Early 90s Tyson would wreck Liston in a slug fest

Foreman may or may not have been a harder puncher. All the testimony sits with Liston. Foreman may or may not have been stronger, more durable and have had a bigger heart. He does have a better legacy. The rest is murky and to state anything different with complete positivity is quite frankly a tad outlandish.

 

May not my balls. I have eyes and i can see.. He has higher % ko against better and bigger opposition,Enough.

 

Yeah bud you should see my girlfriend, or ex or whatever she is now.

 

Holmes was out of shape and suffering from the flu and he brutally stopped Weaver. Not sure how that's an amazing feat for Weaver. You seem very bad at picking the best moments of a boxer's career.

 

Open both of them up and give some credit to the Bear.

Just about everything it usually boils down to context. Lets take the highlighted.

Foreman had 37 fights going into his bout with Frazier and quite frankly the massive majority of them were stiffs. Don't even begin to argue that they weren't. The guy he fought right before Frazier had the sorry record of 4-15-0. Of the 7 guys he fought leading into Frazier only three had winnings records! Bigger opposition? Up to 37-0 at least 14 of them weighed under 200 pounds.

Of course a bomber like Foreman is going to have a huge KO ratio fighting these poor souls. How could he not?

In his first 37 fights Foreman fought 17 people that didn't have winning records. Some of the guys that did had less than 10 fights. By contrast Liston in his first 37 fights fought just one single solitary boxer that did not have a winning record.

Of course Foreman is going to have an overwhelming KO ratio. CONTEXT. Imagine if Liston feasted on so many stiffs.

Get those eyes checked out as they also swore Tyson was bigger in certain departments than Liston when irrefutable measurements proved different.

 

No but they had men who'd seen both train (Johnny Tocco) and Liston according to every single common oppenent they had hit much harder than a young Foreman. While nobody picked Tyson against an inferior less powerful OLDER Foreman. That much is telling.

A flat out lie. Gerhard Cech, Chuck Wepner, Cleveland Williams, among others were all "modern sized heavies" yet that didn't save them for being stopped in a brutal manner.

Marvis Frazier? You're hanging your hat on Marvis Frazier? I hate to break it to you but Marvis was not a particularily big nor skilled fighter (and that's being generous!).

Also Folley was better than Frazier ever was. I know you're the biggest cocksucker of Tyson here, but even you must admit this. Sonny knocked out #2 ranked Zora Foley cold, and Some thought Folley was dead, and when Foley finally came to, he asked Sonny, what happened. "I knocked you out," said Liston.

Holmes arm got stuck in the rope as he was attempting an uppercut, giving Tyson a clean and open shot. Do you not think Liston. Foreman, Louis, etc would not flatten a 38 year old fat past prime Holmes who hadn't fought in years given the same oppurtunity?

Pretty laughable that you mention Patterson getting up twice against Liston then bringing up Berbick who got up numerous times (even if he collapsed again as soon as he made it up) and whom wasn't out cold.

I am a grown man (which judging by your maturity you seem to know nothing about). I don't have "heroes" unlike your obsession with Tyson that requires you to constantly coddle him, and make excuses for him, while hypocritically using similar moments in other's fighters careers against them. A double standards of astronomical proportions.

Pretty ironic you bring that up considering the man who knocked out Berbick, had previously weighed in under 200 pounds, and hadn't really knocked out anyone of note.

Spinks NEVER faced an elite murderous power punching heavyweight unless you consider washed up versions of Cooney, and Tangstad (who was never any good in the first place), and past prime versions of Holmes who was never an exceptionally hard puncher.

Tucker also had a serious shoulder injury and was past it when facing Tyson. Also, It's pretty dishonest to call Thomas "really washed up" against Holyfield and Bowe yet give Tyson credit for his performance against him, when Thomas fought Holyfield in literally his next fight after Tyson and Bowe less than a year after that.

Liston knocked out the undisputed champion in a single round back to back.

