Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

[Ambling Alp II]

In addition to the guys Liston was beating being the size of light heavyweights you have to look at who they were losing to. Patterson was losing to Johannsson, Folley was getting knocked out by Doug Jones, Williams was getting kayoed by Bob Satterfield, etc.

Given these results it seems implausible any of these guys would breeze through even today's light heavyweight division. If Patterson and Machen are losing to Johannsson I think guys like Beterbiev, Bivol, etc probably have a pretty good shot at beating them.

You also have to factor in who they beat. Patterson also beat Johansson, twice.
Williams beat Terrell and had a draw with Machen. you can throw out the Satterfield fight; he literally took the fight at the last minute.
Folley beat good fighters who weighed over Chuvalo, DeJohn, Cleroux, who weighed over the magical 200-pound mark.
On his way up, Liston beat the best guys available. You would be hard pressed to find 5 hw champions who beat better competition on their way up.
So it is plausible that Patterson, Williams, Folley, and Machen would be heavyweights today. Same with Terrell, Chuvalo, DeJohn, and Cleroux for that matter. Ridiculous to think they wouldn't be.
In Liston's era, there were several good-very heavyweights. There were several fights between them and many guys had mixed results. There were weaker eras and stronger eras. In most eras, there aren't several great heavyweights whom people will still talking much about in 60 years.

[Controversial]

In addition to the guys Liston was beating being the size of light heavyweights you have to look at who they were losing to. Patterson was losing to Johannsson, Folley was getting knocked out by Doug Jones, Williams was getting kayoed by Bob Satterfield, etc.

Given these results it seems implausible any of these guys would breeze through even today's light heavyweight division. If Patterson and Machen are losing to Johannsson I think guys like Beterbiev, Bivol, etc probably have a pretty good shot at beating them.

You also have to factor in who they beat. Patterson also beat Johansson, twice.

How great was Johansson really? He had a pretty short career and several of his wins were against British HW's like London, Bygraves, Richardson and Cooper who often lost when they stepped up. And Machen. Cooper was pretty green at the time he fought Johansson too. So basically he was a good European level HW with one win over Patterson who KO'ed him in both rematches.

[HomicideHenry]

In addition to the guys Liston was beating being the size of light heavyweights you have to look at who they were losing to. Patterson was losing to Johannsson, Folley was getting knocked out by Doug Jones, Williams was getting kayoed by Bob Satterfield, etc.

Given these results it seems implausible any of these guys would breeze through even today's light heavyweight division. If Patterson and Machen are losing to Johannsson I think guys like Beterbiev, Bivol, etc probably have a pretty good shot at beating them.

You also have to factor in who they beat. Patterson also beat Johansson, twice.

How great was Johansson really? He had a pretty short career and several of his wins were against British HW's like London, Bygraves, Richardson and Cooper who often lost when they stepped up. And Machen. Cooper was pretty green at the time he fought Johansson too. So basically he was a good European level HW with one win over Patterson who KO'ed him in both rematches.

He is a hard one to assess.

He had a very short career in comparison to many other people, but his rise to the top was meteoric. Yes he lost to Patterson twice, but even in those rematches Patterson hit the deck so it wasn't easy losses.

I think the craziest thing I ever heard on the forum was from years ago when there were people who claimed that a 4-0-0 Cassius Clay, when he sparred Johansson for two rounds, could've beaten him.

The Swede is quite underrated. Yes, he was best known for his "hammer of thor" punch, kind of like Deontay Wilder today but he was a little better skilled than Wilder was. A top 20 heavyweight I'd venture to say Johansson was overall.

And it has to be said that for one reason or another Cus D'Amato did not want Floyd fighting Machen. So when Johansson blew him away in one round, in a way they had no choice but to fight the Swede because Machen had been the top guy for quite a bit. But they thought that Johansson would be easier to fight because he threw punches one at a time, was reckless, and sloppy at times. So by underestimating Johansson they lost the title.

