected, chinny fighter who held the title hostage splitting a trilogy with a sub standard nemesis. I think he'd have done allot better than the above as a light heavyweight.
On the flip side, he's also the youngest heavyweight champion ever, and the first to regain the title after losing it. He's known for more than sucking.
Well yeah, he'd have a smaller footnote in the history books and be less famous for sure, but that's different to highly regarded
Still...I tend to agree with the Hutster on this issue. IF Patterson was as good a Lightheavyweight as people suggest he would have been...then he may have gone down as a P4P great. As it is he's only remembered for the records mentioned...and getting fucked up by Liston, Ali and Splitting fights with the Ingo.
I dont know that Patterson is one of the worst champs in his divisions history, though I know where Huts coming from. I think its more we just dont discuss the worst. Briggs, Burns, Douglas, Hart, Rahman, Spinks...the worst just arent really talked about.
Patterson was life and fucking death with every LIVING heavyweight he ever fought... He was a very talented guy with skills and a lot of heart, but he would have been better served as a light heavyweight...
I wouldnt call that especially fair. Past his prime, he was still giving top contenders like Quarry and Bonavena all they could handle & more. Ellis is only elevated to championship status as a result of a clear LOSS to a well over-the-hill Patterson (the bogus decision robbed Patterson of deservedly becoming the first triple-champ at Heavy). Patterson, in my opinion, would have been even-money with Machen, Foley & Williams, all very capable men (Williams was the least skilled of the trio, but punched dangerously), though whether D'Amato had the same view I do or not, it was considered too risky. I dont think Patterson was as vulnerable as that.
The fact is that every one of his defenses involved some degree of danger... this despite his challengers being the worst since Marvin Hart
I understand that, but doesnt it say anything, conversely, that he could beat Quarry, Bonavena & Ellis late ghn his career? Hell, some call Quarry the best non-champ in HW history (I dont). Im not arguing the guy is top-10 all-time for his division, but no way is he in the lowest bracket of HW titleists. I do agree he would be a legendary, and maybe even close to THE, greatest LHW who ever drew breath. A mans gotta make a living though. Legacy dont pay bills, as a neurotic man once said.
Patterson was the first fighter I saw that gave me some imagination on how a fighter could be a little different. With his peek a boo style and leaping hook, he was the first fighter I ever saw that was so different in style from most of the others. It was hard to see him take the beating he did from Ali, cause Floyd was a gentleman. I really liked him, his style and his character. The difference between him and Marciano who is praised by a number of folks on boxing boards is that Floyd fought Ali and top competeition, Rocky fought a very aged half bald Joe Louis and really did not have the competition that Floyd faced even later in his career.. They showed the clips of Loius beating Rocky half the fight but then father time took over(ESPN last night showed them). Marciano fought sloppy as shit and he was older and more experienced at the time than a young Patterson when Floyd won the title. .Floyd was a great asset to boxing when they needed someone to show a new face from the old guard and Archie Moore... Yet many folks have Marciano top 10 to 15...Floyd was better...GS