He opened 77 cuts on Chuck Wepner, broke his nose and shattered his cheekbone.

A flat out lie. At this point you're just repeated washed up cliches. Liston knocked out 14 men under 200 pounds. That is not even close to "the most part" and none of them were small enough to be considered light heavies (175 or below). Not one. Please name them. None exist.

Cool. I would probably concede he may do better against certain oppenents like Machen. On the other hand, I don't think Liston would have nearly as much trouble with Ruddock, nor lose to Douglas at his peak.

A completely basis claim that has no merit.

Didn't you once post this non-sense? https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...y-proven-to-punch-harder-than-foreman.639475/ I couldn't care less about your opinion. You are seriously lacking in objectivity and knowledge.[/QUOTE]

 

People who believe that punchers became much more powerful are delusional. What is the base for this speculation?

 

You"believe it was". That's how I know I was right in my claim that you know absolutely NOTHING about what you're talking about. Particularily when it comes to Williams. Williams did not have an SD over Terrell. He stopped him in 7 rounds. Terrell was also not inexperienced. He hadn't lost in over 2 years, an SD that could've gone his way against a capable fighter. He was also in the eyes of some, still undefeated, only losing SDs to 2 men, and having never been stopped. Shortly after being stopped by Williams he would go on to become a top-rated elite contender.

 

You're the one who kept saying Liston never faced anyone who hit hard and that all his opponents were small. Both statements are false.

Who beats who is not solely based on resume and the eye test. Jack Johnson has a very iffy resume but I can definitely see him giving Wilder, a modern super heavy with crazy power, serious problems due to the style clash as long as he doesn't get nailed too often.

Similarly, Tua doesn't have a particularly great resume and lost most of his biggest fights, but I see him eventually wearing down Walcott.

I noticed that anytime you respond to me you rarely focus on the break down of how the two boxers actually fought and spend 80% of your energy focusing on size and quality of opposition. Those are important factors but they are not the end all be all. Boxing is not a simple matter of looking at the numbers and stats.

I gave very detailed reasons why Liston would be a major stylistic obstacle for Tyson. Wether Liston KO'd 50 tomato cans or 50 hall of famers doesn't change the fact he had the heaviest jab of all time, was a murderous body puncher, paced himself well, and knew how to fight at any range. Wether Tyson was the best boxer ever or not doesn't change the fact he never won a single war outside of the 1 armed Ruddock and never got off the floor to win. Those are important factors you can't overlook no matter how big either guy is or how good their competition is. Vitali fought in a relatively weak era, does that change the fact he had a granite chin, know how to fight tall and use his range? Joe Louis went through a phase where his opponents were considered bums of the month, does that change the fact he was one of the best combination punchers of all time with superb technique?

No, no it doesn't. The best qualities and skills of a fighter do not suddenly disappear if you take them out of their era. Louis would still have impeccable technique in the 90's. Frazier would still have amazing stamina in the 30's. Vitali would still have an iron chin in the 70's.

Nowhere in my posts did I say it would be easy or that Liston would win 100% of the time, it would be a very competitive and brutal fight either way. I just slightly favor Liston due to styles, reach, and the intimidation factor.

Tyson always struggled with guys who had long heavy jabs like Douglas, Thomas, and Lewis. He could not fight backing up, Liston could. He was not particularly good on the inside and often simply allowed himself to be clinched and reset. Liston was great on the inside and wouldn't allow Tyson a break up close. Tyson had suspect stamina and did not produce any KO's past the 7th. Liston had good stamina and did carry his power late. Tyson did not always have great defense and used his head movement and a tight peak a boo guard to hide the fact he was oftentimes ineffective when forced to block. Liston had underrated defense and was actually good at making minor adjustments to make a guy miss (and he had decent head movement of his own).

If you can acknowledge all of that and then still type "prime Tyson wins 99% of the time no matter what" then don't bother responding because you clearly don't understand boxing. This is beyond mere opinion, these are very noticeable and obvious observations about both men's abilities (unless you're biased).