I forget if it was Henry Cooper that said it but there were people out there who thought that Johannsson hit just as hard or harder than Sonny Liston. It's a shame that the come back fight of Rocky Marciano did not occur as he was supposed to fight Johansson.



@ 16:30.... Marciano, in a rare moment of public bravado, was asked if he could beat Johansson and he said, "If I said I couldn't beat him then I'd be a liar."

[Controversial]

You also have to factor in who they beat. Patterson also beat Johansson, twice.

How great was Johansson really? He had a pretty short career and several of his wins were against British HW's like London, Bygraves, Richardson and Cooper who often lost when they stepped up. And Machen. Cooper was pretty green at the time he fought Johansson too. So basically he was a good European level HW with one win over Patterson who KO'ed him in both rematches.

He is a hard one to assess.

He had a very short career in comparison to many other people, but his rise to the top was meteoric. Yes he lost to Patterson twice, but even in those rematches Patterson hit the deck so it wasn't easy losses.

I think the craziest thing I ever heard on the forum was from years ago when there were people who claimed that a 4-0-0 Cassius Clay, when he sparred Johansson for two rounds, could've beaten him.

The Swede is quite underrated. Yes, he was best known for his "hammer of thor" punch, kind of like Deontay Wilder today but he was a little better skilled than Wilder was. A top 20 heavyweight I'd venture to say Johansson was overall.

And it has to be said that for one reason or another Cus D'Amato did not want Floyd fighting Machen. So when Johansson blew him away in one round, in a way they had no choice but to fight the Swede because Machen had been the top guy for quite a bit. But they thought that Johansson would be easier to fight because he threw punches one at a time, was reckless, and sloppy at times. So by underestimating Johansson they lost the title.

I forget if it was Henry Cooper that said it but there were people out there who thought that Johannsson hit just as hard or harder than Sonny Liston. It's a shame that the come back fight of Rocky Marciano did not occur as he was supposed to fight Johansson.

Sure, I’m not saying he was a bad fighter and his win over Machen is impressive when you consider other big punchers Machen lasted with. He is hard to assess as you say. He could obviously punch but I don’t think if he were around a bit later he’d be HW champ. However you can only really be judged for the era you are.

[mattdonnellon]

Interestingly, Ingo is the only HW champ who did not fight an opponent with a losing record.

[pound per pound]

Interestingly, Ingo is the only HW champ who did not fight an opponent with a losing record.

Interesting, but how may ranked top ten guys did he beat while he was active? In my opinion that is the way to failry judge the competition beaten in a given timeline. I only see three or foure men beaten in his top 10 opponents ( use Box Rec or Ring Magazine rankings ) and he had very few fights. There may be more. I did not research it, just saying.

He won his last fight out his back and was saved by the bell in the 12th round. He could not have risen on to continue in the referee's opinion.

[Controversial]

Interestingly, Ingo is the only HW champ who did not fight an opponent with a losing record.

Interesting, but how may ranked top ten guys did he beat while he was active? In my opinion that is the way to failry judge the competition beaten in a given timeline. I only see three or foure men beaten in his top 10 opponents ( use Box Rec or Ring Magazine rankings ) and he had very few fights. There may be more. I did not research it, just saying.

He won his last fight out his back and was saved by the bell in the 12th round. He could not have risen on to continue in the referee's opinion.

Top 10 opponents he beat were Machen (WTKO 1), Patterson (WTKO 3) and London (WPTS 12)

[Cojimar 1946]

In addition to the guys Liston was beating being the size of light heavyweights you have to look at who they were losing to. Patterson was losing to Johannsson, Folley was getting knocked out by Doug Jones, Williams was getting kayoed by Bob Satterfield, etc.

Given these results it seems implausible any of these guys would breeze through even today's light heavyweight division. If Patterson and Machen are losing to Johannsson I think guys like Beterbiev, Bivol, etc probably have a pretty good shot at beating them.

