Larry Holmes 1980 vs. Sonny Liston 1959

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 04 Dec 2006, 18:10

What do you think.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 04 Dec 2006, 18:33

I'm thinking Liston was in jail in '57...and that he was a bit inexperienced at the time...maybe 1961 would be a better year for a more even matchup...in '57 I'd take Holmes in a unanimous decision...by '60-'61...could be a real close, tough fight...

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 04 Dec 2006, 18:36

Sweet Scientist wrote:I'm thinking Liston was in jail in '57...and that he was a bit inexperienced at the time...maybe 1961 would be a better year for a more even matchup...in '57 I'd take Holmes in a unanimous decision...by '60-'61...could be a real close, tough fight...

Bad error. Just corrected.

Sir Loin · Post by **Sir Loin** » 05 Dec 2006, 02:30

Holmes on points.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Dec 2006, 05:38

I have to agree with Dec. Holmes jab would have taken the day. Sonny's was harder but Holmes' jab would have allowed him to take the initiative.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 05 Dec 2006, 07:51

I'd go with Holmes as well. I think he was just a little too quick for Sonny, although it would have been a very close matchup.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 05 Dec 2006, 08:18

I'm going with Liston on this one.

They had the two best jabs in HW history IMO; Liston's harder, more powerful, but slower jab, versus Holmes' faster rapier like, sharper jab.

The reason why I'm going for Liston is that Holmes sometimes left himself exposed after jabbing, he also liked to brawl when tagged & that would have played into Liston's hands.

Liston on points, but in a close fight.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 05 Dec 2006, 10:45

They had the two best jabs in HW history IMO

Now we know you are a complete idiot, when it comes to boxing.....

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 05 Dec 2006, 10:56

ringsider wrote:
They had the two best jabs in HW history IMO
Now we know you are a complete idiot, when it comes to boxing.....

Hmmmm... so Mr. Expert who would you nominate as the two best HW jabbers in history. I'd be surprised if either Holmes or Liston would be outside your top 5.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 05 Dec 2006, 11:12

Holmes could jab, but that was about it, he threw it too hard most of the time. Liston's jab was was clubber. Just because a fighter has a hard jab, doesn't make it a great jab. You jab too hard, you mess up your balance, and ability to follow with the right and a decent hook. Jabbing is about setting up your other punches. You can't be trying to knock a guy's block off with every jab.

Ali had a better jab
Joe Louis
Lennox Lewis.
Riddick Bowe even!
Tyson(before he forgot what a jab was)
Ezzard Charles
Even George Foreman jabbed decent when he turned it down a bit. He used it to set everything up, ala Micheal Moore....

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 05 Dec 2006, 11:21

ringsider wrote:Holmes could jab, but that was about it, he threw it too hard most of the time. Liston's jab was was clubber. Just because a fighter has a hard jab, doesn't make it a great jab. You jab too hard, you mess up your balance, and ability to follow with the right and a decent hook. Jabbing is about setting up your other punches. You can't be trying to knock a guy's block off with every jab.

Ali had a better jab
Joe Louis
Lennox Lewis.
Riddick Bowe even!
Tyson(before he forgot what a jab was)
Ezzard Charles
Even George Foreman jabbed decent when he turned it down a bit. He used it to set everything up, ala Micheal Moore....

And you say others have no idea of boxing?

That was a quick self-exposure...

Ali, Louis and Lewis would probably complete the top 5 jabs in heavyweight history -- but together with Holmes and Liston.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 05 Dec 2006, 11:30

I would concede Holmes, as that is all he had was a jab. But as I said just because a fighter has a hard jab doesn't make it a great jab. Liston for example.....

So then I have 3 maybe 4 of your top 5, and you disagree with me, and say I have exposed myself? What does what you say about my knowledge or opinions say about yours.....if we agree on 60-80% of the jabbers?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 05 Dec 2006, 11:37

ringsider wrote:I would concede Holmes, as that is all he had was a jab. But as I said just because a fighter has a hard jab doesn't make it a great jab. Liston for example.....

So then I have 3 maybe 4 of your top 5, and you disagree with me, and say I have exposed myself? What does what you say about my knowledge or opinions say about yours.....if we agree on 60-80% of the jabbers?

I don't know the history betwen you folks, but suggesting that someone is nuts who says Liston and Holmes had great jabs but then coming up with George Foreman simply isn't particularly compelling.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 05 Dec 2006, 11:38

Holmes was also one of the division's best combination punchers ever. First half of the bout would be competitive, but after about the 6th, Liston would fight like a beaten man. Holmes by TKO in the 10th.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 05 Dec 2006, 16:49

Difficult fight to pick, points decision to Holmes but a close one. Peak Holmes and Liston would beat any heavyweight in history barring Ali

Scypion · Post by **Scypion** » 05 Dec 2006, 17:37

I go with Liston on this one. Liston was knocking out everyone in 1959.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 05 Dec 2006, 17:54

ringsider wrote:Holmes could jab, but that was about it, he threw it too hard most of the time. Liston's jab was was clubber. Just because a fighter has a hard jab, doesn't make it a great jab. You jab too hard, you mess up your balance, and ability to follow with the right and a decent hook. Jabbing is about setting up your other punches. You can't be trying to knock a guy's block off with every jab.

