Patterson wasn't bigger than Toney, don't let him being labelled as a heavyweight back then fool you. I can see this going both ways. Patterson is the favorite but Toney might land a good counter on him
Floyd Patterson is being underrated here, and I'm a Toney FAN as everybody knows. He was a beautifully skilled offensive fighter, with a booming left hook, wicked handspeed, and some of the best combinations ever. And he was a bigger fan than Toney, despite being small for a heavyweight.
How was he bigger? Patterson gained weight for the rematch with Ingo where he weighed in at 190 lbs. As a cruiserweight Toney cut weight to reach the same limit. He was small for a heavyweight, and today he wouldn't even be a heavyweight
Nonsense. Patterson was significantly bigger than Toney. Toney wasn't even a particularly large Middleweight let alone anything else. Toney only made Heavyweight because he was a fat gluttonous bastard. If Naseem Hamed were fighting now he'd be over 200lbs...but that wouldn't make him a heavyweight.
Nonsense. This thread was particularly about light-heavy and old cruiser limit so how fat Toney was as a heavyweight bears no meaning. The fact is, he was big and strong enough to beat the best fighters of those divisions ( and some heavyweights much bigger than Patterson too). I hate it when people talk about 'size' that can't be measured as neither height nor weight. There is no such thing. If one guy has larger chest, it doesn't help any if he isn't stronger. If he is stronger, he has more muscle and he weights more. That's why we only have weight categories and according to them, Toney and Patterson were of similar size. If we can have size that isn't measurable, then I have the most colossal dick in the world, my ruler just doesn't recognize it
Patterson's speed, movement and power would give Toney fits. Toney might shake Patterson with the occasional counter but he gets outworked and loses handily.
Patterson was two inches taller. Their reach was the same ( or Toney had the edge depending on source) and their weight was about equal. Period. Patterson might have had larger toes though
I always make sense. People just don't like my respect for contemporary fighters. It's a boxing tradition to denigrate contemporary fighters and boost the classic names like Robinson. Armstrong, Duran etc. I'm one who thinks that many modern greats are as talented as past greats...but that's blasphemy for teh Bert Sugar crowd. For them a great fighter has to have retired at least 20 years ago and shit.
Patterson was a natural light heavyweight, Toney was a natural middleweight. The only reason Toney couldn't stay at Middleweight was because he liked burgers and fries too much. Being fat doesn't make you big. Again to take it to teh extreme...Naseem Hamed isn't currently a bigger man than Bernard Hopkins, even though he weighs more.
The weight cut wasn't as drastic in these days as it is now and in the 90's. They are pretty much the same size
There was no weight cut, you buffoon. Patterson fought at hw. Lol. Patterson kicks his ass. Even by today's standards Patterson was probably too big to cut down to 160. And Patterson would've been a bad man at light heavy.
Patterson was too big for 160, even today. He'd definitely be a light heavyweight. Toney if he was TRULY dedicated should have been a career super middleweight.
Patterson would have made the MW limit for sure, at least at the beginning of his career. He was barely a few pounds above it at for a few of his first fights. With modern weight cutting techniques and day before weight in, he makes the cut. At the very worst, he would be a SMW.
Sure there is - bone structure. I'm 6'1 and about 195lb right now - if i go on the roids and get upto a lean 230lb I wouldn't become 'bigger' than a prime Mike tyson. I'd still have skinny wee 6.5" wrists limiting power transference through my arms, a tiny skull compared to him, my shoulder girdle would stay the same width etc If you had accurate measurements for wrist, ankle and height you could formulate some measurement of 'size'
But are the differences in bone structure useful by any means, if they don't mean more muscle? Think of it this way: do you think middleweight version of Toney would have beaten Jirov, Ruiz or Peter? If not, isn't it his increased size that allowed him to do it? And if he was able to deal with their size, is there a legit reason to believe that Patterson's size would be too much for him?
As i eluded to the structures of the joints transmit the force generated by the muscles (as opposed to absorbing it through compression and unwanted movement) so i do think there's an inherent advantage in having a bigger, sturdier structure, holding other things equal. Toney putting on 60lb isnt holding other things equal, but neither did I t make him equal in size to guys naturally suited to that weight. Re: patterson I don't think size would be the deciding factor but he likely was a wee bit bigger than toney
