Who had the better Career Resume...Liston or Johnson - Page 5

KuRuPT · 08-01-2012, 05:16 PM

It's a silly premise and conclusion to make anyways. HW back in those days were smaller than today.. but yet, they decide to still compare the era (knowing the above fact full well) with eras where there was generally bigger HW's. How does that make sense... You beat the best of your era and that is all you can do. During Johnson's time fighters and people were smaller in general and choose to be smaller to be able to last 45 rounds.. Johnson beat everybody and anybody who was a contender during his time.. and did so with utter ease the vast majority of time and multiple times at that. Guys who all learned very simillar techniques of the time, diet, strength workouts etc etc.. When the playing field was the same Johnson dominated far longer and far more convincingly than Liston.. Period. Because Bolt has run WAY faster than Jesse Owens.. does that mean Owens wasn't fast? No.. He was fast for his time and better than anybody else with the training and techniques of the time. Liston.. well.. he wasn't.

KuRuPT · 08-01-2012, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus

Byrd was an established force at heavyweight and weighed in at 213 pounds. Langford had beaten no one yet of note in the heavyweight ranks and weighed in at 156 pounds. Johnson was, for the day, a full fledged heavyweight at 185 pounds, just 9 pounds shy of his dominating performance against Burns.

I am not denigrating Johnson for beating the Langford like a redheaded stepchild. Kudo's for him. However, for me, it is not the shining moment on a great resume when a legit heavyweight takes out a middleweight.

Liston's best win didn't even weight 200 pounds... and this is suppose to be impressive? How many HOF did Liston beat please? That comparison should go well..

Legend X · 08-01-2012, 05:22 PM

Floyd Patterson was a blown-up middleweight too.
A light-heavy at most.
His trainers said they had to make sure he eats loads or he'd be headed back down to middleweight.

janitor · 08-01-2012, 05:27 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus

Byrd was an established force at heavyweight and weighed in at 213 pounds. Langford had beaten no one yet of note in the heavyweight ranks and weighed in at 156 pounds. Johnson was, for the day, a full fledged heavyweight at 185 pounds, just 9 pounds shy of his dominating performance against Burns.

I think it is fair to say that Langford wen't on to be an established force at heavyweight.

Quote:

I am not denigrating Johnson for beating the Langford like a redheaded stepchild. Kudo's for him. However, for me, it is not the shining moment on a great resume when a legit heavyweight takes out a middleweight.

Here we differ.

I am prepared to give a heavyweight credit for beating a middleweight if the middleweight proves themself at heavyweight.

The same logic applies to a fighter who is young or inexperienced.

I personaly give Johnson a lot more credit for beating Sam McVea, because McVea was regarded as a force in the division, while Langford was just testing the waters.

janitor · 08-01-2012, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

The 6 best Liston beat

6'3 215lb Cleveland Williams 2x
6'3 212lb Nino Valdes
6'4 202lb Mike Dejohn
6'3 215lb Henry Clark
6'0 204lb Wayne Bethea

Williams was rated # 10, DeJohn # 7, Bethea # 9, Clark # 7, and Valdes was rated # 2 earlier that year.

On film, some of these guys display tremendous punching power and look much more advanced skill wise than the big men Jack Johnson fought

Who were Johnson's best?

Frank Moran? Terrible. A gooftrooper.
James Jeffries? Coming off a 6 year layoff
Sandy Fergusson?
Sam McVea? Had his balls even dropped yet?
Tony Ross?
Tom Cowler?

Put whatever spin on it you wan't.

The bottom line is that Johnson fought a lot more guys over 200lbs, and a lot more fighters over 200lbs who were top 10 material at the time.

Playing the size card for Liston here is digging yourself into a hole.

PetethePrince · 08-01-2012, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus

How much credit would we give Wladmir Klitschko is he beat Sergio Martinez? Would it be considered a defining victory in a Hall of Fame career?

If his name was Jack Johnson, it sure would.

The size discrepancy between Wlad & Byrd is relatively close to Johnson and Langford, which of those opponents were of a higher quality?

What's funny is you laud Langford as the P4P best ever.

Your standards for early HW pugilism are exorbitant.

SuzieQ49 · 08-01-2012, 06:01 PM

Quote:

The bottom line is that Johnson fought a lot more guys over 200lbs, and a lot more fighters over 200lbs who were top 10 material at the time.

