Which Heavyweight Is Possibly Overrated Because Of Nostalgia?

Liston was not a smoker

 

While I don’t necessarily agree that Usyk possesses a greater skill set than most 70s HWs, it’s fine to have that opinion as long as all other factors are weighted in their due proportions - and that includes the reduced skills sets and relatively poor stamina that come along with SHW sized HWs.

Usyk has a bit of height and weight on prime Liston but in several other ways Liston could be viewed as the “bigger” man, not least for Sonny possessing a longer reach.

Materially, what does Usyk’s extra height and expressly bulked up extra weight actually give him over Liston?

One could still reasonably consider Liston to be the more powerful puncher of at least equal strength.

Also, Usyk hasn’t got by purely on skills alone.

He has taken his fair share of punishment which is why we know he has a great beard.

If he possessed anything less than the chin he has he may well have been a bust at HW.

 

Everyone before Liston considered great H2H alltime is at least somewhat overrated. Probably Dempsey and Marciano generally 2 most overrated since many consider them amoung the very greatest. Doesn’t mean they didn’t have great careers and weren’t tough as nails. It just means that H2H against fighters from the modern era they would be at way too great a disadvantage based on size technique training diet and supplements. Also based on the size of the talent pool where the US and world populations greatly increased and accessibility of travel made the sport more global and integration gave greater access to fighters of color.

 

When you mention "several times" it came of sounding like it's more than one guy.

Catch said he never unified, not that he never tried.

 

Sure. To be clear I’m not precluding size as a factor. I’m simply pointing out that it’s a factor that should be weighted (excuse pun) in due proportion relative to all other contributing factors.

At least in the current era of SHWs, their even greater size in and of itself can now come with its own distinct disadvantages.

 

It really depends how we rate his comeback. His win over Moorer is monumental. But if we rate Foreman around 20 from his first career (but you can argue 15), ain't no way his comeback moves him up to the Top 5, not to mention Top 3.

 

I think it was 8 doctors all up who certified Liston’s shoulder injury to be legit. I think they also displayed supporting X-rays.

Still, if one doesn’t believe a legit shoulder injury per their own eye test, even 100 concurring doctors wouldn’t convince them - as such, pundits will always reach for the generic but never proven claim that “he” or “they” were simply paid off to falsify their findings.

To further make the point re rejection of all evidence otherwise, I think one of the reporters present at the medical briefing questioned (albeit part jokingly) if the x-rays were even actually of Liston’s own shoulder.

 

Yes, but I know that you’re knowledgable of his career.

Okay, but he spoke of him in a negative way, and I didn’t know if he knew that he’d tried, which is why I mentioned it.

Again, the point was: You have to take into account the different circumstances, and his relationship with King.

 

Yeah, I would largely agree. But to give him some props he did KO glass cannon Cooney, dominated Pierre Coetzer (the same Coetzer that Riddick Bowe had to repeatedly low blow to get the win), beat Moorer, and was robbed vs Briggs. And his Boxing IQ and defense got better in the 90's.

 

He knew full well he tried and was correct on what he was saying. Holmes cops less scrutiny and is more excused than probably every other name heavyweight champ. People bend over backwards for him. The topic has been argued dozens of times. Cooney was the last dangerous genuine top 5 guy he fought and there's a distinct lack of top contenders prior as well. It's a reign full of quantity but eye openingly short of quality when one looks closely. After the Witherspoon scare he blatantly stated no more tough guys and he certainly backed that up.

Don King is conveniently blamed, the politics of the time, anything graspable. No-one reigning for long is blamed for lack of a unification, the problem is a bunch of the better heavyweights were fighting each other and sporting losses while Holmes barely fought one of them. Weaver and Witherspoon were fine wins in restrospect but they were lowly regarded and thought to be walkovers when they actually happened. Witherspoon was a 6-1 underdog, Weaver was higher. They were accidental. No difficult fight was rematched, some point blank refused. Pinklon Thomas was openly refused by Holmes on the basis he fought Gerrie Coetzee, the South African. Not all that long later Holmes is trying to fight him for huge dollars.

In all his reign Holmes never fought the #1 heavyweight/best opponent (beside himself). He defended against five top #5 guys, one who had been there 5 minutes. Outside his reign he beat Shavers #5 and Mercer #6. Tho he gets a bit passionate at times catch is correct in most of his criticisms of Holmes. It's all there in black and white. At the same time a guy like Marciano, who defended against 4 x #1 and 1 x #2 has his reign scrutinized and dissected over hundreds and hundreds of pages. It's bizarre.

Talking further Charles reign, despite being in a weak era, is also a bit weak. He did face the top dog to win the title tho. Wlad faced the best opponent 3 times which gave him seven wins over top #5 guys.

It's all a fascinating study.

 

Ingo literally laid him out.

 

Usyk would legit be huge in any era before like the 90s

 

Where would you rank him H2H?

 

By Ingo, are you referring to ingemar Johansson?

 

Ingo literally laid out Patterson? That’s incorrect. Perhaps you meant to type Liston?

During the Floyd vs Ingo fight, there were 7 ruled KDs IIRC. Upon the 7th KD, Floyd was rising yet again when the ref stopped it.

Also, the last Ingo punch to put Floyd down was to the back of the head - technically illegal.