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

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by Seamus

This is such a disingenuous argument. There is a far bigger difference between a 156 pounder and a 185 pounder than there is between a 241 and 213 pounder and you absolutely know this (or are a complete retard).

Let's see... David Haye just thrashed Chisora with a differential about the same, Chris Byrd was routinely able to do the same, Joe Louis could do it with ease... hell, even Roy Jones did something similar.

Now, when is the last time a World Class middleweight, fighting as at the middleweight limit took out a world class heavyweight or even cruiserweight?

I am waiting...

Not a mw but Zsolt Erdei while weighing 174 beat that Italian cw beltholder not too long ago and mostly slugged it out with him. Whe weight difference was also more than 20 pounds if I remember correctly.

[Legend X]

Harry Greb beat heavyweights while being close to the middleweight limit.

Of course fighters don't need to do that these day. In fact, they are advised against fighter outside of their division. Years ago it was often the only way to make money for the really good fighters.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by Legend X

Harry Greb beat heavyweights while being close to the middleweight limit.

Of course fighters don't need to do that these day. In fact, they are advised against fighter outside of their division. Years ago it was often the only way to make money for the really good fighters.

So, Jack Johnson is as good as say, Bill Brennan or Zsolt Edrei?

[Gazza]

Liston

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by Seamus

So, Jack Johnson is as good as say, Bill Brennan or Zsolt Edrei?

He was better than that.
Which middleweights beat a prime Jack Johnson ?

[lufcrazy]

The fact still remains the johnson beat the best of his era.

Even if we only limit liston's to 59-64 you have ali, jones, cooper, ingo and jackson missing from his resume.

As for who was better at the time you'd have to do some sort of fantasy h2h tournament.

[SuzieQ49]

Even if we only limit liston's to 59-64 you have ali, jones, cooper, ingo and jackson missing from his resume.

jackson? HAHAHAHAHAHA He was washed up by 1957. Cooper publicly refused to fight liston out of fear. Jones?? Doesn't stand a chance.


Johnson did not beat the best of his era, since he didn't beat prime versions of langford, mcvea, jeanette


Liston DID beat the best of his era...1958-1962 the best were Patterson, Machen, Williams, Folley, Ingo. Liston beat 4 out of the 5 best...all in their primes too!


Liston >>>>> Foreman

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

jackson? HAHAHAHAHAHA He was washed up by 1957. Cooper publicly refused to fight liston out of fear. Jones?? Doesn't stand a chance.


Johnson did not beat the best of his era, since he didn't beat prime versions of langford, mcvea, jeanette


Liston DID beat the best of his era...1958-1962 the best were Patterson, Machen, Williams, Folley, Ingo. Liston beat 4 out of the 5 best...all in their primes too!


Liston >>>>> Foreman

Maybe I got jackson wrong then, I don't have the ratings to hand.

Cooper's manager ducked liston that's true. Jones gave ali a tough fight but doesn't stand a chance? What kinda nonsense is that? Noone thought ali had a chance and he made liston quit.

62, 63 we should have seen liston facing top contenders like jones or ingo, plus he actually lost to ali, twice. Definitely didn't clean out his era like johnson did. The best of 1902-1912 all fell to jack.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Big Cat Williams would have flattened Denver Ed Martin

I can't categorically say that he wouldn't, but he clearly achieved far less relative to his era.

The problem with judging contenders principally on your opinion of who would win head to head, is that it lacks both testability and integrity.

In fantasy fights you can match the outcomes to your agenda, and you can have Joe Grim beating Muhammad Ali if it suits you.

When you compare fighters based on resume, your calls can be held up to scrutiny.