Care to name any? Because Zora Folley was about 200lb. I could throw his name onto the list.

What prime heavyweights above 200lb did Johnson defeat who could compare to Cleveland Williams and Zora Folley?

SuzieQ49 · 08-01-2012, 06:13 PM

what 200lb + fighter did Johnson beat on film that has the punching power and left jab of a Nino Valdes?

KuRuPT · 08-01-2012, 06:14 PM

So liston resume is better based on Folley and Williams... you jest?

SuzieQ49 · 08-01-2012, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

So liston resume is better based on Folley and Williams... you jest?

Folley, Machen, Williams, and Patterson....Yes.

Patterson is clearly far better on film than anyone Johnson beat

Machen, Folley are better textbook skillful boxers than anyone johnson beat

Williams is a bigger puncher than anyone johnson beat

janitor · 08-01-2012, 06:28 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Care to name any? Because Zora Folley was about 200lb. I could throw his name onto the list.

You couldn't because he was under 200lbs.

Quote:

What prime heavyweights above 200lb did Johnson defeat who could compare to Cleveland Williams and Zora Folley?

Folley is not even in the question, and it is far from clear how good Williams was.

Johnson certainly beat 200lb+ fighters who had better credentials at the time than Williams.

Martin, McVea, Jeffries and even Ferguson had a much higher standing relative to the division that Williams.

Of course it dosn't matter what their standig was, because you will simply ignore it and say that Williams was better.

SuzieQ49 · 08-01-2012, 06:35 PM

Quote:

You couldn't because he was under 200lbs.

So 199lb does not count?

SuzieQ49 · 08-01-2012, 06:36 PM

Why would you even bring up Denver Ed Martin when he was weighing in between 186 and 190lb?

janitor · 08-01-2012, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

So 199lb does not count?

Obviously not.

Otherwise you are effectivley manipulating rules to drag a strong opponent on Listons resume into the group.

If you are comparing their opponents over 200lbs, then you are comparing their opponents over 200lbs.

janitor · 08-01-2012, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Why would you even bring up Denver Ed Martin when he was weighing in between 186 and 190lb?

I understand that Martin was 205.

08-01-2012, 05:16 PM	#61
KuRuPT Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,595 vCash: 500	Re: Who had the better Career Resume...Liston or Johnson It's a silly premise and conclusion to make anyways. HW back in those days were smaller than today.. but yet, they decide to still compare the era (knowing the above fact full well) with eras where there was generally bigger HW's. How does that make sense... You beat the best of your era and that is all you can do. During Johnson's time fighters and people were smaller in general and choose to be smaller to be able to last 45 rounds.. Johnson beat everybody and anybody who was a contender during his time.. and did so with utter ease the vast majority of time and multiple times at that. Guys who all learned very simillar techniques of the time, diet, strength workouts etc etc.. When the playing field was the same Johnson dominated far longer and far more convincingly than Liston.. Period. Because Bolt has run WAY faster than Jesse Owens.. does that mean Owens wasn't fast? No.. He was fast for his time and better than anybody else with the training and techniques of the time. Liston.. well.. he wasn't.
Top

08-01-2012, 05:22 PM	#63
Legend X Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,105 vCash: 1000	Re: Who had the better Career Resume...Liston or Johnson Floyd Patterson was a blown-up middleweight too. A light-heavy at most. His trainers said they had to make sure he eats loads or he'd be headed back down to middleweight.
Top

08-01-2012, 06:13 PM	#68
SuzieQ49 Undisputed Champion East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Boston, Ma Posts: 12,959 vCash: 1000	Re: Who had the better Career Resume...Liston or Johnson what 200lb + fighter did Johnson beat on film that has the punching power and left jab of a Nino Valdes?
Top

08-01-2012, 06:14 PM	#69
KuRuPT Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,595 vCash: 500	Re: Who had the better Career Resume...Liston or Johnson So liston resume is better based on Folley and Williams... you jest?
Top

08-01-2012, 06:36 PM	#73
SuzieQ49 Undisputed Champion East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Boston, Ma Posts: 12,959 vCash: 1000	Re: Who had the better Career Resume...Liston or Johnson Why would you even bring up Denver Ed Martin when he was weighing in between 186 and 190lb?
Top