Sonny Liston vs. Vitali Klitschko

Peter quit against Vitali he wasn't stopped.

He was frustrated and totally ineffective. That fight is not an indication of Vitali's power.

Wlad hurt Peter much more in the final round of their first fight than Vitali did.

Obviously Peter was much more competitive with Wlad though.

 

If you are going to use ko% as a guideline to proving ko power than we must do it with all fighters, no? Shavers was never champion yet he is one of the most highly thought of puncher in history. My point is % does not dictate whether you're a great puncher.Vits was no doubt heavy handed and a hard puncher, but MOST of his stoppages were from wearing a fighter down, not blasting them out.

 

Thinking about it, you would have to go back a long way to find a HW champ with less 1 punch power than Vitali.

I reckon you have Moorer, Frazier and Ali in the past half decade.

Everyone else is a better one shot artist imo.

 

I know of Logan because I am really old and saw him fight on TV.

And I saw almost all the other American heavyweights from that era who make up the lists on this thread, which is why I don't agree with those who feel the 21st century heavyweights couldn't compete.

It is just my judgment, and a judgment based on memory, faded as it might be, of having seen these men fight.


"bum"

is your language, not mine. No one who ever earns a top ten ranking in pro boxing, or is an Olympic or European champion, would be considered a "bum" by me. Those are outstanding achievements.

Someone else brought up Audley Harrison because he defeated Danny Williams a couple of years after Williams destroyed Tyson. In fact Harrison was never in the Ring's yearly rankings.

*One thing about Harrison--just my own thought. He didn't turn pro until the year he turned thirty. Most of his big fights were when he was in his mid to late thirties or even forties. Perhaps the British boxing public were expecting more than they should have from him.

 

"Alben Belinski the only unbeaten fighter he faced up until he fought for Hide's WBO title."

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

How many unbeaten fighters did Liston face other than Ali in his whole career?

One--Stanley Hewlett, who was 4-0 when Liston fought him. Hewlett ended his career 4-1.

Belinski was 5-0 when he fought Vitali, and ended his career 6-1.

 

LaMar Clark is brought up, but he didn't beat any good fighters at all.

It is one thing to say Vitali didn't fight the toughest competition available

and he certainly lost to the two best men he fought

but he was a world class fighter for well over a decade, I think, and there really is no comparison to Clark.

As for KO percentage, it isn't the end all and be all, but it has to be very important among men fighting top opponents. The best measurement is the knockout percentage against champions or rated opponents.

And stopping a man in ten rounds is just as much a knockout as stopping him in one round.

 

"lineal champs"

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

First place, at what point in the lineal champs career? He might not be able to beat them at their world championship form, but plenty of lineal champs lost either early or late in their careers to second-tier fighters.

Anyway, plenty of fighters got to high ranking w/o ever beating a lineal heavyweight champion, washed up or not.

 

I agree with most of your post ed. What I d is agree with is the thought process of stopping a man in 10 is the same as in 1. On paper, yes. But not as to how it correlates to whov the harder puncher was. This is why ko percentage is meaningless, hence why I brought up Clark.

 

"why make the statement?"

This is the statement, from my post #338

"My take is that he in these fights is a world better than guys like the 1959 Valdes and DeJohn."

Well, "world" was strong, but I stand behind this. Your list of Valdes' opponents often from the early fifties means nothing much about how good Valdes was in 1959.

That aside, I think the Danny Williams of his peak period about the Tyson and Vitali fights would run up a good winning percentage against the fighters on your lists, some of whom were also way on the way down when those two fighters beat them (Agramonte, Baker)

"could not even beat Sunil Sam"

I guy who was Euro champ and lost 4 fights, three to men who were one time or another world champions, and the other a Euro champion.

Why is he so awful?

And what about some of the guys your lists and whom they lost to

Willi Besmanoff--Hans Friedrich, Jacques Bro

Charlie Powell--John Riggins

**** Richardson--Howard King

Alex Miteff--Ray Batey

Just picking out a loss and downgrading the guy can be done in any era and I don't think is all that substantive an argument.

 

May I ask you a question,

If two men fight five 12 round fights against the same level competition,

and one scores two first round KO's and one second round KO but allows the other two to go the full 12 rounds,

while the other stops all five men, but all between the 7th and the 11th round,

Whom do you consider the harder and better puncher?

 

Did Liston have a chin like vitaly? Vitaly had one of the best ATG chins so it's hard to see him getting ko'd by Liston.

 

I'd say there are a number of factors to consider. When did these fights occur? What happened to these ko victims before these fights? What kind of shape were they in? What stage were the men who provided the ko's at in their respective careers? It's really not a cut and dry question ed.

 

I said the same level of competition,

in other words all things being equal,

I am just interested in your opinion--if scoring early knockouts inconsistently rather than late knockouts consistently impresses you as showing a bigger puncher.

Don't worry. I won't call you names or anything for your point of view.