Were Patterson and Ingo the worst heavyweight champs ever ?

[Dempsey19]

Patterson was a pretty good champ, I don't get it. He's the last of the smaller heavyweight champions before monsters like Liston, Ali and Foreman moved in. First heavyweight to ever regain the title as well as youngest undisputed heavyweight champion. Ingamar was not great but hey he won it being a 1 handed fighter really. His left was not even decent.

The last pre-spinks and holyfield small heavyweight champ you mean

[SaturdaysRadio]

I know I'm addressing a different issue here, but people are mentioning guys like Charles Martin, Stiverne, Valuev... Yeah, these guys were organizational "world champions", but are those titles really on the level of Patterson and Johansson's title of World Heavyweight Champion?

If today's four-belt system had existed in Floyd and Ingemar's day, Patterson would've won a belt vs. Archie Moore, Johansson would've won a belt vs. Eddie Machen, Sonny Liston would have a belt, and none of them would've ever fought each other.

Looking at just the lineal champs (yes, a flawed way of looking at things, but better than counting all of the organizational titles IMO), Johansson probably does rate near the bottom. Patterson is several spots higher.

[Ben Bolt]

today's four-belt system

If the ´big four’ had tried to run any other sport, creating multiple ‘world’ champions, they had rapidly been thrown in the litter bin.
For some unintelligible reason, boxing followers accept their presence and their actions.

How about creating a four-belt system in the next World Soccerball Championship?
We don’t have to play the semi-finals or the Final.
Just award each of the four semi-finalist teams with a world title.

[QueensburyRules]

If the ´big four’ had tried to run any other sport, creating multiple ‘world’ champions, they had rapidly been thrown in the litter bin.
For some unintelligible reason, boxing followers accept their presence and their actions.

How about creating a four-belt system in the next World Soccerball Championship?
We don’t have to play the semi-finals or the Final.
Just award each of the four semi-finalist teams with a world title.

- -Boxing and their fans ain't ball sports, hence boxing crookery.

[OctoberRed]

Charles Martin comes in mind actually.....

I agree with that, and Seldon

[QueensburyRules]

- -Charles "I walk like a god" Martin?

Heresy I say!

[Rusty Tromboni]

In a different thread I pointed out how difficult it is to try to rank Featherweights: One the one hand, you have a guy like Sanchez, who never unified the championship against the other best guy of the era (pedroza) and whose career was over almost as fast as it began. On the other, you have a guy like Saldivar, who looks worse on film, but had one of the best championship reigns in boxing history. Then there are old times like Miller and Kilbane to compare to Lomachenko.

But at least they are all the same size, and all very skilled.


Heavyweights of today are almost twice the size of the guys who fought 100 years ago. And the division has almost always been the least skilled.

How do you say who is better/worse: Valuev or Fitzsimmons? Clearly the former is bigger and more refined, but the latter is the muuuuuuch greater talent.


It's easy to pot-shot some early fighter like Bruno or Hart: guys who didn't leave much of a legacy; were very primitive; were smaller than modern Super Middleweights. But then you look at the exemplars of the modern bologna bytsch-tit division, some of these title-holders, and you just wanna vomit.

It looks like there is no right answer, other than "it depends".

In reply to the O.P., though: the arrival of Liston proved the Cruiserweight division was very much a necessity. Big men had existed before, but not ones so capable.

Patterson, and Quarry after him, could have gone down as two of the finest champions in Boxing history, if only they had a suitable division to compete in.

[billeau2]

In a different thread I pointed out how difficult it is to try to rank Featherweights: One the one hand, you have a guy like Sanchez, who never unified the championship against the other best guy of the era (pedroza) and whose career was over almost as fast as it began. On the other, you have a guy like Saldivar, who looks worse on film, but had one of the best championship reigns in boxing history. Then there are old times like Miller and Kilbane to compare to Lomachenko.

But at least they are all the same size, and all very skilled.


Heavyweights of today are almost twice the size of the guys who fought 100 years ago. And the division has almost always been the least skilled.

How do you say who is better/worse: Valuev or Fitzsimmons? Clearly the former is bigger and more refined, but the latter is the muuuuuuch greater talent.


It's easy to pot-shot some early fighter like Bruno or Hart: guys who didn't leave much of a legacy; were very primitive; were smaller than modern Super Middleweights. But then you look at the exemplars of the modern bologna bytsch-tit division, some of these title-holders, and you just wanna vomit.

It looks like there is no right answer, other than "it depends".

In reply to the O.P., though: the arrival of Liston proved the Cruiserweight division was very much a necessity. Big men had existed before, but not ones so capable.

Patterson, and Quarry after him, could have gone down as two of the finest champions in Boxing history, if only they had a suitable division to compete in.

Great points to consider. Regarding Patterson and Quarry, there is a school of thought that says a great cruiser/lightheavy/ super super middle (kidding!) has, as an obligation, once they clean out their division, to challenge for the heavyweight title. Now some of this is boxing's version of Darwinism... Lets say you get a weak heavyweight champ and a great cruiser... does it become incumbent that the cruiser go up and take the heavyweight out? until a new talent comes along?

