People are also leaving the fact that Liston was fairly old when he won the title ... likely 33 or so ... when he lost to Ali he was in his mid-thirties ...
I honestly dont know why liston is rated so highly. Everyone forgets that throughout the 1970s and 1980s liston was not so highley regarded. liston was impresive on film but ali burst his buble and then leotis martin shatered it. If you look at his record he never beat an unbeaten opponent and guys with chins never got ko'd by him. in fact liston never ko'd anyone who had not been ko'd before and only 3 opponents were actualy heavier than he was so he had size advantage over so many guys. This sounds harsh, he had a lot of talent but thats how it is. I can only think it was Tyson comming along where people looked back and decided liston did the same thing. Then legend took over. Tyson fans decided "maybe Liston did throw thosse fights?" "what if he was alowed to win them?" Once people decide on "what ifs" suddenly Liston becomes invincible. The myth snowballs and hey presto! a guy who was found wanting against marty marshel, who quit and lost his title in the 1st round suddenly joins the topten ratings of ATG's.
Excellent post Bigcat, and I can't say I disagree with a bit of it. The reason I think Liston is overrated by many these days is that people have begun, in the last decade or so, to make a shift from acknowledging what he could have been to giving him rankings as if he'd fulfilled that potential and actually done it. This is evidenced to me by his name going from being below guys like Johnson, Frazier, and Dempsey for most of the time past all their retirements to being commonly ranked above those 3 men. Nothing in any of their bodies of work could've possibly changed when the jump occurred, so it has to be people, decades after all men had quit fighting to build their records, suddenly started believing Sonny was more than he was to have him leapfrog the other greats. As for why that happened, a part of it may be overcompensation for Sonny getting minimal respect before, and/or it may be to make Ali's legacy look even better by building up Liston - not that Ali's legacy needs it, of course.
Well he did walk through Williams twice, in the process taking some monster shots,and true Williams was overated but he could bang.
Well Bob Satterfeild KO'd a 31-1 Big Cat in 3rds(3KDS) and 32 fights makes you hardly a novice so in light of that and the fact that Satterfeild could also be KO'd I wonder if it was such a big win
I was always big on Liston but in recent years I looked again hard and said he must be held accountable for the Ali losses, cuffs on or not and if we eliminate all that the Patterson KO's were his best wins...Liston,Foreman,Louis,Marciano,Dempsey,Baer,Lewis,Tyson were all wrong for Patterson and I fear they would have all dispatched Floyd in a rapid fashion
This post is basically a list of things that went badly for Liston. It is possible to do so for any fighter. Jack Demspey dodged the two men most likely to beat him, was out-boxed by an overweight HW and ko'd in a single round. Ali was crushed by the only prime ATG he faced and was basically out-classed by Ken Norton, before being beaten by Spinks, the second leas experienced contender in HW history. Marciano beat up old men, a dwarf that dominated the weakest era in HW history. If you are handing out victories over top 20 HW of all time Patterson to all of these men, I am handing out victories for Liston over every fighter Marciano and Dempsey ever faced.
Bingo. ESB Classic overrates him. At is as simple as that. I've hardly gotten a reasonable response to why he's as high up on some people's list. He's just a personal favorite type, really. You'll hear about the most dominating wins in Patterson. But Patterson was chinny and a style nightmare against Liston. Cus knew this. Foreman knocking Norton and Frazier around like a balling ball within 2 rounds, rather than Patterson in 1 is far more impressive for me.
I tend to agree with the above. He fought in a lousy era. The post Marciano/Walcott/Charles era was just plain weak with more ranking shenanigans than usual. Also, his "measureable" are given far too much import... almost fetishistic. I assume Frazier, Johnson and Marciano are awful because they didn't look as good against a tape measure? That said, you can't blame him for his era. I still rank him top-12 or so, with all factors considered.
Liston ate the top 10 for about 5 years. Folley and Machen were consistent top 5 fighters during this time and Patterson is a lower tier all time great Champion. Of the only two mainstays he didn't face; Cooper's people admited to ducking him and Johanssoon was in talks before getting knocked into retirement by the unherald Brian London at the fight's close. If anything he is underrated. Bold=Liston defeated. 1958 [url] This content is protected [/url] This content is protected [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] 1959 [url] This content is protected [/url] This content is protected [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] 1960 [url] This content is protected [/url] This content is protected [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] 1961 [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] This content is protected [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url] [url] This content is protected [/url]
Nothing could go further to prove my point on the era than this list of mediocrity. When the standouts are one trick ponies, blown up lightheavies, and chinny perennials... well...
For added fun, compare who stopped them? Liston, Liston, Johansson, Ali, Ali versus Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis, Williams, McBride. AND the men had comparable styles AND they had careers of identical length.
Patterson had a shaky, suspect, and or not good chin. Whatever term fits you better. How many rounds did it take to KO Tyson... then Patterson. Yeah. And how much past it was Tyson when KOed... Patterson? Yeah...
The McBride was really an RTD. Tyson quit on his stool... he wasn't KOed. Using a near 40 year old washed up Tyson as an example of his poor durability is a little laughable, especially considering he wasn't KOed. Holyfield TKOed Tyson after 11 tough rounds Douglas KOed him in the 10th round... after giving Tyson a beating. Lewis punished him for 8 rounds. And Tyson could've gotten up. Tyson was way past it and tore a ligament in his knee against Williams. Patterson was Koed by Liston in 1 round twice. It basically took 1 big shot in the first fight and it was over for Floyd. Johnson had Patterson on ***** straight for the entire 1st fight. For added fun compare those lists of men H2H. Tyson beats Liston and Johannsson. Floyd probably loses to all of them except McBride and Williams. Honestly, if it was just getting stopped and not the context of how it happens then you might have a point. But you don't.