You also have to factor in who they beat. Patterson also beat Johansson, twice.
Williams beat Terrell and had a draw with Machen. you can throw out the Satterfield fight; he literally took the fight at the last minute.
Folley beat good fighters who weighed over Chuvalo, DeJohn, Cleroux, who weighed over the magical 200-pound mark.
On his way up, Liston beat the best guys available. You would be hard pressed to find 5 hw champions who beat better competition on their way up.
So it is plausible that Patterson, Williams, Folley, and Machen would be heavyweights today. Same with Terrell, Chuvalo, DeJohn, and Cleroux for that matter. Ridiculous to think they wouldn't be.
In Liston's era, there were several good-very heavyweights. There were several fights between them and many guys had mixed results. There were weaker eras and stronger eras. In most eras, there aren't several great heavyweights whom people will still talking much about in 60 years.

If these guys can't even beat the best light heavyweights today which based on their actual records and actual film would seem to be the case then no it doesn't seem likely they would fight at heavyweight especially given they could easily make light heavyweight or cruiserweight.

If Machen and Patterson are having trouble with Johanssons power how do they expect to take shots from Beterbiev let alone a Wilder or Zhang at heavyweight? If Doug Jones can knock you out then you probably won't do well at heavyweight today.


If 200 plus guys of that era are habitually losing to guys the size of today's light heavyweights who themselves lost to unexceptional guys even smaller than themselves i think maybe that suggests they weren't very good.

[Ambling Alp II]

You are actually arguing with yourself. You keep making a big deal about how size matters so much. (.i.e. the magical 200 pound mark). Then you point out time where the smaller guy won!
Sometimes a guy under 200 has more power than a guy that weights more than 200.

And every time you point a of loss a guy from the era had, you have to realize that someone from that era won that fight!
If two guys from the same era have a fight, and Fighter A beats fights B, that by itself isn't an indication the era strong or weak.

[Ambling Alp II]

Interestingly, Ingo is the only HW champ who did not fight an opponent with a losing record.

Interesting, but how may ranked top ten guys did he beat while he was active? In my opinion that is the way to failry judge the competition beaten in a given timeline. I only see three or foure men beaten in his top 10 opponents ( use Box Rec or Ring Magazine rankings ) and he had very few fights. There may be more. I did not research it, just saying.

He won his last fight out his back and was saved by the bell in the 12th round. He could not have risen on to continue in the referee's opinion.

Top 10 opponents he beat were Machen (WTKO 1), Patterson (WTKO 3) and London (WPTS 12)

He did have a short career. Berating top 10 opponents is certainly worth looking at. However, there is always two factors that you have to take a hard look at:
1. Was the guy ranked number #10 or #1? There is usually a huge difference.
2. How good was the era? A win over the 5th best hw in one era might mean a lot and not much in another era.

Johannson should get a lot credit for beating Patterson and Machen. He should not for beating London. btw that is a little deceiving about Johansson being saved against London. He got knocked down, but he got back up. He did beat the count. He was fortunate that there wasn't 30 more seconds, but that happens all the time.

Johannson was not a phenomenal fighter by any means. However, he was very good and at his best would have been in the top 10 at any point in history, even the early 1970s.

[Controversial]

Interesting, but how may ranked top ten guys did he beat while he was active? In my opinion that is the way to failry judge the competition beaten in a given timeline. I only see three or foure men beaten in his top 10 opponents ( use Box Rec or Ring Magazine rankings ) and he had very few fights. There may be more. I did not research it, just saying.

He won his last fight out his back and was saved by the bell in the 12th round. He could not have risen on to continue in the referee's opinion.

Top 10 opponents he beat were Machen (WTKO 1), Patterson (WTKO 3) and London (WPTS 12)

Johannson should get a lot credit for beating Patterson and Machen.