Ali had a better jab
Joe Louis
Lennox Lewis.
Riddick Bowe even!
Tyson(before he forgot what a jab was)
Ezzard Charles
Even George Foreman jabbed decent when he turned it down a bit. He used it to set everything up, ala Micheal Moore....

No you are completely wrong. The best way to keep an opponent off balance (and to protect yourself from counters over your jab) is to fire you straight left hard and fast. Both Liston and Holmes were very good at this, rendering their opponents helpless b/c straight nose busting punches kept damaging their rythym. Too hard???!? What are you talking about. You'll only get off-balance after throwing a hard jab if you are an amatuerish fighter. Liston and Holmes didn't have that problem at all. They were certainly better jabbers than Lennox Lewis, Tyson, and Bowe . . .

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 05 Dec 2006, 20:28

This would tend to be a fantasic match up...I like Holmes on points, but it would be far from easy...Liston could hit as hard as Shavers (remember round 7 Holmes-Shavers), and was a much better boxer than given credit for...Liston had an 84 inch reach, if I'm not mistaken, a positively stunning jab...and in 1959, was still relatively young...The Liston who couldn't catch a young Cassius Clay was old (and ring rusty)--had fought just 2 rounds in the previous 2+ years...the 1959 version was absolutely superior to the 1964 version...Holmes in a close decision if he can stay away from Liston's devastaing power, and if he can get up off the canvas...lesser guys dropped Larry, he would have to be on his "A" game to win...

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 06 Dec 2006, 11:30

ringsider wrote:
They had the two best jabs in HW history IMO
Now we know you are a complete idiot, when it comes to boxing.....

No, I think YOU have the idiot berth all sewn up when it comes to boxing!

RazorKO · Post by **RazorKO** » 06 Dec 2006, 11:46

ringsider wrote:Holmes could jab, but that was about it, he threw it too hard most of the time. Liston's jab was was clubber. Just because a fighter has a hard jab, doesn't make it a great jab. You jab too hard, you mess up your balance, and ability to follow with the right and a decent hook. Jabbing is about setting up your other punches. You can't be trying to knock a guy's block off with every jab.

Ali had a better jab
Joe Louis
Lennox Lewis.
Riddick Bowe even!
Tyson(before he forgot what a jab was)
Ezzard Charles
Even George Foreman jabbed decent when he turned it down a bit. He used it to set everything up, ala Micheal Moore....

Holmes and Liston had far better jabs than Lewis, Lewis pawed with his so called 'jab' and if his jab was so effective how comes he was outjabbed badly by Mercer? The same Mercer who who completly outjabbed by a 42 year old Holmes, or what about an old Holyfied in their rematch?. Lewis also was outjabbed by Bruno and even failing to get friggin Briggs of him, not even mentioning where instead of using his jab to fend off fighters like an old, shot, unprepared, unmotived Tyson he held them instead.

If Lewis had a jab the least he would could of done is to use it against this dreadful version of Tyson but he was incapable of doing so and proceeded to turn this fight into a wedding ceremony, if it could be any fight where Tyson was to loose his mentality - It would of been this fight and one has to admire Tyson for controlling his temper after being hugged to death for 8 rounds. The Tua fight was also as pittiful.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 06 Dec 2006, 12:26

RazorKO wrote:
ringsider wrote:Holmes could jab, but that was about it, he threw it too hard most of the time. Liston's jab was was clubber. Just because a fighter has a hard jab, doesn't make it a great jab. You jab too hard, you mess up your balance, and ability to follow with the right and a decent hook. Jabbing is about setting up your other punches. You can't be trying to knock a guy's block off with every jab.

Ali had a better jab
Joe Louis
Lennox Lewis.
Riddick Bowe even!
Tyson(before he forgot what a jab was)
Ezzard Charles
Even George Foreman jabbed decent when he turned it down a bit. He used it to set everything up, ala Micheal Moore....

Holmes and Liston had far better jabs than Lewis, Lewis pawed with his so called 'jab' and if his jab was so effective how comes he was outjabbed badly by Mercer? The same Mercer who who completly outjabbed by a 42 year old Holmes, or what about an old Holyfied in their rematch?. Lewis also was outjabbed by Bruno and even failing to get friggin Briggs of him, not even mentioning where instead of using his jab to fend off fighters like an old, shot, unprepared, unmotived Tyson he held them instead.

