It’s negligible. You don’t think one inch is negligible? Unlike Rocky, Floyd weighed less than180 pounds for most of his fights. Patterson was more of a natural lightheavyweight than anything else.
In 1956 Valdes and Baker were the two leading contenders. They fought an eliminatior after Rocky beat Moore.
Even if that were true - which it isn't, they were ranked #2 and #3 when they met - it would still be wrong to claim that Moore beat the #1 and #2 contenders since none of this happened until after Moore got his title shot.
Who cares? Baker and Valdes were leading men. If Baker was #3 rather than #2 then I apologise. A convincing winner between Baker and Valdes could have put both above Moore in the rankings in 1956.
From 1956 when he won the vacant title at the age of 21 until 1960 when he lost the title to Liston ,Patterson was never under 182lbs for his defences and more typically averaged out at around 185/186lbs.
Im not familiar with the criteria of past arguments and I'm beginning to wish I hadn't started this thread.The size of the man who broke Liston's jaw is irrelevant and any objective poster would recognize that I hope. Earnie Shavers had his jaw broken by Jerry Quarry ,Shavers faced many men appreciably bigger than Quarry,and some were bigger hitters.There is no correlation between size and the ability to break a mans jaw.Jack Dempsey broke the jaw of Big Ben Wray,7 foot tall and over 300lbs,Dempsey was a midget in comparison. I'd pick Liston to beat up and stop Marciano inside 7 rounds , and would not be shocked if he managed the deed a lot quicker. It' s just styles,a slowish,small swarmer ,25/ 30lbs lighter who cut easily,who did not have great defence,or boxing skill,isnt beating Liston imo.Frazier would do better,but would also lose ,yet I pick Marciano to beat Frazier.Its all about who is coming out of the opposite corner.
The size of man that survived the distance, injured and beat Liston is relevant if there is a notion that a certain size is just too small to compete with Liston. I respect your opinion even if I differ with you over the outcome.
So, you are pitting an 8 fight veteran version of Liston against Marciano here? Are you that intellectually dishonest? How about an 8 fight version of Liston against the Marciano who fought Bill Hardeman? Or is that too logical?
If you read what I responded to it was the Lowrey fights and Walcott, everyone has the learning curve- I dont hold that against Liston or Marciano As far as the Whitehurst fights Whitehurst was still KO'd x2 by Moore (last fight being a month before Whitehurst fought Liston) and LD 2x by Sonny Liston- rules are rules & saved by the bell is one of them!
No I am not putting an 8 fight kid on trial. I think you even know this. Rocky might have lost to marshal after 8 fights too. All I am saying is, even when he got better, you cant rule out sonny Losing again to a better guy that small. Because it happened before! Sure he was inexperienced but physical advantage made no difference. Adter that, Where is the evidence Sonny beats every single great fighter that size?
I agree, but personally, if I were reprising the second Liston go with Whitehurst I wouldn't confine myself to the bald decision. It rather smacks of deliberately leaving out a pretty relevant fact,imo.
We are talking chalk and cheese here,a novice Liston and a prime Liston.That to me is more germane to the argument than size. Thank you for the compliment and I reciprocate it.
You are doubling down on stupid here. He lost to a 26 fight vet. When he got a bit more experience, what happened?
For me it isn't just the size,though it is a factor,imo,its the style and relative boxing skills, lack of hand and foot speed,.a propensity to cut, lack of reach etc.I just see the odds stacked too steeply against Rocky here.