Whether true or not I don’t know, it didn’t look fake, but the author of the below says talk back in the day was Machen agreed to take a dive.

https://www.boxingoverbroadway.com/when ... ie-machen/

[Cojimar 1946]

You are actually arguing with yourself. You keep making a big deal about how size matters so much. (.i.e. the magical 200 pound mark). Then you point out time where the smaller guy won!
Sometimes a guy under 200 has more power than a guy that weights more than 200.

And every time you point a of loss a guy from the era had, you have to realize that someone from that era won that fight!
If two guys from the same era have a fight, and Fighter A beats fights B, that by itself isn't an indication the era strong or weak.

If the only 200 plus guys to worry about were guys like Chuvalo and Mike DeJohn than I would expect many of the guys currently campaigning at cruiserweight light heavyweight and even middleweight to be fighting at heavyweight. I should think it would be clear that beating Fury or Usyk is a far more difficult task than beating Chuvalo.

I'm still curious why you would put the heavyweights of that era above today's light heavyweights. Have you seen Bivol fight?

[Controversial]

When people say under 200lb it’s not set in stone, it’s just where the CW limit is and a round number. For me it’s more about the overall size of the guys who boxed around with 180-200 region as most would be CW today, some smaller. The CW division has been around since 1979 (44 years) and only really Holyfield had any major success at HW. And I don’t mean a one off win over a HW, I mean someone who you could argue was the best HW around at the time and proved it by having wins over the top HWs around. Holyfield only had 17 fights between the ages of 22-25 before moving to HW too. I’m not sure anyone can really say no CW since 1979 wouldn't have been highly ranked or successful in the 50s at HW but hardly any CWs had success at HW in our era.

[Cojimar 1946]

Some people apparently think of Usyk and Wilder as small but Usyk was over 220 for both fights with Joshua and Wilder frequently fights in the 220s. Both are significantly bigger than Patterson Machen Folley etc.

We can see the skills of guys like Bivol Ward etc at light heavyweight. Where are they at a disadvantage relative to Patterson Machen etc?

Its possible Liston is better than his resume indicates but I'd probably have to back the following guys to beat everyone he beat
Tim Witherspoon
Donovan Ruddock
Ike Ibeabuchi
Alexander Povetkin

And nobody regards these guys as being great

[Ambling Alp II]

You are actually arguing with yourself. You keep making a big deal about how size matters so much. (.i.e. the magical 200 pound mark). Then you point out time where the smaller guy won!
Sometimes a guy under 200 has more power than a guy that weights more than 200.

And every time you point a of loss a guy from the era had, you have to realize that someone from that era won that fight!
If two guys from the same era have a fight, and Fighter A beats fights B, that by itself isn't an indication the era strong or weak.

If the only 200 plus guys to worry about were guys like Chuvalo and Mike DeJohn than I would expect many of the guys currently campaigning at cruiserweight light heavyweight and even middleweight to be fighting at heavyweight. I should think it would be clear that beating Fury or Usyk is a far more difficult task than beating Chuvalo.

I'm still curious why you would put the heavyweights of that era above today's light heavyweights. Have you seen Bivol fight?

Maybe some guys that are at cruiserweight should be fighting at hw. Chuvalo and DeJohn were not the only guys over the magical 200 pound mark. don't know why you would think that. Never said they were as good as Fury or Usyk. They weren't the top guys in their own time. They would be closer to the top than they were in their day though. Have not seen much of Bivol.

[Ambling Alp II]

Some people apparently think of Usyk and Wilder as small but Usyk was over 220 for both fights with Joshua and Wilder frequently fights in the 220s. Both are significantly bigger than Patterson Machen Folley etc.

We can see the skills of guys like Bivol Ward etc at light heavyweight. Where are they at a disadvantage relative to Patterson Machen etc?

Its possible Liston is better than his resume indicates but I'd probably have to back the following guys to beat everyone he beat
Tim Witherspoon
Donovan Ruddock
Ike Ibeabuchi
Alexander Povetkin

And nobody regards these guys as being great

Liston would have beaten all of those guys. Easily. And he often weighed more than Wilder. Get off the weight thing.

