How the fricking hell does THAT constitute Williams being claimed as an ATG? Get a grip lol. The washed up alchoholic corpse of Cooney that Spinks knocked out (which IS the Cooney both of us are talking about) had fought once in 3 years amid all the abuse. There are any amount of good fighters that would have turned the trick on him. This was the shell of a guy that never beat anyone of prime substance even at his best, and he was far removed from that. Bonecrusher? Having an excellent chance against Bonecrusher constitutes an ATG? The guy just wasn't THAT good. He was easily dfeated by Tony Tubbs, does anyone claim Tubbs to be an ATG? Marvis Frazier beat him by a wide margin, does anyone claim Marvis to be an ATG? How about Rodriguez? Smith had a big punch and some heart and improved a bit as he went on. He was quite limited however. He was being beaten resoundingly by Bruno before getting somewhat lucky in the last round. Weaver was chinny as anything by the time Bonecrusher beat him. As for Witherspoon, Tim had basically shut him out over 12 rounds just a year earlier. If you did your research you would know there was a lot of political rubbish going on in that rematch and i for one take very little notice of it. It's been discussed at length in here in the past. Don't waste too much time on a lengthy reply as i am probably about done on this one. I do appreciate the time you take posting at length even if i mostly disagree. I used to do the same years ago but burnt out a bit and try to keep things a lot tighter nowadays.
it's a huge leap of faith putting Williams on a pedestal against better fighters than he was able to actually win fights against in real life. His best win was Billy Daniels for goodness sake! On points, not by knockout. Williams blew every step up in class he got! (and he was fed a lot of career padders between those fights) he blew each step up, he blew it with Satterfeild, with Liston, with Machen with Terrell in the rematch and that's before the gunshot wound. Why would anyone back him against a better fighter than Billy Daniels?
I dont understand, please spell out for me why somebody with less credentials than say ..Michael Grant..for actual wins...should be afforded so much credence? Nobody is ever championing Grant are they?
Somebody here said that Lizton had sparred with Charles. I Hadn't known that. I wonder how those sessions went and what Charles' thoughts about Sonny were. Hmmm. Anyway, I want to mention here that Lizton was already past his prime in the Ali fights. Regarding Liston vs Tyson, Sonny by KO, early. The peekaboo style is a disaster against Liston. Mike would get dominated by the jab and uppercuts and Liston would have a big psychological advantage as well.
It was one fight after Listons best win wasn't it? Remember, All fighters look less good losing. But I think Sonny did look better in 1960.
So what? If they fought two years earlier it would have been 2 years plus after his best win. Just because he didn't have the chance to decimate Floyd (or another big name if around at the time) until later career doesn't mean he was prime or peak. Hookandjab obviously knows what he is talking about.
Y'all know me. Big Tyson fan here. I'll say this - Sonny Liston is one of a handful of men to genuinely give Mike Tyson a 50/50 battle. I lean towards Mike like I always do, because of his speed, but Liston would be an extremely tough go.
I think it would boil down to who wanted in most in this one. Both are going to be throwing solid massive punches and can't see either guy showing fear. It will be a battle of the ego s I believe. Top dog fight!. The one I lean to is liston. He gave up against Ali I believe similar to Duran V leonard. He couldn't do any thing with Ali, he couldn't hurt him, couldn't touch him! But tyson quit against evender when the going got tough and decided to foul his way out so mentally I believe tyson would fold take a beating then be stopped on his feet in the tenth
The timing of that fight had nothing to do with Sonny's performance. Floyd was made to order Liston. The result would have been the same five years earlier or five years later.