Sonny Liston (1963) vs. current HWs ?

[oogiebe]

I opened this topic in order to disccuss about Sonny Liston, not about fu.king Mr. Bean, or Forrest Gump or EO.

Liston had been cosidered as a beast, very mean man, and almost all experts and fans had been sure that Ali had been in danger to be seriously hurt, and Ali had not been the no-name, he got Olympic gold medal four years before the Liston fight.

Ali beating liston doesn't lessen Liston's attributes and skills. Liston had an 84" reach; jackhammer jab; decent movement to create angles to land his power shots, etc. He was a thick man, naturally big and powerful. Terrific finisher. He'd be a handful in any era and top dog in many. Outside of Fury, I'd have Liston even money at worst.

[ValMar]

I opened this topic in order to disccuss about Sonny Liston, not about fu.king Mr. Bean, or Forrest Gump or EO.

Liston had been cosidered as a beast, very mean man, and almost all experts and fans had been sure that Ali had been in danger to be seriously hurt, and Ali had not been the no-name, he got Olympic gold medal four years before the Liston fight.

Ali beating liston doesn't lessen Liston's attributes and skills. Liston had an 84" reach; jackhammer jab; decent movement to create angles to land his power shots, etc. He was a thick man, naturally big and powerful. Terrific finisher. He'd be a handful in any era and top dog in many. Outside of Fury, I'd have Liston even money at worst.

I agree.

[Ambling Alp II]

OK, I have to ask. Where does Liston rank all time? Top 10, just outside, way outside, where?

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Are you rating based on accomplishments? Or who beats who?

[Onetimeonly]

8-15, he's with guys like Tyson and Dempsey where eye test and dominance come into account with equal resumes.

[oogiebe]

8-15, he's with guys like Tyson and Dempsey where eye test and dominance come into account with equal resumes.

This.

[ValMar]

8-15, he's with guys like Tyson and Dempsey where eye test and dominance come into account with equal resumes.

This.

I have never tried to made the ATG HW list, but I will dare to say that Liston might be #13/14.
His handicap is the fact he is known and remembered (by the majority of boing fans and experts)because of his defeat(s), not because of his victories (something like Michael Spinks).

[margaret thatcher]

His Patterson wins were excellent, but I think for example a guy like Fury would blank the likes of Machen, Folley, Slick Williams etc as well

[brilo33]

one of those fight that sullied his name , to hard to rate , what fights were on level, he looks a top 10 fighter maybe more

[Cojimar 1946]

OK, I have to ask. Where does Liston rank all time? Top 10, just outside, way outside, where?

How is Listons all time ranking relevant in a who beats who scenario?

There are guys who were great in their eras who are unlikely to replicate their success in other eras

[Onetimeonly]

His Patterson wins were excellent, but I think for example a guy like Fury would blank the likes of Machen, Folley, Slick Williams etc as well

Someone like Williams catches fury like chis the first time, Cunningham or wilder it could be over.

[Enlightened-One]

OK, I have to ask. Where does Liston rank all time? Top 10, just outside, way outside, where?

Since you ignored my previous response to your uninformed claims, let’s make things simple for you, by getting to the point...

The 1963 iteration of Sonny Liston had went the distance in eleven of his 36 bouts, losing one of them, with the average weight of his foes that avoided the KO being only 194lbs.

And you’d wrongly claimed that eight of those eleven bouts occurred either late or early during Liston’s career. That clearly wasn't the case and this can easily be verified via BoxRec.

Now that you’ve been informed of the truth, do you still consider him a prolific puncher capable of beating all of today’s world-rated typical 245lbs heavyweight?

Do you still believe that the 1963 version of Liston would defeat Tyson Fury, with the Brit being a few years younger than Sonny was back then, coupled with being eight inches taller and roughly sixty pounds heavier?

Every single nonsense belief about Liston’s ability you hold seems built on this incorrect premise about those eleven bouts where Liston failed to score the KO.

At some point in your life, you have to look at Liston’s resume and then formulate an opinion that is based on real-world facts, rather than common misconceptions, rumour, faith or myths.

[candyslim]

A big part of me appreciates the detailed nature of your response, but you should be able to do much better, because if you can’t, then you’re in for a rough ride, since my response will inevitably decimate you.

You would think that the man who writes this response would NOT be widely regarded as a buffoon on a boxing website.

It's hard to imagine that the "decimation" of which he speaks would exist anywhere else besides his own mind.

