One of the most replaceable HW champs? Sonny Liston?

213lbs Michael Hunter beat 256lbs Martin Bakole.
210lbs David Haye knocked out Derek Chisora in 5 rounds. Chisora is still having success today
209lbs Marco huck made a fight with Povetkin extremely tight
206lbs Steve Cunningham put Tyson Fury on his ass.
The Current Champion is a former undisputed Crusierweight champion
All these guys weighed about as much as a prime liston who was better than all of them. He'd have no issues today.

 

Funny, you didn’t say Liston sucks in your opening posts - don’t now frame it as if you were being honest about your true motives……

I also identified your obvious slant - that a hypothesised “win”, however it was achieved, would install itself as being as impressive as what Liston did.

Easily replicable wins? Replicable = able to be copied or reproduced exactly. Bazinga!

Anyway……

 

Points already made. If you missed them I can’t help you. Move on…..

 

Tbh J, it's a bloody hard one'.
It's hard because I've got ingrained in my mind, this huge, intimidating guy just smashing through the guy s of the time and ripping the title from Patterson.
I' don't think it's impossible that some lesser known guys could replicate Liston s run but it s unlikely they'd be so successful at it and look so good doing it.
Just my two cents worth.

 

Patterson is shorter, yes, but hear me out.

One of the common heuristic biases is the substitution of a difficult question with an easier one done so without conscious knowledge. Common marketing exploit. For majority of the boxing fanbase the debate of bigger versus smaller fighter will be substituted by who is heavier, bigger, and most notably–who hits harder. We are inescapably wired to seek certain characteristics (large canines, certain body proportions like wide shoulders, sharper jawline) and interpret them within evolutionary defined context. Size and the ability to subdue an opponent through show of physical force is absolutely the most prevailing one when it comes to determining dominance. We are not made for hitting. Not for an elaborate striking at least. We are made for wrestling as a play and typically non-escalating show of prowess (rats that do not practice their own primitive wrestling in their youth are more violent and worse at socializing.) Striking sports are somewhat an affront to nature which seeks to settle the conflicts within the realm of cues, covert and overt threats, and limited shows of violence. Any war theorist focusing on maneuvers, morale, and psychology will tell you how averse we are to close combat unless within that somewhat ritualistic social context. My point being: beware when thinking of size and pounds, because your brain does not think of it through the lenses of the Queensberry rules unless you really pay attention, and even then, it seeks to cut corners. As a James Toney enjoyer I take you as a slickness admirer though, as shoulder roll is the most boxing thing you can find (extremely precise if demanding control of possible target area that would be immensely dangerous against competent grapplers and wrestlers due to its often angled nature with non-existing hand fighting substituted by sharp counters.)

It's a bias fantasy match-ups were diseases with for years. It's absolutely effortless to imagine Wilder landing a right hand, and subconscious fear and one's own inability to be a defensively responsible, slick fighter under the Queensberry rules might further accentuates the 'boxing intuition' or a 'feeling' that the big and sizeable puncher would win. A Dunning-Kruger working his way here. Modern camera work further enhances the effect (Bakole unloading on Ajagba sounded like a thunderstorm, dear Lord) while usually being unflattering to the older fighter (you can't see the explosive, calculated game of feints and inches displayed by the best of older eras, while it becomes apparent in those more up-close shots.) But with defined hitting area, no takedowns, and pushing out or down an opponent not being a scoring criteria, size is far more of a balanced benefit than one would think, which was the leading school of though in the say 30's, when big lads were being refused by trainers because they were looking for sharp, accurate, nimble fighters. Those who could hit, and not get hit. You really ought to look at it from a point of balancing benefits (added punching power, durability, control game and range etc.), drawbacks (greater oxygen demand, far more of a target, limited shot selection up close, typically far worse inside etc.), and the realities of things (added power, yes, but some big lads still hit with padded pillows; some big uns still get rocked by cruisers; some big lads actually outcardio the smaller fighters.) The size itself is often exaggerated in imagination. Googling Lewis-Tua, Ruiz-Joshua (Andy far shorter than advertised) quickly show that the big guy absolutely can get hit, and in fact look vulnerable to a looping right or a sneaky left hand. The logistics behind making a shorter guy the champion are far more demanding because they require the combination of physical attributes and intense training usually coexisting with the shorter prime (Tyson and Frazier needed godlike working ethics to maintain their dominance and performance.) Age is more gentle for bigger men.

