Does Sonny Liston divide opinion more than any other heavyweight?

Charles went 2-2 with Walcott, so he didn’t get the best of him at all. Are we not counting losses?

What about Charles losses to Layne, Ray, Valdes, Johnson?

Charles beat a 36 year old Louis, who was coming off a 2 year layoff, and whose reflexes were near shot. I would argue listons 2 wins over a prime Floyd Patterson were much better wins. I would in fact pick a prime Patterson to beat the 1950 version of Louis.

Liston cleaned out the era without any bad losses dominated prime versions of Patterson 2x, Folley, Machen and Williams 2x Harris. And impressive group

Liston simply never had any bad losses near his prime, like Ezzard Charles did.

 

"exposed" is I think an over-the-top term for Williams losing early in his career to someone like Satterfield. Bob crushed Valdes, Baker, Holman, and Oma, and even outpointed Harold Johnson once. He was very dangerous for a young guy on the way up to take on.

"His first name since Satterfield."

John Holman had been in the top five hardly a year earlier. Certainly a name.

I think Suzie builds up DeJohn beyond what the record justifies, but with Williams one can make a good case he was a real comer, who ended up a much better fighter than DeJohn, I think Williams can reasonably be put at the same level as Machen and Folley.

 

But you didn't answer my question. Don't get me wrong, what you said was valid, I'm not disputing any of that.

 

Well I respect your opinion. As you say, Satterfeild was a danger man. He was 20 pounds lighter, Do you think 29-1 Williams could have been a favourite going into that fight? And against those odds, Would bob be considered favourite today?

 

Did Joe Louis really have a two year lay off from 1948-1950??

joe fought 19 times in 1948 (including bouts against Arturo Godoy, Billy Conn and Jimmy Bivins that were certainly competitive), 36 times in 1949 ( including bouts with Curtis Shepherd, Elmer Ray, olimio Agramante, bill Gilliam, Nino Valdes, Rex Layne, Tommy Flynn, Johnny Shkor and Roscoe Tolles) and 24 times in 1950 (including bouts with Pat Valentino, Clarence Henry, Nino Valdes, Henry Hall) so that count becomes 1+79 fights for the period dosnt it?

You can dismiss them as mere exhibitions but guys were knocked out by Joe Louis here. Some were 10 rounders with News paper decisions. Some Real fights, often with no head guards but no official decision.

 

I, for one, am personally grateful that McGrain is chief moderator in here. By christ it's not an easy task.
Imagine if it were the other way around and Reznick had the reins?
We would be down to about 10 members within a month.

To be honest, i am not sure that his ego will be able to cope with this second booting. It was however, fully justified.

 

Fair call.

 

What is this latest trash you’re spewing?

Louis was way past his prime when he fought Charles

Liston beat better fighters than the 1950 Louis in my opinion

 

I don't have exact names, but I know the business minds those guys have. You'd have to think they were absolute idiots if they didn't make sure certain opponents went down in certain rounds on the way up. There's no monetary reason for them to wait whatsoever, and that's the only thing they care about.

Honest question: Why wouldn't they?


Boxing was already a rigged sport. No reason they wouldn't use Liston, a fighter they owned, the same way just because the concept may offend some fans 60 years later.

 

Just to make it 100% clear McGrain has my full support. We are indeed extremely lucky to have him. He basically lets the forum run itself within reason and is therefore all but invisible as a mod.

In extreme cases he will rid us of posters that need be gotten rid of but is 100% balanced and transparent in such cases i.e. posters with big post counts and long term contributions will be given favor (within reason) over shorter term contributors.

His ATG ranking articles might be the best on the net.

If he ever apologises however all the above can be taken with a grain of salt

 

Mcgrain is fantastic dude.

 

"Do you think 29-1 Williams could have been a favorite going into that fight?"

Unlikely. Satterfield had just a bit earlier fought a championship elimination with Charles. Satterfield was so in and out he is hard to gauge, so I would always be leery of making him a big underdog against anyone but the very best.

Williams was still a prospect.

 

Sorry,I dont find this a compelling argument.

 

A McGrain of salt

 

Yeah, those 2, and Rocky.