[Ambling Alp II]

When people say under 200lb it’s not set in stone, it’s just where the CW limit is and a round number. For me it’s more about the overall size of the guys who boxed around with 180-200 region as most would be CW today, some smaller. The CW division has been around since 1979 (44 years) and only really Holyfield had any major success at HW. And I don’t mean a one off win over a HW, I mean someone who you could argue was the best HW around at the time and proved it by having wins over the top HWs around. Holyfield only had 17 fights between the ages of 22-25 before moving to HW too. I’m not sure anyone can really say no CW since 1979 wouldn't have been highly ranked or successful in the 50s at HW but hardly any CWs had success at HW in our era.

Even up to 1979, most top hws weighed over the magical 200 pound mark. But since then, Usyk fought at hw, has done well. Arguably the best. Michael Spinks moved up, and won the title. Michael Moorer moved up and won the title. Chris Byrd moved up, and won some WBS titles. Roy Jones beat Ruiz.
Again, under 200 is not ideal. Neither is over 250. We have to on a case by case basis. If a particular guy can do, he can do. We have to stop pretending that it can't happen.

If a guy is 6'6-6'8 and leads the NBA in rebounding, we shouldn't pretend that a guy has to be at least 6'10 to do it. And we don't. Same with boxing.

[Controversial]

When people say under 200lb it’s not set in stone, it’s just where the CW limit is and a round number. For me it’s more about the overall size of the guys who boxed around with 180-200 region as most would be CW today, some smaller. The CW division has been around since 1979 (44 years) and only really Holyfield had any major success at HW. And I don’t mean a one off win over a HW, I mean someone who you could argue was the best HW around at the time and proved it by having wins over the top HWs around. Holyfield only had 17 fights between the ages of 22-25 before moving to HW too. I’m not sure anyone can really say no CW since 1979 wouldn't have been highly ranked or successful in the 50s at HW but hardly any CWs had success at HW in our era.

Even up to 1979, most top hws weighed over the magical 200 pound mark. But since then, Usyk fought at hw, has done well. Arguably the best. Michael Spinks moved up, and won the title. Michael Moorer moved up and won the title. Chris Byrd moved up, and won some WBS titles. Roy Jones beat Ruiz.
Again, under 200 is not ideal. Neither is over 250. We have to on a case by case basis. If a particular guy can do, he can do. We have to stop pretending that it can't happen.

If a guy is 6'6-6'8 and leads the NBA in rebounding, we shouldn't pretend that a guy has to be at least 6'10 to do it. And we don't. Same with boxing.

No one is saying it can’t be done but it’s rare for small guys these days unless they are particularly skilled or have one punch power. As I said some have some success but not many have dominated the division, one off wins or wins over limited opposition. Your average HW in the 180-200 region is unlikely to have the same success today as they did decades ago.

[Ambling Alp II]

Of course, the average 180-200 pound didn't have success in the hw ever. but occasionally a very good-great fighter under 200 guy did really well. We shouldn't pretend it didn't happen.
When a great fighter under 200 fights a big hw, he almost always won.

As Liston's era, it wasn't great. There were better and there were worse.

[Controversial]

Of course, the average 180-200 pound didn't have success in the hw ever. but occasionally a very good-great fighter under 200 guy did really well. We shouldn't pretend it didn't happen.
When a great fighter under 200 fights a big hw, he almost always won.

As Liston's era, it wasn't great. There were better and there were worse.

Yes but as we’ve said being big isn’t the be all and end all, name some examples where a small great HW beat a large great HW who wasn’t at the end of their career or past it.

[HomicideHenry]

Of course, the average 180-200 pound didn't have success in the hw ever. but occasionally a very good-great fighter under 200 guy did really well. We shouldn't pretend it didn't happen.
When a great fighter under 200 fights a big hw, he almost always won.

