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

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Seamus

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.

Its not a mantra, its a fact.

Johnson fought a lot more world class opponents over a much loneger period.

In fact you have scored something of an own goal, because Johnson actualy fought a lot more guys who weighed more than 200lbs.

We could compare the six best fighters over 200lbs that Johnson beat to the six best that Liston beat.

[apollack]

What really hurts Liston isn't just that he lost to Ali, big deal, every top fighter did at some point, but the fact that he quit on the stool when the going got tough, and only after 6 rounds, and then went out with a one-punch KO in the rematch. If he had tried hard for 15 and lost a decision his legacy would have been better than simply by quitting on the stool. That makes a lot of folks feel that Liston was a great front runner, and particularly good against a guy who would duke it out with him, but who could be badly frustrated by an elite cute boxer with speed and defense. That also hurts him in head-to-head with Johnson, because Jack was a defensive wizard who would have made Sonny miss and get frustrated, and all the while Jack would have talked as much as or even more smack to Sonny than Ali did. And when Sonny's face got puffed up, which it did with Ali and would have with Johnson too, then Sonny would have imploded. When Johnson lost his crown in 1915, which he had held since late 1908, it was in the 26th round. This was a 37-year-old guy with enough championship pride that he was not about to lose his title by quitting on the stool.

As for career resume, there is no way in hell that Johnson would ever have gotten a title shot in that era unless he had cleaned out the division and convinced the press and public that he was the leading contender.

[Vic-JofreBRASIL]

Originally Posted by bodhi

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

Originally Posted by apollack

What really hurts Liston isn't just that he lost to Ali, big deal, every top fighter did at some point, but the fact that he quit on the stool when the going got tough, and only after 6 rounds, and then went out with a one-punch KO in the rematch.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by apollack

That also hurts him in head-to-head with Johnson, because Jack was a defensive wizard who would have made Sonny miss and get frustrated, and all the while Jack would have talked as much as or even more smack to Sonny than Ali did. And when Sonny's face got puffed up, which it did with Ali and would have with Johnson too, then Sonny would have imploded.

Yeah but this is speculation on your side. I can just as well state that Johnson had the luxury of facing opponents who barely knew how to threw a jab, rarely kept their hands up, and fought like they'd be taxed if they threw a combination. They generally had a bare knuckle transition style of boxing and as a result Liston could blast Jack out of there early.

The question is "who had the better career resume". Respect the game.

[WhyYouLittle]

Originally Posted by apollack

As for career resume, there is no way in hell that Johnson would ever have gotten a title shot in that era unless he had cleaned out the division and convinced the press and public that he was the leading contender.

Excellent point and so obvious it's embarrassing we missed it. There's no way a black man (specially one with Johnson's personality) would ever get near a title shot if he didn't prove his superiority over every single other contender in the horizon. We could trash every single name in Johnson's record on his way to Burns, it's doubtful we could point anything else Johnson could have done to improve his resume at least up to that point.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by janitor

Its not a mantra, its a fact.

Johnson fought a lot more world class opponents over a much loneger period.

In fact you have scored something of an own goal, because Johnson actualy fought a lot more guys who weighed more than 200lbs.

We could compare the six best fighters over 200lbs that Johnson beat to the six best that Liston beat.

Liston:

Machen
Besmanoff
Valdes
Williams
Bethea

and if you spot him a pound, you can include Folley

Johnson:

Moran
The green as a shoot McVea
The shot, pathetic Jeffries, after 5 years of retirement

I don't think Ed Martin or Sandy Ferguson were 200 against Johnson.

Yeah, why don't you finish the Johnson list... It is a little less than awe-inspiring.

[SuzieQ49]

I would include Henry Clark in the list of best guys fought above 200lb for Liston. Clark was top 10 rated, and a good young fighter.

I would also definitely include the 6'5 205lb Mike Dejohn. He was rated in the top 7 in the world, and was a dangerous puncher. Far better than Besmanoff whom you included

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

I would include Henry Clark in the list of best guys fought above 200lb for Liston. Clark was top 10 rated, and a good young fighter.

I would also definitely include the 6'5 205lb Mike Dejohn. He was rated in the top 7 in the world, and was a dangerous puncher. Far better than Besmanoff whom you included

I'm at work, gimme a break.

[he grant]

Originally Posted by apollack

What really hurts Liston isn't just that he lost to Ali, big deal, every top fighter did at some point, but the fact that he quit on the stool when the going got tough, and only after 6 rounds, and then went out with a one-punch KO in the rematch. If he had tried hard for 15 and lost a decision his legacy would have been better than simply by quitting on the stool. That makes a lot of folks feel that Liston was a great front runner, and particularly good against a guy who would duke it out with him, but who could be badly frustrated by an elite cute boxer with speed and defense. That also hurts him in head-to-head with Johnson, because Jack was a defensive wizard who would have made Sonny miss and get frustrated, and all the while Jack would have talked as much as or even more smack to Sonny than Ali did. And when Sonny's face got puffed up, which it did with Ali and would have with Johnson too, then Sonny would have imploded. When Johnson lost his crown in 1915, which he had held since late 1908, it was in the 26th round. This was a 37-year-old guy with enough championship pride that he was not about to lose his title by quitting on the stool.



