Can Liston Dismantle Wlad?

So longevity alone isn't a strong argument?

Again, name me 10 HWs with much better careers than Wladimir. Why wouldn't you if it's so easy?

 

No.

They don't have to be "much better" to be better, do they?

If you think there aren't ten heavyweights in history with better resumes than Wlad, then you are sadly deluding yourself.

 

Louis, Ali, Holmes, Lewis, Marciano, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, Liston, Johnson, Holyfield. That’s 11, I could probably name another 4 who justifiably rank above him also. Wlad’s era and competition was truly awful.

 

Yet the ancient dregs of his era are still fighting at the highest levels and giving a good account of themselves

 

Why? Because you said so?

To say that he doesn't have any case, then they would have to be much better.

Liston, Tyson and Johnson are arguable to say the least.

 

Vlad all day long for me. Too big and skilful.

 

You asked, I answered. If all you're going to do is respond to that answer in fatuously puerile fashion, why ask in the first place?

If longevity alone makes a strong case then, by your rationale, all we need is another heavyweight to come along, last a bit longer as champion, regardless of who they beat in the process and make their claim to a place in the top-10.

If that's how you want to roll with your ratings, then that's your prerogative.

Call me picky but, I need something more than a drawn out succession of wins over stiffs to make an impression on the Top-10.

I have at no time stated that Wlad "doesn't have any case". I asked you why you thought he had a "strong case", other than the aspect of his longevity which, some several posts later, you've still failed to do.

And, no - 'they' just have to be demonstrably better and, since Wlad has **** all on his resume to write home about, this isn't difficult to demonstrate. Get it?

Wlad doesn't have a name in his win column that is anywhere near the level of rating to that of Patterson, Folley, Holmes, Spinks, Langford, Fitzsimmons.

Nor does he have anything like wins against opposition rated at the level of, say:

Corbett
Sharkey
Willard
Tyson
Jeffries
Walcott
Charles
Moore
Norton
Frazier
Ali
Holyfield
V. Klitschko
Schmeling
Baer
Liston
Foreman

Moreover, I can't think of any heavyweight that one might typically see with a place in the top-10 who, in so far as when Ring Ratings came into play and could be applied, lost to three unrated opponents, in their prime.

Wlad did (and avenged only one of these).

 

But your criteria are not definitive criteria. Sure, longevity alone won't make you GOAT candidate but it's very important part of discussion. One signature win doesn't make you top 10 ever either, you need combination of both and I don't think Wlad looks bad in comparison to other champions in that.

 

I find the longevity argument persuasive because to ignore it is to hold the opposite view: that in ten years the entire division was abysmal and produced no fighters of quality. Strangely now that Wlad has retired some folks are saying the HW civision looks good. What is more likely: (a) that there were no decent fighters in 10 years or that (b) one man made the entire division look like bums during his reign? Since we already have the example of dominant champions get underrated because they decimated their opposition, I think option (b) is more likely.

 

There is no question he fought in a weak era.

 

I have not asserted that they are.

So, we're agreed that longevity, by itself, is not enough to make a strong case. Because, you indicated otherwise, earlier.

Of course it doesn't. I haven't asserted this, either.

The level of a boxer's opposition overall, their results, their best wins and worst losses, the manner of the victories/losses, as well as the fights themselves and their actual performances therein, combine to demonstrate the level at which that boxer can compete.

Longevity, like all other factors in boxing, has a context and, in the context of Wlad's career, I think his longevity is a product of being a good, disciplined heavyweight in a crap era, during which time he defended against a lot of mediocre opponents. Due to this, Wlad's ledger lacks the type of marquee win, in which he demonstrated the characteristics of a great champion.

He was a fair to good champion, just not a great one, in my opinion.

 

With all due respect, Mike Tyson was an intimidator, with his menacing grin, his attire that he wore into the ring, his intimidating ring center stare. So would have Wlad done the same to Mike? Please explain, I am just curious for your take on this. Tyson was very brutal in the ring like a prime George Foreman and a prime Sonny Liston.

 

No I didn't, but being so high for so long is very strong argument for being inside top 10 - at least for me. Him lacking great wins is a reason why I don't have him higher, not the reason to keep him lower than top 10 or top 15. Besides, someone like Povetikin is highly underrated historically.

So you argue that HW division was crap for almost 20 years? I don't buy it.

Very few HWs are great in asbolute sense, but relative to other HWs he's definitely among the best champions ever. I don't have him high enough to compare him to top 5, as he lacked signature wins of that level but he's definitely inside 8-15 range within my criteria. You can have your own and call Wladimir "fair", feel free to disagree. Just don't act like your opinion is superior.

 

I know everyone is trying to make Sonny Liston out like he was an enourmous beast, but Liston was 6'1" and in the 215-220 range.

His hands looked enormous when he was punching guys the size of Canelo (like Albert Westphal), but Wlad was huge.

I had the mispleasure of watching some of the Wlad-Povetkin fight the other day.

When I saw this thread title, all I could think was Wlad would grab the back of Liston's neck, push him down, hold, grab, tie up, push Liston back, step back at a distance land some hard shots, grab Liston's neck, push him down, hold, grab, tie up, repeat ...

Yes, Brewster beat Wlad once. Very exciting fight. But Brewster was also completely dominated and floored early ... and after that fight ... was when Wlad became the grabbing clinching master.

And Wlad was more than strong enough to manhandle Liston like he manhandled Povetkin.

I would say Wlad fought guys who could hit as hard as Liston. And some of them beat Wlad. But Liston never fought ANYONE like Wlad Klitschko.

Between all the clinching and the potshotting by Wlad, Liston might get in some shots to hurt Wlad. But Liston could be easily frustrated. And Wlad would frustrate him to death and wear him out with all the grabbing and leaning. (I was frustrated just watching Wlad in most fights this decade. I think we forget how much and how effectively he used to grab, because he was so tall and strong.)

I think Wlad in the early 2010s would've been a clear winner over Liston, possibly by stoppage, in a truly awful fight to watch.