Can you make a case that Wladimir Klitschko is a par with Sonny Liston?

Sonny is extremely overrated, and had to cheat with the ointment against Machon, Foley and Williams.

 

I think each fighter has to be evaluated in their own situation. I dont get into top ten lists or whatever. I believe Liston was a better fighter than Wlad overall, and as I stated, under the same circumstances Liston had in his career, Wlad would have been non existent.

 

Liston (for his time) beat the best .Big cat Williams could bomb, but no defense!Machen probably best of rest. Nino Valdes was good when he (felt like fighting)I never really thought much of Zora Folley(he was in & outer to me. But look at this take Alis resume Does ..ANYONE believe Henry Cooper, Brian lONDON, mILDenberger,GO 5 ROUNDS WITH WLAD. cOOPMAN, dUNN lOOK AT wLADS RECORD THE giants HES SLAIN the NEW BREED RULES ,FACE IT!!!:happy

 

Seeing as Liston only had a relatively brief run at the top, and beat only three top rated fighters in his career, I think the real question is why wouldn't Wlad rate at least on par with him?

 

Patterson was one of the most heavily criticized and vulnerable lineal HW champs of all time.

 

Good points.

 

I think Liston would beat the **** out Wlad badly.

 

Floyd Patterson, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley and Cleveland Williams- at least four men, then- were all staple top five heavyweights when Liston beat them, and he beat Williams and Patterson twice apiece, each time by way of quick, emphatic knockout. Moreover, though they might not qualify as "top-rated," depending upon your precise definition, he also beat guys like Roy Harris, Mike DeJohn, Nino Valdes, and Johnny Summerlin, who were top 10 contenders in their day.

Meanwhile, how many "top-rated" fighters has Klitschko beaten? Again, if we use the standard whereby a "top-rated" fighter has, say, clear-cut status as a member of the top five in the world at the time of the fight, then Wlad has Chris Byrd, perhaps McCline, Peter (the first time- though, for the record, I said that Peter was overrated from the first), Chagaev, and Haye to his credit. Frankly, I don't find that line-up as impressive as Liston's.

 

On the contrary, Williams was barely a fringe contender (if even a contender at all) at the times Liston beat him. He certainly was not yet in the top 5.

Why not? I'll give you that Patterson has his status as a HOFer, but there's nothing to separate decent-but-unspectacular contenders like Machen and Folley from the contenders/titleholders that Wlad beat.

 

Fair enough; I should have said "around the time" Liston beat them, instead of "at the time," since it wouldn't be for a couple years yet that Williams would actually approach the top five. For the record, I know that as of April 1960 (the month after the second Liston-Williams fight), the RING ranked Williams tenth, and the National Boxing Association had him at ninth. Nevertheless, I think it likely we can agree that Williams was in his prime when Liston beat him, and simply hadn't yet been given the opportunities necessary to establish himself as an upper-tier contender (those coming later against Terrell and Machen).

I think one may reasonably argue that Chris Byrd can be put on a par with a Machen or Folley, but the others lack the credentials by a long shot.

 

that