BoxRec

I would just like to say that sonny liston has now moved up to # 3 in my all time heavyweight list. yes i know thats higher than most rate him and i know i am a huge fan of him, but i totally 100% feel he deserves this placement. i am willing to back my arguements up 100%. he has it all........physical talent/tools, head to head, accomplishments, etc.


i honestly feel the peak 58-60 sonny liston would beat almost every heavyweight in history. i could only see a couple(ali, louis, possibly holmes) managing to beat that sonny.

He used to play the song "Night Train" in the gym when he was training. I can hear it looking at that picture.
I think Liston was a helluva fighter.

Ha Ha I was wondering the same thing. His punctuation is a little off in that post. Even a pallooka like me knows that its a capital I when refering to ones self.

Sharp young guy though. Hes gonna do well I think.

So now we got Lewis and Liston in the top five. Not Leaving much in the way of room for the real top five.

BoxBuzz wrote:So now we got Lewis and Liston in the top five. Not Leaving much in the way of room for the real top five.

sonny liston has a much better case for being in top 5 than lennox lewis

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:So now we got Lewis and Liston in the top five. Not Leaving much in the way of room for the real top five.

sonny liston has a much better case for being in top 5 than lennox lewis

That big sloppy oaf Lewis isn't top 5. Top 5 since Holmes, yes. Top 5 of all time, no freakin' chance.

I'm still waiting for your explanation of your hero Ted Spoon adding 2 and 2 and getting 7.

Oh, and the update on the boxing career. It all sounded so promising with the story about the old gym rat claiming he saw 'something special' and all that. It wasn't another fantasy post after you'd been sampling your dad's spirit rack?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:I would just like to say that sonny liston has now moved up to # 3 in my all time heavyweight list. yes i know thats higher than most rate him and i know i am a huge fan of him, but i totally 100% feel he deserves this placement. i am willing to back my arguements up 100%. he has it all........physical talent/tools, head to head, accomplishments, etc.


i honestly feel the peak 58-60 sonny liston would beat almost every heavyweight in history. i could only see a couple(ali, louis, possibly holmes) managing to beat that sonny.

I think you might be right.

I would have loved to have seen him get a shot against Patterson sooner than he did.

If Cassius Clay did not have his bike stolen, Sonny would have been champ for years (subject to mob agreement ).

Freak of nature? No. The greatest freak of nature I ever seen in boxing was Sandy Saddler...now if that isn't a genetic abnormality I don't know what is: A featherweight with the power of a Welterweight and height of a Middleweight, so powerful and brutal he was he butchered possibly the greatest defensive fighter of all time Willie Pep to shreds.

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Freak of nature? No. The greatest freak of nature I ever seen in boxing was Sandy Saddler...now if that isn't a genetic abnormality I don't know what is: A featherweight with the power of a Welterweight and height of a Middleweight, so powerful and brutal he was he butchered possibly the greatest defensive fighter of all time Willie Pep to shreds.

Finally someone gives him credit.

Talking of 'freaks of nature' how about Al Brown five feet 11 and 118 pounds and possibly the greatest ever Bantam.... definately the tallest bantam champ ever... unless my records decieve me!...

No way is Lewis top 5... even top 5 since Holmes is perhaps stretching it... Liston deserves a top 5 tho... aside from power he was an excellent technical boxer and was actually a fast and fluid mover despite his build... had very good handspeed for such a heavily built guy....

Liston at #3 is at least as legit as Marciano or Dempsey at #3.
I have him at #8 though, and my #3 is Larry Holmes.

pundit wrote:Liston at #3 is at least as legit as Marciano or Dempsey at #3.
I have him at #8 though, and my #3 is Larry Holmes.

I would never have either Dempsey or Marcinao as high as 3... but Holmes sits there quite comfortably... my top 10 would be something like... the top 5 doesnt change that much though I'm torn a bit between Liston and Foreman...

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Johnson
4. Louis
5. Liston
6. Foreman
7. Frazier
8. Jeffries
9. Tunney
10. Marciano

silkov wrote:

pundit wrote:Liston at #3 is at least as legit as Marciano or Dempsey at #3.
I have him at #8 though, and my #3 is Larry Holmes.

I would never have either Dempsey or Marcinao as high as 3...

Me neither, don't get me wrong.
(but I can see why people would place them there)

but Holmes sits there quite comfortably... my top 10 would be something like... the top 5 doesnt change that much though I'm torn a bit between Liston and Foreman...

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Johnson
4. Louis
5. Liston
6. Foreman
7. Frazier
8. Jeffries
9. Tunney
10. Marciano

We are very close indeed, except that we appear to differ on Joe Louis. Here are my top 13:

1 Louis
2 Ali
3 Holmes
4 Foreman
5 Johnson
6 Langford
7 Lewis
8 Liston
9 Frazier
10 Tunney
11 Marciano
12 Wills
13 Dempsey

pundit wrote:

silkov wrote:

pundit wrote:Liston at #3 is at least as legit as Marciano or Dempsey at #3.
I have him at #8 though, and my #3 is Larry Holmes.