Let's quickly sum up the argument shall we? Of course size CAN be a factor, even a huge factor, BUT, if a smaller fighter carries other advantages, particularly in the case of, but not limited to, boxing skills, then the size advantage can easily be overcome, as has happened many, many times in the history of the sport.

Many here believe Liston is too talented for many larger fighters today whom they believe do NOT possess the skills to compete with a fighter as good as Liston. EO believes (obviously) that a solid percentage of the larger men that fight today have the requisite skills to keep up with Liston and therefore, would carry the day more often than not as their size advantage would give them inherent advantages in a fight, in other words, a good big man beats a good smaller man.

It would seem that since the fight can NEVER take place, it would be hard for either side to prove they are right. If you can't prove what amounts to an opinion, how do you win an argument? Or excuse me, how do you "decimate" ones argument? It doesn't matter how many hours you spend looking at weights on boxrec, it will never disprove the primary point, which is Liston is a better fighter and thus could give away some weight, but still prevail. No matter how much one talks about weight, one can never prove that Liston isn't a better fighter than HW's today. On the other hand, no matter how impressed one is with Liston's apparent skills, one can never prove that he is any better than: Fury, Joshua, or even Povetkin or Whyte, etc...

This is why I think EO is trolling, you don't have to be that smart to see all this. If he is as smart as he says, he is just trolling old school boxing fans for his own amusement. If he isn't trolling, he's just not that smart.

Or, he suffers from Asperger's and just can't help how he comes across.

For the record, I think Liston is top 5, but not a clear number one. He's a great fighter with more than enough skill to compete, the chin to survive, and enough power to get the respect of pretty much any HW you're going to find....just an opinion, that concludes my thoughts on the matter, no need for follow questions, I'm not trying to "decimate" anyone in an unwinnable argument.

That for me is the post of the thread. It recognizes that in such a polarized debate the truth tends to lie somewhere in the middle.

Of course size matters that's why we have weight divisions. I believe Willard and Carnera were world heavyweight champion because they were huge, not because they were especially good. A smaller fighter can beat a bigger man provided he is significantly better. How much better is 'significant'? That's going to depend on how big is the size disparity, obviously you can't quantify it in an exact formula.

Johnson's age meant the size disparity was too great for him overcome, whereas Dempsey was at/close to his peak and was able to make light of the size differential due to being a far superior fighter.

Humans are getting bigger. A 100 years ago a top heavyweight was 6'0" and 185lbs, sure there were guys of 6'3"+ but they tended be be clumsy and uncoordinated. 50 years ago a top heavyweight was 6'3" and 215lbs. Sure there were guys of 6'6"+ but they tended ... Now a top heavyweight is 6'6". Sure there are guys of 6'10"+ but ..."

I tend to keep away from these kinds of threads because I think you should accept that a fighter was great in his own era and leave it at that, especially because I don't like to disrespect great fighters of the past. At the risk of doing just that I feel one point has to raised and that is that part of Sonny's armoury was his opponent's perception of him, his aura of menace and intimidation, partly attributable to his hulking appearance. I think Floyd was beaten before the first bell much as was Michael Spinks against Tyson. My point is even George Forman at 6' 4" isn't going to have a huge advantage in size and strength were he fighting today, and his intimidation factor would be reduced from terrifying to very scary. How much more so would Liston's psychological edge be neutralized?

Liston was obviously a bit special in his day. How I'd love to have seen footage of a fight between he and Marciano in say 57 or 58. He would be a handful for any heavyweight in any era and that's as far as I'm prepared to say because the simple truth is I really don't know.

[Enlightened-One]

Mike Tyson articulated the following when asked if he was capable, during his prime, of defeating the Klitschkos.

“I don’t know [if I could beat them]. You know, if I’m in the ring with someone, my intentions is to beat them, to hurt them…

“In reality, even though we don’t want to believe it, athletes get better as time goes on. They don’t get worse.”

“They may not look better, they get better, they’re bigger, they do better vitamins… It’s just a whole different game compared to when I was fighting.”

“We didn’t have the vitamins, we didn’t have the muscle juice that everyone has now… none of that stuff!”

Does anyone disagree with Mike Tyson’s opinion about fighters getting bigger and more athletic as time passes by?

I can also post a video of Tyson saying this if anyone seriously thinks I’m lying.

[Enlightened-One]

This is why I think EO is trolling, you don't have to be that smart to see all this. If he is as smart as he says, he is just trolling old school boxing fans for his own amusement. If he isn't trolling, he's just not that smart.

If you think I'm trolling, review the claims I've made in this thread about the 1963 iteration of Sonny Liston (especially those that are based on real-world facts that can be objectively evaluated), and then please attempt to undermine them.

