Early 90s Tyson would wreck Liston in a slug fest

Yes Coatzer was a good win.

Cooper was a journeyman with like a zillion losses. Everybody beat him. All he had was a solid chin and a good hook. He was a bootleg Joe Frazier.

No the Holmes effort is nothing to boast about. Holmes had the flu and brutally stopped Weaver while operating at about 40% of his usual sharpness. He didn't use his legs, was lethargic, had leaky defense, etc.

It was barely better than Ron Lyle "dominating" an out of shape and unmotivated past his prime Ali before Ali got serious and stopped him with a vicious 1-2 that looked like it dislocated Lyle's jaw and took all the strength out of his legs. Actually, they are almost the exact same sort of performance. A valiant effort against an out of shape champion who dug deep and stopped the challenger late.

Williams, Lyle, Ruddock, and Weaver were all on a similar tier in terms of overall ability, accomplishments, and skill. You cannot possibly rank one significantly higher than the other without a leap of logic.

 

Chin?
Liston was stopped only 3 times and once was by TKO and two were KOs!
Tyson on the other hand was stopped 5 times,3 times knocked cold!
Liston had better chin!
Power?
Liston is easy stronger and harder puncher!Tyson is sharper and faster but that does not make him more powerful!
Liston with better KO ratio against better oposition was rated second after Foreman and is dubious who is harder!According to some people Liston hit harde rwhich is not true but he hit almost as hard as Foreman!
Liston punched harder you can see on his oponents,punching bag...he could threw speedbag and heavybag of the chain with those long hands and big fists!
Liston also used to knock people out of the ring with single punch unlike Tyson who used to threw few punches to Knocked his oponents!
Liston could punch man in the arm and broke his arm says everything about his power!

 

You didn't understand what I was saying, or maybe I didn't explain it well enough.

Things like "Lennox's resume is better than Holyfield's" is a hotly debated and subjective subject. "Who hit harder Max Baer or Frank Bruno" is also very subjective since they lived so far apart with no common opponents.

What I was referring to is a boxer's obvious on screen boxing ability and qualities. There isn't anything subjective about the fact Mayweather had very good defense and knew how to win rounds. That's obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of boxing. A statement like "Mayweather had the best defense of all time" is very subjective and there are plenty of other great fighters who can challenge that opinion.

Similarly, it's understood that Thomas Hearns had an amazing jab and was extremely difficult to fight on the outside. Most boxers ended up having to step out of their comfort zone and become pressure fighters because they couldn't cope with his reach and jab (for example, Leonard was traditionally a slick stick and move type who used his own jab and threw counters and flurries but was forced to make adjustments and try to break Hearns down, he had to get out of his comfort zone).

The point is, regardless of what you think of Hearns as a boxer or the quality of his opposition, it's understood that in a h2h matchup with someone he's never fought they are more than likely going to have to cope with his long reach and outside fighting ability regardless of their own qualities. It's a major factor in the discussion that cannot be glossed over. So if someone were to put him against Mayweather for example, they would look really silly saying "Mayweather could easily get past his jab/out jab him and beats him on the outside. He was the better fighter and had a better resume" even though you COULD make a case for Mayweather having the better resume and being the better fighter, at 5'9 with a much shorter reach, no one would take you seriously if you were to claim he would "easily" out jab Hearns or beat him from the outside since throughout Hearns' entire career we saw this was almost impossible to do even for boxers bigger and stronger than Mayweather who were just as fast if not faster. The claim simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It doesn't mean Hearns definitely wins either, it just means Mayweather winning by outboxing Hearns on the outside is the least likely outcome.

Do you get what I mean?

Saying Liston has qualities that would trouble Tyson isn't the same as saying something crazy like "Scott Ledoux KO's Liston" because there is absolutely nothing logical about Ledoux pulling that off. He never stopped a single quality opponent and was not a KO puncher any any stretch of the imagination. Claiming Gerry Cooney could do it at least has some basis in reality since, even though he has a weak resume and wasn't as skilled as Liston, he could definitely hit like a truck and has in fact knocked out some quality opponents.

-Liston having one of the strongest jabs of all time isn't a "wildly subjective" opinion, it's obvious to anyone whose watched boxing that he had an amazing jab.

-Liston knowing how to fight up close and slugging or keeping a guy at length is observable by simply watching his fights.

-Liston being a good finisher when he had his man hurt is observable by simply watching his fights.

-Ditto for Liston's ability to hurt people to the body, demonstrate good stamina, and using head movement to make people miss.

All of these are qualities you can see simply by watching Liston fight. There is nothing subjective about any of the above claims. It's as obvious as Ali's foot work and Wilder's power.

So in a head 2 head discussion about Liston vs Tyson, you NEED to explain what Tyson does to get past that powerful jab. You have to explain how he copes with body shots (hardly anyone hit Tyson to the body). What does Tyson do if Liston makes it an in fight and refused to let him clinch and reset? What does Tyson do if he cannot make Liston back up and he himself has to back up? What happens if Liston intimidates Tyson? What happens if Tyson starts to gas and Liston doesn't?

These are ALL possible scenarios given Liston's boxing ability and qualities that we SEE on screen by simply watching his matches. Just like it's possible Tyson makes Sonny miss with his head movement or overwhelms him with fast combinations. We know this is possible by watching Tyson fight and seeing that he had good head movement and fast hands. What isn't likely is for Tyson to suddenly bounce on his toes and jabbing his way out of danger if he is forced to back up--he NEVER showed that once in his career. Just like Liston never used a shoulder roll.

This is why it's not a simple matter of only looking at stats and resumes. You have to speculate based on a boxer's actual ability and what they demonstrated (or didn't demonstrate) in the ring. Boxing isn't a video game.

 

And still Liston's best wins are the very small glass-chinned Patterson. At least Tyson beat bigger,stronger fighter like
Patterson or Liston.
Otherwise you're total wrong but i don't wanna waste my time to your full stupidity. (Maybe a doctor...)

 

Liston hitting harder than Foreman is not a joke. Wepner, Scrap Iron, Ali, and Tocco ALL said Liston hit harder. Also, you mentioned that Wepner was stopped by a green Foreman, but neglected to mention Liston was in his 40s and IN HIS LAST FIGHT!

 

Their is no way to "statistically" prove that someone hit harder than other. Ike Williams a very hard puncher had a 39.61 KO percentage. Are you going to sit there and tell me that man couldn't hit based on "statistics"?

 

Because it wasn't. You said the following numerous times at one point or another.
Williams lost to men smaller than Marciano - Wrong

Williams beat Terrell by SD - Wrong

Williams wasn't a top contender - wrong.

Liston's resume was in your owns words "for the most part consisted of cruiserweights and light-heavies". Wrong

Forgive me for thinking ydksab

We've had this discussion before and I battered you in one of the most one-sided ass whuppings this forum's ever seen. Do you really want a round 2?

 

Should've just left it at that

 

Holmes had the flu and was operating at less than 50% looked slow, lethargic, didn't use movement, nor defense, and still brutally stopped Weaver. If I was trying to highlight his accomplishments, that's probably not the first performance I'd turn to.