I would never have either Dempsey or Marcinao as high as 3...

Me neither, don't get me wrong.
(but I can see why people would place them there)

but Holmes sits there quite comfortably... my top 10 would be something like... the top 5 doesnt change that much though I'm torn a bit between Liston and Foreman...

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Johnson
4. Louis
5. Liston
6. Foreman
7. Frazier
8. Jeffries
9. Tunney
10. Marciano

We are very close indeed, except that we appear to differ on Joe Louis. Here are my top 13:

1 Louis
2 Ali
3 Holmes
4 Foreman
5 Johnson
6 Langford
7 Lewis
8 Liston
9 Frazier
10 Tunney
11 Marciano
12 Wills
13 Dempsey

You also differ on Lennox Lewis too.

Collins2000 wrote: You also differ on Lennox Lewis too.

And on Sam Langford. And on Jim Jeffries.
But no two boxing fans will agree exactly on everything...

pundit wrote:

silkov wrote:

pundit wrote:Liston at #3 is at least as legit as Marciano or Dempsey at #3.
I have him at #8 though, and my #3 is Larry Holmes.

I would never have either Dempsey or Marcinao as high as 3...

Me neither, don't get me wrong.
(but I can see why people would place them there)

but Holmes sits there quite comfortably... my top 10 would be something like... the top 5 doesnt change that much though I'm torn a bit between Liston and Foreman...

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Johnson
4. Louis
5. Liston
6. Foreman
7. Frazier
8. Jeffries
9. Tunney
10. Marciano

We are very close indeed, except that we appear to differ on Joe Louis. Here are my top 13:

1 Louis
2 Ali
3 Holmes
4 Foreman
5 Johnson
6 Langford
7 Lewis
8 Liston
9 Frazier
10 Tunney
11 Marciano
12 Wills
13 Dempsey

there is no logical explanation for rating gene tunney over rocky marciano at heavyweight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
there is no logical explanation for rating gene tunney over rocky marciano at heavyweight.

He was better .... :P

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
there is no logical explanation for rating gene tunney over rocky marciano at heavyweight.

He was better .... :P

once again pundit has provided no reasons for rating tunney over marciano at heavyweight



the fact he rates tunney and wills over dempsey is laughable. the fact he rated tunney in his top 10 but not marciano and dempsey is laughable. tunneys whole HW career is based off of 2 wins over a FAR FAR past his prime jack dempsey and the 2nd fight was controversial

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
there is no logical explanation for rating gene tunney over rocky marciano at heavyweight.

He was better .... :P

once again pundit has provided no reasons for rating tunney over marciano at heavyweight



the fact he rates tunney and wills over dempsey is laughable. the fact he rated tunney in his top 10 but not marciano and dempsey is laughable. tunneys whole HW career is based off of 2 wins over a FAR FAR past his prime jack dempsey and the 2nd fight was controversial

We've been through most of this 20 times and I'm tired of reapeating the same arguments over and over.

I simply believe Tunney had the means to stay away from Susie Q and outbox Marciano for the majority of 12 rounds. A way past-his-prime Ezzard Charles could almost do this, so certainly a prime Tunney could have.

This is all.

I simply believe Tunney had the means to stay away from Susie Q and outbox Marciano for the majority of 12 rounds. A way past-his-prime Ezzard Charles could almost do this, so certainly a prime Tunney could have.

charles wasnt way past his prime in 1954, i already explained this. ill take the june 1954 ezzard charles over tunney too in a close one.



so ur rankings are based on head to head instead of accomplishments?



IMO a prime marciano would knock tunney out

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

I simply believe Tunney had the means to stay away from Susie Q and outbox Marciano for the majority of 12 rounds. A way past-his-prime Ezzard Charles could almost do this, so certainly a prime Tunney could have.

charles wasnt way past his prime in 1954, i already explained this. ill take the june 1954 ezzard charles over tunney too in a close one.

While failing to convince me - big time. The 1954 Charles was YEARS beyond his prime. The 1952 Charles was (do you believe he would have lost to Walcott otherwise). In fact, there is some plausibility to the claim that ever since killing Joe Baksi in the ring in 1948, Ezzard wasn't the same he used to be, lacking the killer instinct he displayed at l-h.

so ur rankings are based on head to head instead of accomplishments?

Both.

IMO a prime marciano would knock tunney out

IMO Tunney would win a UD.

in terms of accomplishments, marciano far exceeds tunney in the heavyweight division.



ill still take the june 1954 charles over tunney.





i believe walcott was the better heavyweight than charles. the reason why walcott lost the first two charles fights is because he didnt fight aggresive like he did in the 3rd and 4th charles fights.

In fact, there is some plausibility to the claim that ever since killing Joe Baksi in the ring in 1948

u dont know shit about boxing. everyone knows charles killed sam baroudi, not joe baksi. do u even know who joe baksi is