If I'm not that "smart", then this should be easy to do, shouldn't it?

Please prove to me that you're not someone that "talks the talk" but is too scared to "walk the walk."

Telling everyone you “think” I’m “wrong” is clearly not the same as proving it!

I think you’ll be surprised about how accurate my words really are after you've reviewed my posts. And you may even appreciate my penchant to research situations prior to formulating and articulating my opinions. I am pedantic!

Let's see what you're capable of, shall we?

[Bard of Boxrec]

You need to get a job, get laid, ANYTHING.

[Thomastearns]

Mike Tyson articulated the following when asked if he was capable, during his prime, of defeating the Klitschkos.

“I don’t know [if I could beat them]. You know, if I’m in the ring with someone, my intentions is to beat them, to hurt them…

“In reality, even though we don’t want to believe it, athletes get better as time goes on. They don’t get worse.”

“They may not look better, they get better, they’re bigger, they do better vitamins… It’s just a whole different game compared to when I was fighting.”

“We didn’t have the vitamins, we didn’t have the muscle juice that everyone has now… none of that stuff!”

Does anyone disagree with Mike Tyson’s opinion about fighters getting bigger and more athletic as time passes by?

I can also post a video of Tyson saying this if anyone seriously thinks I’m lying.

Classic EO. Finds some generous testimonial comments from a long retired Mike Tyson and then proceeds to highlight each one that he believes adds weight to his argument.

Each one, except possibly the most important one that has also been mentioned in this thread repeatedly.

I hope he won't object to my fixing of this oversight for him.

“We didn’t have the vitamins, we didn’t have the muscle juice that everyone has now… none of that stuff!”

This kind of rhetoric using careful emphasis and omission usually works far more effectively with the spoken word, as politicians over the world know only too well.

[Tony1244]

EO isn't smart enough to realize Tyson is insinuating PED usage AKA "muscle juice."

[Enlightened-One]

Mike Tyson articulated the following when asked if he was capable, during his prime, of defeating the Klitschkos.

“I don’t know [if I could beat them]. You know, if I’m in the ring with someone, my intentions is to beat them, to hurt them…

“In reality, even though we don’t want to believe it, athletes get better as time goes on. They don’t get worse.”

“They may not look better, they get better, they’re bigger, they do better vitamins… It’s just a whole different game compared to when I was fighting.”

“We didn’t have the vitamins, we didn’t have the muscle juice that everyone has now… none of that stuff!”

Does anyone disagree with Mike Tyson’s opinion about fighters getting bigger and more athletic as time passes by?

I can also post a video of Tyson saying this if anyone seriously thinks I’m lying.

Classic EO. Finds some generous testimonial comments from a long retired Mike Tyson and then proceeds to highlight each one that he believes adds weight to his argument.

This kind of rhetoric using careful emphasis and omission usually works far more effectively with the spoken word, as politicians over the world know only too well.

I didn't misrepresent Mike Tyson's words – I quoted them verbatim (word-for-word).

So no, I didn’t cherry-pick particular statements Mike made, quote them out-of-context in order to strengthen my stance.

Watch the video, read my interview transcript and then apologise for your utterly absurd false claims!



“I don’t know [if I could beat them]. You know, if I’m in the ring with someone, my intentions is to beat them, to hurt them…

“In reality, even though we don’t want to believe it, athletes get better as time goes on. They don’t get worse.”

“They may not look better, they get better, they’re bigger, they do better vitamins… It’s just a whole different game compared to when I was fighting.”

“We didn’t have the vitamins, we didn’t have the muscle juice that everyone has now… none of that stuff!”

You guys seem to be behaving like left-wing media journalists, by playing the game of “gotcha”, in the desperate hope that if you badger me enough, I’ll slip up and make a mistake that you’ll be able to exploit.

But sorry guys, I’m well ahead of you!

[Ambling Alp II]

This.

I have never tried to made the ATG HW list, but I will dare to say that Liston might be #13/14.
His handicap is the fact he is known and remembered (by the majority of boing fans and experts)because of his defeat(s), not because of his victories (something like Michael Spinks).

OK. How many current guys heavyweights rank higher than 13th or 14th?

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

James toney said he could knock out both klitschko sisters in the same night. Are you going to disagree with all time great james toney?

[ValMar]

I have never tried to made the ATG HW list, but I will dare to say that Liston might be #13/14.
His handicap is the fact he is known and remembered (by the majority of boing fans and experts)because of his defeat(s), not because of his victories (something like Michael Spinks).

OK. How many current guys heavyweights rank higher than 13th or 14th?