If Lewis had a jab the least he would could of done is to use it against this dreadful version of Tyson but he was incapable of doing so and proceeded to turn this fight into a wedding ceremony, if it could be any fight where Tyson was to loose his mentality - It would of been this fight and one has to admire Tyson for controlling his temper after being hugged to death for 8 rounds. The Tua fight was also as pittiful.

Well said to you.

JC · Post by JC » 06 Dec 2006, 12:42

RazorKO wrote:
ringsider wrote:Holmes could jab, but that was about it, he threw it too hard most of the time. Liston's jab was was clubber. Just because a fighter has a hard jab, doesn't make it a great jab. You jab too hard, you mess up your balance, and ability to follow with the right and a decent hook. Jabbing is about setting up your other punches. You can't be trying to knock a guy's block off with every jab.

Ali had a better jab
Joe Louis
Lennox Lewis.
Riddick Bowe even!
Tyson(before he forgot what a jab was)
Ezzard Charles
Even George Foreman jabbed decent when he turned it down a bit. He used it to set everything up, ala Micheal Moore....

Holmes and Liston had far better jabs than Lewis, Lewis pawed with his so called 'jab' and if his jab was so effective how comes he was outjabbed badly by Mercer? The same Mercer who who completly outjabbed by a 42 year old Holmes, or what about an old Holyfied in their rematch?. Lewis also was outjabbed by Bruno and even failing to get friggin Briggs of him, not even mentioning where instead of using his jab to fend off fighters like an old, shot, unprepared, unmotived Tyson he held them instead.

If Lewis had a jab the least he would could of done is to use it against this dreadful version of Tyson but he was incapable of doing so and proceeded to turn this fight into a wedding ceremony, if it could be any fight where Tyson was to loose his mentality - It would of been this fight and one has to admire Tyson for controlling his temper after being hugged to death for 8 rounds. The Tua fight was also as pittiful.

No offense RazorKO, but I can predict exactly when you'll show up on a thread and exactly what you'll say, it getting somewhat tedious.

You've brought up Lewis' "dirty tactics" vs Bruno several times, while at the same time excusing all the stuff Tyson has pulled of the years. Now not only are we supposed to forgive Tyson his past fouls but actually commend him when he doesn't foul.

You compalin about Lewis' fans being disrespectful to Ruddock and then talk about how Ruddock should have been "whiping Lewis' brains off his gloves" which is more disrespectful?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Dec 2006, 12:51

J-C wrote:
RazorKO wrote:
ringsider wrote:Holmes could jab, but that was about it, he threw it too hard most of the time. Liston's jab was was clubber. Just because a fighter has a hard jab, doesn't make it a great jab. You jab too hard, you mess up your balance, and ability to follow with the right and a decent hook. Jabbing is about setting up your other punches. You can't be trying to knock a guy's block off with every jab.

Ali had a better jab
Joe Louis
Lennox Lewis.
Riddick Bowe even!
Tyson(before he forgot what a jab was)
Ezzard Charles
Even George Foreman jabbed decent when he turned it down a bit. He used it to set everything up, ala Micheal Moore....

Holmes and Liston had far better jabs than Lewis, Lewis pawed with his so called 'jab' and if his jab was so effective how comes he was outjabbed badly by Mercer? The same Mercer who who completly outjabbed by a 42 year old Holmes, or what about an old Holyfied in their rematch?. Lewis also was outjabbed by Bruno and even failing to get friggin Briggs of him, not even mentioning where instead of using his jab to fend off fighters like an old, shot, unprepared, unmotived Tyson he held them instead.

If Lewis had a jab the least he would could of done is to use it against this dreadful version of Tyson but he was incapable of doing so and proceeded to turn this fight into a wedding ceremony, if it could be any fight where Tyson was to loose his mentality - It would of been this fight and one has to admire Tyson for controlling his temper after being hugged to death for 8 rounds. The Tua fight was also as pittiful.
No offense RazorKO, but I can predict exactly when you'll show up on a thread and exactly what you'll say, it getting somewhat tedious.

You've brought up Lewis' "dirty tactics" vs Bruno several times, while at the same time excusing all the stuff Tyson has pulled of the years. Now not only are we supposed to forgive Tyson his past fouls but actually commend him when he doesn't foul.

At the same time, it's certainly true that hitting and holding was a bit of a LL speciality.

JC · Post by JC » 06 Dec 2006, 12:55

Yes I wouldn't deny that, I'm not trying to defend Lewis, I just think you can't complain about one and exonerate the other.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 06 Dec 2006, 13:31

Most great fighters were very good at bending the rules. Lewis wasn't even noteworthy when compared to many others.

Larry Holmes 1980 vs. Sonny Liston 1959

Larry Holmes 1980 vs. Sonny Liston 1959

Scypion