As Liston's era, it wasn't great. There were better and there were worse.

Yes but as we’ve said being big isn’t the be all and end all, name some examples where a small great HW beat a large great HW who wasn’t at the end of their career or past it.

The only one that comes the mind would be when Holyfield edged out Bowe, but even that has an asterisk behind it because of the fan man incident throwing everything off.

[Cojimar 1946]

Some people apparently think of Usyk and Wilder as small but Usyk was over 220 for both fights with Joshua and Wilder frequently fights in the 220s. Both are significantly bigger than Patterson Machen Folley etc.

We can see the skills of guys like Bivol Ward etc at light heavyweight. Where are they at a disadvantage relative to Patterson Machen etc?

Its possible Liston is better than his resume indicates but I'd probably have to back the following guys to beat everyone he beat
Tim Witherspoon
Donovan Ruddock
Ike Ibeabuchi
Alexander Povetkin

And nobody regards these guys as being great

Liston would have beaten all of those guys. Easily. And he often weighed more than Wilder. Get off the weight thing.

Maybe but his resume doesn't back it up. We can't back him against a puncher like Ruddock with any confidence given the lack of punchers on his resume. No way to know how he reacts to getting hit.

[Controversial]

Of course, the average 180-200 pound didn't have success in the hw ever. but occasionally a very good-great fighter under 200 guy did really well. We shouldn't pretend it didn't happen.
When a great fighter under 200 fights a big hw, he almost always won.

As Liston's era, it wasn't great. There were better and there were worse.

Yes but as we’ve said being big isn’t the be all and end all, name some examples where a small great HW beat a large great HW who wasn’t at the end of their career or past it.

The only one that comes the mind would be when Holyfield edged out Bowe, but even that has an asterisk behind it because of the fan man incident throwing everything off.

That’s the only one I can really think of yet Holyfield lost two of the three fights, won one on a MD. Bowe also the first to stop Holyfield when he was in his best years. Also an asterisk as some even question how natural Evander was. Holyfield wasn’t really that small either, comparable in size to Ali but just smaller than Bowe

[Ambling Alp II]

Of course, the average 180-200 pound didn't have success in the hw ever. but occasionally a very good-great fighter under 200 guy did really well. We shouldn't pretend it didn't happen.
When a great fighter under 200 fights a big hw, he almost always won.

As Liston's era, it wasn't great. There were better and there were worse.

Yes but as we’ve said being big isn’t the be all and end all, name some examples where a small great HW beat a large great HW who wasn’t at the end of their career or past it.

There has only been two large heavyweights who were great; Lewis and Bowe. As homicide mentioned Bowe lost to Holyfield. Lewis got a dubious decision over a well past it best Holyfield in their second fight. Lewis also struggled with Mavrovic who was virtually unknown.

[Ambling Alp II]

Some people apparently think of Usyk and Wilder as small but Usyk was over 220 for both fights with Joshua and Wilder frequently fights in the 220s. Both are significantly bigger than Patterson Machen Folley etc.

We can see the skills of guys like Bivol Ward etc at light heavyweight. Where are they at a disadvantage relative to Patterson Machen etc?

Its possible Liston is better than his resume indicates but I'd probably have to back the following guys to beat everyone he beat
Tim Witherspoon
Donovan Ruddock
Ike Ibeabuchi
Alexander Povetkin

And nobody regards these guys as being great

Liston would have beaten all of those guys. Easily. And he often weighed more than Wilder. Get off the weight thing.

Maybe but his resume doesn't back it up. We can't back him against a puncher like Ruddock with any confidence given the lack of punchers on his resume. No way to know how he reacts to getting hit.

Cleveland Williams was a big puncher. Guess we can't count Patterson since he knocked him out so fast both times. fought several other guys who weren't huge puncher but could hit and wasn't hurt. Ruddock certainly didn't have a great chin himself. Liston had much better boxing skills.