Now that I'm done disparaging the giants that would smack me like a fly, time to sing some praise for the short kings—more compact guys can be far more accurate, sneaky, and difficult to score on. They can unload shots that would be noticed and rubber necked or 'deafened' if thrown by a larger or less surgical man. Timing is important (I don't believe Joseph Parker hits any harder than Efe Ajagba, but when he timed an unprepared Martin Bakole he put him down like a misbehaving puppy.)

Now, Floyd is in the height range when you really need to display extraordinary characteristics (Byrd's and Toney's slickness and ability not to die of PED overdose; Tua's, Tyson's and to an extend Frazier's durability, power, and/or cardio) to compete in dense eras in which talent pool was sufficient to find a good batch of accurate, talented large gladiators (especially the Ali/Foreman sized combination of all-around attributes that we see in Usyk, Parker, Dubois who is shorter than advertised, and Kabayel). Patterson I believe had just enough to be a threat to many, but not enough for his career to be somewhat safely profitable for the fighting game standards, or relatively sustainable with the need to slog through some damaging bouts. Still..

Patterson had an all-time great handspeed, combinations, power in both hands, and extremely drilled counterpinching mind. He was the youngest heavyweight champion until Mike Tyson, with the notorious D'Amato drilling, ring intelligence which allowed him to reinvent himself and remain competitive in subsequent era, one in which he was considered an old man. Ali claimed he was the most skilled fighter he's ever faced, didn't he? And the grandmaster Archie, whilst old, was a betting favorite in their bout. Handspeed and power is often the worst enemy of an old master who cannot smother, spoil, school, and eventually drown him like he would to a more limited puncher. It's also the worst enemy of an overthinking, hands low boxer-puncher that Luis Ortiz can be. Jimmy Ellis, who is far less of a target, less plodding, and noticeably more slick than Ortiz, was repeatedly caught off-guard by an older Patterson, who busted his nose and flabbergasted him with his handspeed.

Patterson could get dropped, but so could Ortiz. Floyd could still be surprisingly hard to land clean on, and the fighters who got to him were often great counterpunchers, very accurate and sneaky, or a just destroyers like Sonny Liston (Jesus, that jab.) Conversely Patterson could box circles and unload as well, and he's had enough to impress '72 Ali who despite being faded compared to their previous bouts, was far more explosive, creative, quick-handed and fast-footed compared to Ortiz who is often plodding, pawing, and pondering, looking for a good counterpunch which is understandable given his Cuban background. On another negative note, Ortiz is also chinny and has fought a very limited amount of fighters (late starter and perhaps avoided, sure) and I doubt would replicate the success Floyd enjoyed through his career if he's taken on as many challenges as Patterson did after parting ways with Constantine D'Amato.

Bottom line, I think Patterson sneaks in a right hand followed by a combination, and shakes Ortiz. He frustrates, lulls, and explodes and him when he is setting-up counters, and lands flush, following up. Luis is a live dog, but one I would bet my money on. Floyd found and troubled far more proven fighters and Ortiz is nowhere near the granite chin of say Chuvalo, Quarry, or Ali, for him to endure and eventually dish back at Patterson with his own formidable power.

 

Don't worry, if we all do our jobs right, the police will step in before it comes to that.

 

I think you might mean "wouldn't"?

Cracking post btw.

 

A little blue these days and I don't like typing about George without being extremely through. If I make a mistake, ramble in good-spirit, or make a logical fallacy making a case for Floyd, it's not a biggie, but Foreman was like Santa to me because of how many stories my father used to tell me about him and the 70's company (meaning monologue incessantly even after I've left the room) and I always want to leave a good debate on the board when he is concerned.

RIP George.

 

Yes, I did. Hopefully it's not a Freudian slip, lol.