BoxRec

Larry Holmes

Ken Norton

Joe Frazier

Ron Lyle

Earnie Shavers

Jerry Quarry

Oscar Bonavena

George Foreman

Jimmy Young

50-50 with Holmes, and a slight favourite over Foreman.

Everyone else is a clear victim, most likely.

I know the consensus would favor Sonny in nearly all of these, and he was amazing to behold at his best.

However, I'd say George, Jerry, Larry and Joe all could upset his apple cart. Emphasis on could, because none of these fights should be considered safe for either fighter. The rest are simply grist for the mill, with the exception of a possibly interesting fight with Young IF Jimmy brings his top game and nothing less.

In case you don't know the stats, Sonny's reach is astronomical. I'm not sure that works to his advantage with J.F. though most think it cinches his victory based on the Foreman events. Sometimes a good digger can slip past an octopus and make a mess of conventional thinking.

OK, let's see:

Larry Holmes: It would be a tremendous match. Jab vs Jab. A 50/50. Maybe Holmes wins by UD.

Ken Norton: Another serious match. A 50/50...Liston by KO in 8

Joe Frazier: If it is the one from the FOTC, I can't see how Liston wins this one. Would he handle the pressure?... Maybe yes with that jab.

Ron Lyle: Exciting fight, but Liston wins this one. More technique than Ron.

Earnie Shavers: Another exciting fight...Liston wins this one. More technique than Earnie.

Jerry Quarry: Liston wins this one too in another exciting scrap

Oscar Bonavena: Liston late KO

George Foreman: Whoever got the best stamina wins....Liston KO late

Jimmy Young:At his very best, Young gives Liston a boxing lesson just like he did to Ali and Foreman.

Young did not give Foreman a boxing lesson...thats just thoughtlessly repeated until it becomes unchallenged dogma (much like Louis-Conn I, which everyone forgets was close after 12). Young mounted no serious offense prior to rnd 8 and arguably lost the 7th 10-8 (I didnt score it that way). I had Young winning by 3 --- 2 of those points owing to the knockdown.

It was a WAY more competitive fight than history seems to remember (agree that Ali was beaten wide, though).

And Liston murders Frazier, Elmer. Youre just too high on Frazier 69-71.

G.I. ....... Liston Murders Frazier is pretty dramatic stuff. Liston murders Patterson. And It's hard for many of us to put Frazier in the role of Patterson. Though I admit I would expect Foreman to dispense with Patterson in Liston style.

Is it hard to put Liston in Foremans role, though?

Liston is my #5 all-time HW, Frazier #6. It isnt a CLASS issue (like Liston-Patterson), its a STYLE one.

Frazier is in Foreman's class, too, but that didnt make their fight remotely close.

A peak Liston was far better than a bloated, old Ali or an over-heated Foreman who was so dehydrated in the dressing room he saw Jesus (and that fight was very close and not the 'boxing lesson' revisionists say it was, as Goodnight noted). Young wouldn't see the final bell.

Funnily enough, I was watching, "Facing Ali," last night and Foreman recounts what he remembers in the dressing room after the Young bout. Interesting, though fanciful to an agnostic like me.

Not the first time extreme heat conspired against Foreman.

Prime uninhibited Liston beats them all.

Larry Holmes - A close fight maybe Holmes by SD

Ken Norton - Liston wins by KO

Joe Frazier - Frazier wins by KO

Ron Lyle - Liston wins on points

Earnie Shavers - Liston wins by KO

Jerry Quarry - Liston by Ko

Oscar Bonavena - Liston by KO

George Foreman - Foreman wins with earily KO

Jimmy Young - Liston wins by late KO

Nobody wants to admit the truth.The great George Foreman was given a boxing lesson by Jimmy Young.

Its repeated (falsely) everywhere

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Is it hard to put Liston in Foremans role, though?

Liston is my #5 all-time HW, Frazier #6. It isnt a CLASS issue (like Liston-Patterson), its a STYLE one.

Frazier is in Foreman's class, too, but that didnt make their fight remotely close.

No penalty points for quitting on the stool while champ and then following up with a pathetic dive?

I have come to believe neither fight was on the level.

The truth is out there........

BoxBuzz wrote:The truth is out there........

ha ha ha ha

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I have come to believe neither fight was on the level.

No penalty points for engaging in what you believe were two fixed fights?

If by "Fixed" we can include a man's own mental breakdown as in the tangent cases of an Oliver McCall, or an Andrew Golata then maybe I'm on board. If it was his "fear of the religious zealots" in the second fight, I suppose one can't rule that out. (I'm one that feels that it was his "inner" demons, along with a bit of an unexpected momentarily stunning punch that helped Sonny in his "decision" that day.)

I'm used to thinking of "fixed" as meaning some sort of payment for compliance. Not something going on within the inner workings of a man's psyche.

raylawpc wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I have come to believe neither fight was on the level.

No penalty points for engaging in what you believe were two fixed fights?

In terms of his legacy? Not really. The title was doing him no favours, I dont blame him if he gave it up.

BoxBuzz wrote:If by "Fixed" we can include a man's own mental breakdown as in the tangent cases of an Oliver McCall, or an Andrew Golata then maybe I'm on board. If it was his "fear of the religious zealots" in the second fight, I suppose one can't rule that out. (I'm one that feels that it was his "inner" demons, along with a bit of an unexpected momentarily stunning punch that helped Sonny in his "decision" that day.)

I'm used to thinking of "fixed" as meaning some sort of payment for compliance. Not something going on within the inner workings of a man's psyche.

