Larry Holmes vs Sonny Liston

I think that Mike Weaver is one of the most under rated contenders of that era.

 

You've just totally ignored me.

The only evidence you have offered for Liston being meaningfully past his prime vs. Ali (apart from speculative vagaries about what he was doing outside the ring) was the idea that he looks a bit slower on film than he did in 1960 (which is disputable in itself). Does not the fact that he looked faster against Whitehurst in 1958, then, suggest that he was past his prime in 1960 also?

 

Two fights which Holmes dominated? Not sure this is a great case for Liston.

Liston was a plodder. He never had the attributes to pressure a top fighter.

 

I'll deal with that in a moment. I've just got back from work and spent most of my precious ESB moments having a go at the Escopetards on the old Hearns/Monzon thread. Priorities...

Well, you don't take these things into account with, say, Tyson. In fact, I've seen you explicitly dismiss them.

It's pretty easy: You explain to me why you're using massive double standards. According to you, Liston's purported loss of speed between '60 and '64 is apparently in indicator of decline, but that between '58 and '60 (a shorter time frame to boot) is not. I don't get it.

Another one: Roy Jones was actually slower when he fought Toney than he was when he was in the Olympics.

 

Watch him against Berbick, Shavers or L.Spinks.
Those are dominant wins.

I have Liston near the middle of the pack. And Patterson nearer the bottom.

I seriously doubt he would box circles around Liston. I think he'd win though.

Holmes-Shavers 1 was a shut-out.
Holmes-Cobb was a shut-out.
Holmes-Berbick, I had Holmes winning at least 11 out of 15.

Holmes dominated several of the top-rated contenders.

 

My2Sense has been hilarious in this thread. Attacking the Liston lovers right where it hurts.

 

Like.....Sweet dude.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_K2Zj9UcCU[/ame]
0:05

 

I'm expecting Pete to sig this

I don't know whether you have or not. But do you think he was in decline that early?

No, that's my exact point: Speed doesn't necessarily correlate with the overall state of a fighter (especially somebody who was never a speed-merchant like Liston). But you seem to be arguing that it does in this instance.

That said, at least you're not like Q claiming that it would have been an entirely different fight had it taken place 4 years earlier.

No, I don't know whether he was better or worse. It is sensible to assume that he was certainly not significantly better or worse.

 

That is an opinion. I think he's an all time great.
He dominated his era, and beat most of the contenders around, and is a beast head to head.
On his resume, are names like Williams, Harris, Wepner, Folley, and Clark. Pretty good resume, even though it's not as deep as Holmes.

 

Because a fighter who is younger, faster, better conditioned, is not going to perform any better than the declined version? Where is the logic there?

 

He looks as slow here as I've ever seen him.

So you're using tape of Liston fighting Whitehurst to prove that he looked faster when he was fighting Bethea/Harris?

than this

No significant difference to me. If anything he looks faster there, flicking out the jab and actually throwing the left hook with some speed for once.

"1966" being the operative word. This is outside the scope of the discussion since the supposed decline was between '60 and '64.

By the way, there needs to be a massive decrease in speed, not just a slight one (which there probably isn't even), for you to be right in what you're claiming.