So for example, the difference between casual fans and those in the know regarding Tunney: Those in the know, even if they put him on a list of the great heavyweights would recognize that he is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, light heavy...that is where he belongs. So naturally the question would arise: is part of Tunney's greatness as a great light heavy, related to his heavyweight reign?

If we use this as a measure things get interesting: Bob Foster had his own foray into the heavyweights, and Spinks the jinks... Even Michael Moore, a fighter who IMO had tremendous talents, but who seldom makes a list of great light heavies, can claim a successful win against the B a s t a r d maker.

So how much is the task of fighting up, and being succesful, a part of cruiser weight recognition? And we have to be careful here... Bob Foster lost to most, but the guys he lost to were a who's who of heavyweight greatness. Its not an easy issue to unpack...Thoughts?

[Dempsey19]

In a different thread I pointed out how difficult it is to try to rank Featherweights: One the one hand, you have a guy like Sanchez, who never unified the championship against the other best guy of the era (pedroza) and whose career was over almost as fast as it began. On the other, you have a guy like Saldivar, who looks worse on film, but had one of the best championship reigns in boxing history. Then there are old times like Miller and Kilbane to compare to Lomachenko.

But at least they are all the same size, and all very skilled.


Heavyweights of today are almost twice the size of the guys who fought 100 years ago. And the division has almost always been the least skilled.

How do you say who is better/worse: Valuev or Fitzsimmons? Clearly the former is bigger and more refined, but the latter is the muuuuuuch greater talent.


It's easy to pot-shot some early fighter like Bruno or Hart: guys who didn't leave much of a legacy; were very primitive; were smaller than modern Super Middleweights. But then you look at the exemplars of the modern bologna bytsch-tit division, some of these title-holders, and you just wanna vomit.

It looks like there is no right answer, other than "it depends".

In reply to the O.P., though: the arrival of Liston proved the Cruiserweight division was very much a necessity. Big men had existed before, but not ones so capable.

Patterson, and Quarry after him, could have gone down as two of the finest champions in Boxing history, if only they had a suitable division to compete in.

Liston was outclassed by a man who weighed as little as 201.5 pounds in his prime and started his career at light-heavy, hardly much more than a cruiserweight.

And Liston himself weighed 199 in a fight and stood around 6'. Not really a giant, he had a good reach but how much of that reach comes from his wide shoulders ? Mayweather has a 72 inch reach while Wlad has a 81 inch reach but their arms are the same length. I only have a 75 inch reach but my arms are longer than Bryant Jennings who has the same reach as Liston. Vitali has a 79" reach but his arms are longer than Rahman (82" reach)

Do you rate Liston higher than Dempsey, Marciano, Louis and Spinks ? At 21 years of age Deontay Wilder weighed 195 pounds, do you think Liston would beat him ?

Liston's best win was Patterson, a man who became champion by feeding on Marciano's leftovers.

Quarry would actually have a chance against liston, he beat Shavers and Lyle, who were similar to Sonny.

Fitzsimmons beat Dunkhorst who was as big as Valuev and probably was more skilled. By KO1.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Great points to consider. Regarding Patterson and Quarry, there is a school of thought that says a great cruiser/lightheavy/ super super middle (kidding!) has, as an obligation, once they clean out their division, to challenge for the heavyweight title. Now some of this is boxing's version of Darwinism... Lets say you get a weak heavyweight champ and a great cruiser... does it become incumbent that the cruiser go up and take the heavyweight out? until a new talent comes along?

So for example, the difference between casual fans and those in the know regarding Tunney: Those in the know, even if they put him on a list of the great heavyweights would recognize that he is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, light heavy...that is where he belongs. So naturally the question would arise: is part of Tunney's greatness as a great light heavy, related to his heavyweight reign?

If we use this as a measure things get interesting: Bob Foster had his own foray into the heavyweights, and Spinks the jinks... Even Michael Moore, a fighter who IMO had tremendous talents, but who seldom makes a list of great light heavies, can claim a successful win against the B a s t a r d maker.

So how much is the task of fighting up, and being succesful, a part of cruiser weight recognition? And we have to be careful here... Bob Foster lost to most, but the guys he lost to were a who's who of heavyweight greatness. Its not an easy issue to unpack...Thoughts?

Great insights.

I think what you're saying is very true. If you have any chance at becoming Heavyweight Champ, you should take it. (foster, and maybe Moorer never had a chance, they were after money). As you've mentioned before, once fighters hit a certain weight, there's a lot of parity. Hell, even Toney, who lacked any serviceable power even at Middleweight, made greater waves at Cruiserweight and Heavyweight than he did at Light Heavyweight. People forget Byrd started as a Middleweight because his career before Heavyweight was meaningless. Clearly, Toney and Byrd were never the world's best Heavyweight, but it shows for the dearth of of talent and ability among the big boys.

Can you imagine a feather-fisted Lightweight dethroning a Middleweight? Napoles was lost against Monzon and Whitaker hit his ceiling against Trinidad.

As for Tunney, he actually seems to have been a natural Heavyweight. He cut his career short, but I believe the reports that he was improving. I also believe the argument that the defensive fighter we saw against Dempsey was a more recent invention: that he had evolved from more of a slugger. Who knows what 5 more years might have yielded, but I think Tunney was similar to Charles and Spinks in that he was always a Heavyweight waiting to happen.