Leave Andrew Gelato out of this.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I have come to believe neither fight was on the level.

No penalty points for engaging in what you believe were two fixed fights?

In terms of his legacy? Not really. The title was doing him no favours, I dont blame him if he gave it up.

If you believe that neither fight was "on the level," then Liston (a) took money in one or both fights (that thus was essentially a fraud who duped the good people who paid money to see a legitimate fight, or (b) he was a coward who quit in two fights in which he was fully capable of continuing.

I don't see how either or both of these don't diminish his legacy. If I had a top ten list, and if I believed as you that neither fight was "on the level," Liston would never be on it for those reasons alone.

Well, its like this to me --- the guy accomplished quite a bit in his career, and he would beat the majority of HW champs who ever drew breath. That, to me, makes a guy qualified, and to ignore his claim based on impropriety (assuming if Liston threw the first bout, it was his own choice, and for personal gain --- I suspect neither was the case, so believing he was strong-armed into the 1964 result makes forgiveness much easier) would be undeniably noble, but in a case of such a great fighter as Liston, equally-unrealistic.

I also have Holyfield in my top-10 HW's of all-time (#9) and you KNOW the guy was popping steroids like candy for years --- its still hard to deny how great he was. Jones, Jr, Toney, Mosley, Pryor, Trinidad...all good or great boxers who all cheated with enhancers. Hopkins, Saddler, Duran, Pedroza...all filthy, downright disgusting in the way they fought, turning some affairs into street rule encounters. You gonna preclude all them, too?

I dont see how you wouldnt, if you put the brakes on Liston.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Well, its like this to me --- the guy accomplished quite a bit in his career, and he would beat the majority of HW champs who ever drew breath. That, to me, makes a guy qualified, and to ignore his claim based on impropriety (assuming if Liston threw the first bout, it was his own choice, and for personal gain --- I suspect neither was the case, so believing he was strong-armed into the 1964 result makes forgiveness much easier) would be undeniably noble, but in a case of such a great fighter as Liston, equally-unrealistic.

I also have Holyfield in my top-10 HW's of all-time (#9) and you KNOW the guy was popping steroids like candy for years --- its still hard to deny how great he was. Jones, Jr, Toney, Mosley, Pryor, Trinidad...all good or great boxers who all cheated with enhancers. Hopkins, Saddler, Duran, Pedroza...all filthy, downright disgusting in the way they fought, turning some affairs into street rule encounters. You gonna preclude all them, too?

I dont see how you wouldnt, if you put the brakes on Liston.

No, I wouldn't preclude anyone based on their style or the way they fought. Two reasons: (1) If a dirty fighter is allowed to fight dirty, then half the blame goes to the referee (this is where it truly takes two to tango), and (2) they didn't defraud any fan who paid a ticket to the fight.

And I would not have anyone in my top ten who is shown to use illegal/banned performance enhancing drugs.

But I guess it's according to the criteria one uses in making a top ten ranking. Maybe is not a negative if the ranking is purely about its purely about ability, or win-loss, or the speculated outcome of those head-to-head, cross-era match ups some of the folks on this forum are so fond of. But I think it has to have a negative effect if you're making your top ten selections on total career considerations. If you are right about Sonny, then he was a fraud, or a coward, or both. Not top-ten material in my book, if one is making the selection based on total career considerations.

raylawpc wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Well, its like this to me --- the guy accomplished quite a bit in his career, and he would beat the majority of HW champs who ever drew breath. That, to me, makes a guy qualified, and to ignore his claim based on impropriety (assuming if Liston threw the first bout, it was his own choice, and for personal gain --- I suspect neither was the case, so believing he was strong-armed into the 1964 result makes forgiveness much easier) would be undeniably noble, but in a case of such a great fighter as Liston, equally-unrealistic.

I also have Holyfield in my top-10 HW's of all-time (#9) and you KNOW the guy was popping steroids like candy for years --- its still hard to deny how great he was. Jones, Jr, Toney, Mosley, Pryor, Trinidad...all good or great boxers who all cheated with enhancers. Hopkins, Saddler, Duran, Pedroza...all filthy, downright disgusting in the way they fought, turning some affairs into street rule encounters. You gonna preclude all them, too?

I dont see how you wouldnt, if you put the brakes on Liston.

No, I wouldn't preclude anyone based on their style or the way they fought. Two reasons: (1) If a dirty fighter is allowed to fight dirty, then half the blame goes to the referee (this is where it truly takes two to tango), and (2) they didn't defraud any fan who paid a ticket to the fight.

And I would not have anyone in my top ten who is shown to use illegal/banned performance enhancing drugs.

But I guess it's according to the criteria one uses in making a top ten ranking. Maybe is not a negative if the ranking is purely about its purely about ability, or win-loss, or the speculated outcome of those head-to-head, cross-era match ups some of the folks on this forum are so fond of. But I think it has to have a negative effect if you're making your top ten selections on total career considerations. If you are right about Sonny, then he was a fraud, or a coward, or both. Not top-ten material in my book, if one is making the selection based on total career considerations.

To clarify, had Ali had his career as it was, but then laid down in round one against Spinks, Holmes or Berbick, youd run him right out of your top-10? Thats your logic, applied to Ali.

Id also say your line about dirty fighting is a major cop-out to me. Firstly, cheating is not a, "style." Its cheating, black and white. Secondly, boxers make the choice to cheat with elbows, forearms, headbutts, etc...excusing that because the ref isnt stopping it is tantamount to suggesting boxers on the gear only deserve half the blame because the commission isnt halting it and their trainers probably put them on it in the first place.