Who had the better Career Resume...Liston or Johnson

[bodhi]

Johnson.

[McGrain]

I think it depends on how you feel about a young McVey in terms of nailing down the best wins, but I'd say Patterson is the best fighter beaten by either.

[janitor]

Johnson has a big advantage in terms of depth and longevity.

In these departments he is only behind Louis and Ali.

[KuRuPT]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

In THEIR TIME Langford and Ketchell were middleweights , Jeffries was old and post retirement and layoff , Joe J I counted , Jackson (like Thompkins ?) was less than a full fledged middleweight and d rest were either old , small , some other handicap or probably a combination of more than 1 handicap come fight time .



Your post show how clueless u r .
As usual .

You didn't count McVey then... what was wrong with him? I.e. what excuse are you going to come up with this time? When Johnson beat Langford... HE ALSO wasn't a HW, and crushed Sam with ease. So because Sam gained some weight THAT was going to make a difference against a Johnson who also filled out? I'm guessing stupid posts like this are par for the course with you. The facts are these... in an all time sense... Langford is better than anybody on Listons resume... and it's not even that close. You can say whatever you want about Jeffries, but again, in an all time sense he's also better than most anybody in Liston's resume. He was the favorite going on, and despite what people say, was in a good shape for the fight. The difference though is you have an ACTUAL HW in Jeffries who did have ring rust but was still a big stong ACTUAL HW... Liston had a big size advantage on Patterson (Liston's best name on his resume). You do realize Ketchell put weight on and was no longer a middleweight right? Just like you realize Lanford wasn't either when they fought but the opposite way.. Is their any part of your post that you got right? Point is, Super Middleweight Ketchell.. Shit even O'Brien are better all time fighters than anybody on Liston's list bar maybe two names. Next time you make a post.. actually try and get some part of ti right and not look like a complete idiot.

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

You didn't count McVey then... what was wrong with him? I.e. what excuse are you going to come up with this time? When Johnson beat Langford... HE ALSO wasn't a HW, and crushed Sam with ease. So because Sam gained some weight THAT was going to make a difference against a Johnson who also filled out? I'm guessing stupid posts like this are par for the course with you. The facts are these... in an all time sense... Langford is better than anybody on Listons resume... and it's not even that close. You can say whatever you want about Jeffries, but again, in an all time sense he's also better than most anybody in Liston's resume. He was the favorite going on, and despite what people say, was in a good shape for the fight. The difference though is you have an ACTUAL HW in Jeffries who did have ring rust but was still a big stong ACTUAL HW... Liston had a big size advantage on Patterson (Liston's best name on his resume). You do realize Ketchell put weight on and was no longer a middleweight right? Just like you realize Lanford wasn't either when they fought but the opposite way.. Is their any part of your post that you got right? Point is, Super Middleweight Ketchell.. Shit even O'Brien are better all time fighters than anybody on Liston's list bar maybe two names. Next time you make a post.. actually try and get some part of ti right and not look like a complete idiot.

it is possible that i 4got 2 include 1 or 2 names out of d list of mentions u made here , but then it's also possible that i still should not have .

I just don't feel like geting 2d depth of it now but suppose Johnson's resume should consist of : Jeannette , McVea (again , it's just a supposition) , O'Brien .

D size advantage Johnson had over Langford , Ketchell and Thompkins was bigger than what Liston had on Patterson .

Liston's resume is still what i mentioned which is still better .
Even if maybe (just a maybe) by a slightly smaller margin than i think .

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by janitor

Johnson has a big advantage in terms of depth and longevity.

In these departments he is only behind Louis and Ali.

You can keep repeating this mantra but it just does not play out in their respective resumes in terms of fighting true heavyweights in their primes.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

You didn't count McVey then... what was wrong with him? I.e. what excuse are you going to come up with this time? When Johnson beat Langford... HE ALSO wasn't a HW, and crushed Sam with ease. So because Sam gained some weight THAT was going to make a difference against a Johnson who also filled out? I'm guessing stupid posts like this are par for the course with you. The facts are these... in an all time sense... Langford is better than anybody on Listons resume... and it's not even that close. You can say whatever you want about Jeffries, but again, in an all time sense he's also better than most anybody in Liston's resume. He was the favorite going on, and despite what people say, was in a good shape for the fight. The difference though is you have an ACTUAL HW in Jeffries who did have ring rust but was still a big stong ACTUAL HW... Liston had a big size advantage on Patterson (Liston's best name on his resume). You do realize Ketchell put weight on and was no longer a middleweight right? Just like you realize Lanford wasn't either when they fought but the opposite way.. Is their any part of your post that you got right? Point is, Super Middleweight Ketchell.. Shit even O'Brien are better all time fighters than anybody on Liston's list bar maybe two names. Next time you make a post.. actually try and get some part of ti right and not look like a complete idiot.

Langford is a better name on a resume if we ignore all context, but a 156 pound Langford who hadn't yet beaten a heavyweight of note is not a better heavyweight victory than Patterson, Machen, Williams or perhaps several others on Liston's resume. And Johnson actually was a heavyweight by the day's standards at the time of this fight.