As for career resume, there is no way in hell that Johnson would ever have gotten a title shot in that era unless he had cleaned out the division and convinced the press and public that he was the leading contender.

AS always a terrific post.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

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.

I don't boost Johnson's rating for him beating Langford, but I do try and put it in perspective. I rate Johnson on the fact that he beat

Gardner
Childs
Martin
Kaufman
Ross
Burns
Flynn
Ferguson
Butler
Klondike.

In fact apart from a highly dubious decision against him in the Hart fight,and a debatable dsq to Jeannette ,whom he mastered many times, Johnson went nearly 15 years without a defeat.

I haven't made a pick in this apples /oranges argument. But I think Johnson is being somewhat short -changed.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by he grant

AS always a terrific post.

Asskisser, he doesn't even address the issue of the thread.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by mcvey

I don't boost Johnson's rating for him beating Langford, but I do try and put it in perspective. I rate Johnaon on the fact that he beat

Gardner
Childs
Martin
Kaufman
Ross
Burns
Flynn
Ferguson
Butler
Klondike.

In fact apart from a highly dubious decision against him in the Hart fight,and a debatable dsq to Jeannette ,whom he mastered many tines. Johnson went nearly 15 years without a defeat.

I haven't made a pick in this apples /oranges argument. But I think Johnson is being somewhat short -changed.

Exactly how much credence does Johnson receive, as a heavyweight, for beating Gardner? And what credence does he get for beating the single worst fighter to ever vie for a title in Ross? Why doe you even list Ross?

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Seamus

Exactly how much credence does Johnson receive, as a heavyweight, for beating Gardner? And what credence does he get for beating the single worst fighter to ever vie for a title in Ross? Why doe you even list Ross?

TBH, I am not sufficiently engaged with this thread to really give a shit what the outcome will be.I haven't even made a pick.

It's an apples/oranges argument.

I could point out that Johnson offered to defend his title against McCarty then considered the best of the White Hopes.

Promoter Tommy Burns turned him down, because he wanted to slip Pelkey in with McCarty,[we know how that turned out. ]
I could point out that Johnson took ads out in many prominent papers stating he would defend his title against ANYONE for what Burns had received for defending it against him,$30,000.


I could believably say that Johnson may well have beaten Jeffries in 1905 ,which would put him out of reach here.

You could just as plausibly state that if Liston was given a shot at the crown when Ingo and Floyd were playing pass the parcel with it , he may have won the title a couple of years before he did,and just as emphatically ,[does anyone pick Ingo to beat him?] He would then have another Champ as a scalp.


How you determine the merits of Johnson's opponents pre- title without having seen any of them on film is amazing ,is it by osmosis?

I really only involved myself when I thought a couple of things were being distorted.


Bottom line, it's not really vital to my existence to have a definitive answer on this subject.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by mcvey

I don't boost Johnson's rating for him beating Langford, but I do try and put it in perspective. I rate Johnson on the fact that he beat

Gardner
Childs
Martin
Kaufman
Ross
Burns
Flynn
Ferguson
Butler
Klondike.

In fact apart from a highly dubious decision against him in the Hart fight,and a debatable dsq to Jeannette ,whom he mastered many times, Johnson went nearly 15 years without a defeat.

I haven't made a pick in this apples /oranges argument. But I think Johnson is being somewhat short -changed.

I agree that Johnson's longevity is impressive and probably the best of all HW champions up to when Joe Louis came. But it should be noted that this could've been perceived differently if he had fought the best as a champion. It's a quantity vs quality thing this.

[PetethePrince]

Originally Posted by Seamus

This just has me shaking my head.

Good

The Jeffries that Johnson fought was horrible, not bad, not ill-trained, but deficient in every manner to engage in heavyweight boxing.

You could say that. I would actually argue that Jeffries probably was more ill-trained than deficient in a shot and shouldn't be licensed due to brain-damage ala old Ali or Holyfield kind of way. I wouldn't be surprised if that Jeffries was capable of beating at least some of the other "ranked" HWs of that day. Maybe that's too much credit. I do think he dropped far too much weight, too fast by the sounds of it. That definitely affected his performance.

Ketchell was a syphlitic, hophead drunk middleweight in a staged fight, not a lot credit given there, sorry.

Is the Ketchel fight being staged really determined as a consensus nowadays. I always thought that was myth. Was Ketchel drunk when he landed that right hand? How badly was the syphlis at that time... he had just beaten Papke for the MW title 3 months earlier.

Moran had been beaten half a dozen times before meeting Johnson, including being finished by a Who's Who of Nobodies.

Losses were far more prevalent in those days for obvious reasons. While I won't bolster the credentials of Moran as he's not some great fighter. I'm not trying to make him out to be anyway. I think your standards may be a little exceptional for the time period. This is exactly why you listed Jeffries, Johnson, and Dempsey are the three most overrated fighters (Unless you were joking).

The lengths some will go to bolster Johnson's record of excellence offends even my not-so-delicate sensibilities.

Uh huh. Do you rank any pre 50's HW in the top 10 besides Joe Louis then? Times were different. Johnson's record is fallible but more respectable than you're giving credit for. I don't even have to me what all the sports writers and historians thought of his ability and skills during his time. I know what you think of his incessant spoiling and showboating.