[KuRuPT]

Seamus... were HW in generally smaller in jack johnson's era than in subsequent eras? If so, they what good does it do comparing Eras based solely on weight, while not factoring in the above. Greb was well below "HW" of his day.. but still fought and beat many.. Same with Langford... Same with Ketchel... Yet, because by today's standards they even smaller than makes them less valid back in their own time? What type of half assed argument is this.. You're better than this Seamus

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

Seamus... were HW in generally smaller in jack johnson's era than in subsequent eras? If so, they what good does it do comparing Eras based solely on weight, while not factoring in the above. Greb was well below "HW" of his day.. but still fought and beat many.. Same with Langford... Same with Ketchel... Yet, because by today's standards they even smaller than makes them less valid back in their own time? What type of half assed argument is this.. You're better than this Seamus

I think these comparisons illuminate the fact the division has much improved from the turn of the previous century. Fighters of greater size are more skilled and much more prevalent at the tops of the ranks. It is the only division without a cap on it (unless you considered minimum weight fighters coming in lighter an advantage). There seems to be a general denial that effective weight adds an advantage for a fighter. Then why bother with weight divisions at all? Sure, there is point of diminishing returns but I don't think that occurs at 200 pounds.

In regards to Langford specifically, he was a heavyweight non-entity when Johnson, a real heavyweight by the time's standards, beat him. Johnson cheerleaders generally put Langford in his top-three scalps but to me it is not as impressive. Where do we rate Larry Temple? He pulled a one-off defeat of Langford before Johnson, so if this was such a great feat, he must surely be in the decades top ten, correct? Young Peter Jackson stopped him in his very next fight. Is his resume better than Liston's?

No, Johnson is sacrosanct (and not totally undeservingly so). He farts and every cigar chomping wannabe is claiming it to be a great moment in the sport.

[KuRuPT]

Originally Posted by Seamus

I think these comparisons illuminate the fact the division has much improved from the turn of the previous century. Fighters of greater size are more skilled and much more prevalent at the tops of the ranks. It is the only division without a cap on it (unless you considered minimum weight fighters coming in lighter an advantage). There seems to be a general denial that effective weight adds an advantage for a fighter. Then why bother with weight divisions at all? Sure, there is point of diminishing returns but I don't think that occurs at 200 pounds.

In regards to Langford specifically, he was a heavyweight non-entity when Johnson, a real heavyweight by the time's standards, beat him. Johnson cheerleaders generally put Langford in his top-three scalps but to me it is not as impressive. Where do we rate Larry Temple? He pulled a one-off defeat of Langford before Johnson, so if this was such a great feat, he must surely be in the decades top ten, correct? Young Peter Jackson stopped him in his very next fight. Is his resume better than Liston's?

No, Johnson is sacrosanct (and not totally undeservingly so). He farts and every cigar chomping wannabe is claiming it to be a great moment in the sport.

yet don't mention the fact that this is mainly because of developments in diet, equipment and various other factors. The point that can't be gotten around is that back in the day... these things didn't allow for fighters to look at pretty as they do today.. but so? The question I asked before, which you clearly ignored illustrates the point that on a level playing field (Johnson's own time) Johnson dominated pretty much everybody het met, and most with ease.... Was Jesse Owens slow.. because Bolt's time totally smashed his?

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

yet don't mention the fact that this is mainly because of developments in diet, equipment and various other factors. The point that can't be gotten around is that back in the day... these things didn't allow for fighters to look at pretty as they do today.. but so? The question I asked before, which you clearly ignored illustrates the point that on a level playing field (Johnson's own time) Johnson dominated pretty much everybody het met, and most with ease.... Was Jesse Owens slow.. because Bolt's time totally smashed his?

Was a different diet going to make Sam Langford 6-3 with a 78 inch reach? Would Tommy Burns be anything but a fat middlweight with zotfig hips?

And by the time we get to Jesse Owens in track and field, the heavyweight division had risen to a very high level, having evolved from the primordial ooze that was Johnson's era.

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by Seamus

And by the time we get to Jesse Owens in track and field, the heavyweight division had risen to a very high level, having evolved from the primordial ooze that was Johnson's era.

I thought you said the 1930s heavyweights were a load of hapless oafs off the dole queue ?
(or something like that)

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by Legend X

I thought you said the 1930s heavyweights were a load of hapless oafs off the dole queue ?
(or something like that)

That puts them quite a bit above what the 1900-1914 period offered, doesn't it?