I hope this delicacy of logic is not too hard to grasp.

[lufcrazy]

All things considered, the best individual victory is the prime floyd patterson destroyed by liston.

However if you drew up a list of the top ten from 1902-1912 (johnson's prime) he fought them all and by some reports beat them all.

You can criticise that individually the guys he fought when he fought them weren't as good as they would go onto be. And my only rebuttal for that would be an argument of synergy: the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

With that in mind, on the whole johnson beat the top ten of his era and liston did not.

Had liston also destroyed ingo before fighting patterson. Maybe doug jones as well then he'd have a much more sound argument.

[Seamus]

I suppose we are giving him tons of credit for beating Fitzsimmons, also.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Seamus

I suppose we are giving him tons of credit for beating Fitzsimmons, also.

Johnson , no shrinking violet, declined to take any credit for beating Fitz ,Jack said he was far gone.

It's obviously true that McVey,Jeannette and Langford, were not prime when Johnson beat them.
It's also true that neither was Johnson. So ,maybe things are on a more level playing field than you suggest ?

[ChrisPontius]

If you go by historic impact, then Johnson takes the cake.

Based on most other criteria, I'd give it to Liston. Granted, Liston's title reign was short, although he was unlucky to run into the best heavyweight ever. By contrast, Johnson lost to one of the worst champions ever.

Mr. Johnson has a lot of big names on his resume, but none of them were anywhere close to their primes. Langford wasn't even a middleweight yet, Jeannette barely had hair on his balls, Mcvey dito. The Jeffries win is nice but fairly meaningless as he hadn't had a fight in 5 years time. What makes things worse is that Johnson avoided the 4 best challengers during his title reign (Langford, Mcvey, Jeannete and Gunboat bro). The opponents he did defend against were piss poor, even 40 year old Liston would've crushed them.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

If you go by historic impact, then Johnson takes the cake.

Based on most other criteria, I'd give it to Liston. Granted, Liston's title reign was short, although he was unlucky to run into the best heavyweight ever. By contrast, Johnson lost to one of the worst champions ever.

Mr. Johnson has a lot of big names on his resume, but none of them were anywhere close to their primes. Langford wasn't even a middleweight yet, Jeannette barely had hair on his balls, Mcvey dito. The Jeffries win is nice but fairly meaningless as he hadn't had a fight in 5 years time. What makes things worse is that Johnson avoided the 4 best challengers during his title reign (Langford, Mcvey, Jeannete and Gunboat bro). The opponents he did defend against were piss poor, even 40 year old Liston would've crushed them.

Chris, Langford scaled 156lbs for Johnson ,if we take his best weight as around 175/180lbs,that is 20/24 lbs below his best weight.

Johnson scaled 189lbs,Johnson said he was in the shape of his life for the Jeffries fight, he scaled 208lbs for that so 19lbs below his optimum weight.


Factor in that Langford was the more experienced fighter,with over 50 fights under his belt.


Harry Wills gets a ton of credit for beating a porky, 39 years old Langford, yet Johnson is castigated for beating a younger version.


When Johnson absolutely dominated McVey, before koing him in the last round, McVey had allready stopped names like Kid Carter,Fred Russell and Denver Ed Martin..

McVey was no middle either ,he scaled 207 to Johnson's 190lbs


Jeannette was 26 when he first fought Johnson and ,27 for their last encounter.I think it's safe to assume he had pubic hair.

Jeffries was past it , but whose fault was it they did not meet in their primes?

[bodhi]

Funny that Johnson get´s faulted for fighting smaller fighters but Liston does not. You might call that hypocrisy.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Chris, Langford scaled 156lbs for Johnson ,if we take his best weight as around 175/180lbs,that is 20/24 lbs below his best weight.

Johnson scaled 189lbs,Johnson said he was in the shape of his life for the Jeffries fight, he scaled 208lbs for that so 19lbs below his optimum weight.


Factor in that Langford was the more experienced fighter,with over 50 fights under his belt.


Harry Wills gets a ton of credit for beating a porky, 39 years old Langford, yet Johnson is castigated for beating a younger version.


When Johnson absolutely dominated McVey, before koing him in the last round, McVey had allready stopped names like Kid Carter,Fred Russell and Denver Ed Martin..

McVey was no middle either ,he scaled 207 to Johnson's 190lbs


Jeannette was 26 when he first fought Johnson and ,27 for their last encounter.I think it's safe to assume he had pubic hair.

Jeffries was past it , but whose fault was it they did not meet in their primes?

What other HW champ has to boast his rating by claiming credit for beating a 5'6 superwelter? Fact remains that Mcvey and Jeannette were both green as grass and were avoided by Johnson as they grew into their respective primes.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Seamus

I suppose we are giving him tons of credit for beating Fitzsimmons, also.

My stance is quite clear: he gets credit for the fact that if you drew up a top ten list of his prime, you'd find he'd beaten them all.

The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts and even if you're to claim each individual victory is shit, the feat of cleaning out a top ten certainly isn't.