Sonny Liston vs. Vitali Klitschko

Comparing ranked opponents seems flawed. If you are in a weak era, the top ten is still weak. A Deontaye Wilder is WBC champ, ranked 2 by Ring Magazine and has fought one other in Rings top 10. Stiverne, Povetkin, Chagaev same story.

Its highly feasible that at many times in history, these guys dont make the top 10!!!!! The last 10-15 years rankings have been taken up by lazy flawed fighters who dont take risks and protect their 0 and wait until the only decent fighters (WK, VK) eliminate the other contenders and they get their payday. We see very few title elimination bouts.

Even in Marcianos era (considered weak by many), Wallace, Baker, Walls, Satterfield etc missed title shots because the contenders would eliminate each other.

 

It is flawed, but it is less flawed than basing your ****ysis on who you think would win head to head.

That is the true pie in the sky method.

 

Men felt their power should we throw out the testament of Terrell,Liston,amd Foreman concerning Williams?
Fifty eight men were stopped by him, isn't that an indication of power? Isn't that a demonstration of showing it in the ring?
They might not have been ranked heavies, but does that mean they were all glass- jawed?
Personally I think it is nonsense to deny Williams was a monster puncher. How many ranked heavyweights did Earnie Shavers ko?Is he also a powder- puff puncher? Who has actually mentioned musculature and how it relates to punching power?

 

Agreed. I just struggle when VK is held in such esteem due to his beating "ranked" contenders, when in actuality the only two opponents who had any substance to their careers beat him

 

Footage is the only true way to ****yse a fighter.

 

I much prefer results.

 

Film is useful to an extent, but it lies too much to put all the weight on it for H2H matchups. I've seen way too many instances where guys who wouldn't have a chance based on the footage mopped the floor with the more aesthetically pleasing guy.

 

And I'm sure you've seen just as many instances where the man with the better resume gets handily beaten.

 

Yep. That's why speaking with 100% certainty in fantasy fights is a sucker's bet. If we were all that good, we'd be millionaires from betting on modern boxing where there's ample footage and information available for the vast majority of tv level fighters.

 

:good This is so true.

 

I was responding to Janitor's post #236 which contained these quotes:

"I also don't think there is a class of puncher beyond Williams in terms or raw power."

"I also don't think that Williams' power gave Liston much trouble anyway."

This doesn't just imply that Williams is a good puncher, but that he is as good a puncher as anybody, and as Liston didn't have much trouble surviving Williams' punches, he wouldn't have much trouble surviving anyone's punches.

Those are pretty strong statements.

My point is you can't really tell how hard a guy hit versus how hard another guy hit, especially from a different era.

"How many ranked heavyweights did Earnie Shavers KO?"

More than Williams.

"Is he also a powder-puff puncher?"

No one said Williams was. You guys are really into straw man arguments.

But Shavers was a much more proven puncher at the top level than Williams.

"Terrell, Liston, and Foreman."

Who was the other big punchers that Terrell faced? or Liston? Even Foreman didn't get in there with Shavers, Tyson, or Lewis.

But I think all of those guys were clearly bigger punchers judging by results than Williams.

 

You have a point, but how many guys who were top ten when he fought them did Cleveland Williams defeat?

What about Ingemar Johansson?

If you could beat a top guy or two, and a whole bunch of trial horses and fringe contenders, you got a high rating in most eras.

In the Liston-Patterson era, Tom McNeeley was top ten and got a chance at the title. Whom exactly did he defeat?

 

The big question is who did these men fight who would be considered a big puncher,

and when did they make the quotation quoted,

one problem is that it is only gracious to give credit to an opponent.

If the man is on the dais with you, what do you say? He wasn't much? Most folks wouldn't do that.

 

Well, Machen, Folley, Williams, and Valdes also lost to light-heavyweights.

Who's can be certain Adamek wouldn't beat Machen?

You are trying to shift ground. You are the one that is maintaining that Liston's opposition was so much the better that we must devalue Vitali's superior record.

But I don't think it is a done deal at all that Machen was better than Adamek or Gomez,

and Folley managed to get knocked out by Lavorante.

When you come down to it, none of Liston's victims have a victory to match Corrie Sanders knocking out Wlad.

"James Toney"

I think he was better than Machen.

"Chris Byrd"

I would favor him over all of Liston's victims.

This is the guy I would focus on, but it was a very unusual fight.

 

Never a truer word spoken my man.