I have not considered the current HWs, their careers are not finished.

[jas80s]

This is why I think EO is trolling, you don't have to be that smart to see all this. If he is as smart as he says, he is just trolling old school boxing fans for his own amusement. If he isn't trolling, he's just not that smart.

If you think I'm trolling, review the claims I've made in this thread about the 1963 iteration of Sonny Liston (especially those that are based on real-world facts that can be objectively evaluated), and then please attempt to undermine them.

If I'm not that "smart", then this should be easy to do, shouldn't it?

Please prove to me that you're not someone that "talks the talk" but is too scared to "walk the walk."

Telling everyone you “think” I’m “wrong” is clearly not the same as proving it!

I think you’ll be surprised about how accurate my words really are after you've reviewed my posts. And you may even appreciate my penchant to research situations prior to formulating and articulating my opinions. I am pedantic!

Let's see what you're capable of, shall we?

Wow, pretty salty stuff. I think somebody is pissed off, on an internet forum.

Sorry, where did I say you were wrong? Why would I think that, when my only claim was that since Sonny Liston CANNOT engage in a fight with any heavyweight fighting today, by definition, we CANNOT know for certain how he would do and thus all we have is opinion and conjecture based on our own imprecise views on relative talent levels and possibly fight dynamics?

Do me a favor? Please explain to me again where you would rank Liston if he were fighting today? I am not interested in your opinion on the views of others. I am ONLY interested in where YOU would rank Liston if he were fighting today?

If while you are at it, you would like to provide comprehensive PROOF that my sole claim is invalid, I'd be more than delighted to read it. Thanks.

[jas80s]

This is why I think EO is trolling, you don't have to be that smart to see all this. If he is as smart as he says, he is just trolling old school boxing fans for his own amusement. If he isn't trolling, he's just not that smart.

If you think I'm trolling, review the claims I've made in this thread about the 1963 iteration of Sonny Liston (especially those that are based on real-world facts that can be objectively evaluated), and then please attempt to undermine them.

If I'm not that "smart", then this should be easy to do, shouldn't it?

Please prove to me that you're not someone that "talks the talk" but is too scared to "walk the walk."

Telling everyone you “think” I’m “wrong” is clearly not the same as proving it!

I think you’ll be surprised about how accurate my words really are after you've reviewed my posts. And you may even appreciate my penchant to research situations prior to formulating and articulating my opinions. I am pedantic!

Let's see what you're capable of, shall we?

[Enlightened-One]

If you think I'm trolling, review the claims I've made in this thread about the 1963 iteration of Sonny Liston (especially those that are based on real-world facts that can be objectively evaluated), and then please attempt to undermine them.

If I'm not that "smart", then this should be easy to do, shouldn't it?

Please prove to me that you're not someone that "talks the talk" but is too scared to "walk the walk."

Telling everyone you “think” I’m “wrong” is clearly not the same as proving it!

I think you’ll be surprised about how accurate my words really are after you've reviewed my posts. And you may even appreciate my penchant to research situations prior to formulating and articulating my opinions. I am pedantic!

Let's see what you're capable of, shall we?

Do me a favor? Please explain to me again where you would rank Liston if he were fighting today? I am not interested in your opinion on the views of others. I am ONLY interested in where YOU would rank Liston if he were fighting today. Thanks.

Liston is widely regarded as being a “great” for his own era. And I have no problem about that.

However, regardless his notoriety outside the ring, he didn’t fulfil his fearsome reputation inside of it.

I think he’s too small for at least six of today’s heavyweights (i.e. Fury, Joshua, Wilder, Ruiz Jr., Whyte & Parker). And he might struggle with many other too (i.e. Usyk, Ortiz, Povetkin, Hunter etc.).

I also feel that the 1963 iteration of Liston definitely wasn’t the prolific puncher the media portray him to be, since his resume fails to justify the hype.

Liston’s lack of punching power wouldn’t be such an issue if he was exquisitely-skilled but he wasn’t.

Don’t get me wrong, Sonny probably was one of the best fighters of his own era, but his reputation far exceeded his actual in-ring accomplishments.

He wouldn’t be able to bulldoze and bully today’s top-tier world rated 245lbs heavyweights, since he struggled to do this against many 194lb-ers from his own era.

Before you respond, check Liston’s resume up to and including 1963. And also watch a few of his bouts.

Perhaps this might sound a bit harsh, but for me, Sonny Liston is a more accomplished version of Luis Ortiz, with both guys being impressive fighters, but nowhere near good enough to justify their reputations/media hype.