Ingemar Johansson vs Sonny Liston 1959

Why is it J T's opinion is the consensus ?
Do you think we are all wrong and you are right?
Just curious.I don't want a Captain Queeg justification from you.

 

Came on this thread purely to read what Choklab would be saying.

It did not disappoint.

 

I am glad you did, because now even you will have learned that as champion, Ingo had wins over 4 of the top ten. Which was less than Liston, but still very good and more than people realise when you consider the first time around carnations of Floyd and Machen.

 

Never admit or entertain the possibility you are wrong,deny,deny deny.
Ground Hog Day Ad Infinitum.

 

Where was I wrong? As champion Ingo had wins over a respectable number of top ten Compared to Liston. A point nobody wants to acknowledge apart from Solomon.

regarding Williams, Championship level and world level…I said one when I meant the other. it’s tomato’s and tomatoes. Nit picking. And not relevant to this thread.

 

It's a disingenuous point shrouded in deceit. Solomon told you how many top 10 opponents Ingemar defeated when it mattered i.e. when they were RANKED! Solomon tore you a new one.

Nah you just lied and deceived as per normal. You did it twice so your excuse just isn't remotely valid. Swag pinned you to the wall so you changed your story. You are chok full of ****.

 

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to steal this one.

 

Williams is not remotely valid.

a different point altogether. You know full well as champion Ingo had wins over 4 of the top ten. Nothing changes that.

If someone wants to presume He beat them all with a ranking then that’s not what I said. You are knocking at the wrong door on the wrong street with that one.

I simply demonstrated, and Solly agreed with me, because he has to, as it is true, that by the time Ingo was champion that’s how the ratings stood. 4 of the ten were made up of Ingo victims. which you must process as being a respectable number of the worlds best heavyweights of that time.

 

1st Genuine question - do you consider it more material to a fighters all time standing if - 1) There was a point in time where there were 4 x fighters ranked top 10 that they had previously beaten; or 2) They beat 4 fighters ranked in the top 10 at the time of the fight?

2nd genuine question - regardless of your answer, how would you expect most posters to answer the above question?

 

I've always felt that the Sonny Liston Vs. Floyd Patterson, Ingemar Johansson would never be world champion. Timely means since 1959 (the year Cleveland Williams was beaten).
From 1959 until Cassius Marcellus Clay came of age in 1964, no one would beat Sonny Liston; nor Floyd Patterson, nor Cleveland Williams, nor Ingemar Johansson.

 

What people completely forget is that Ingo never lost to a lesser opponent than Patterson as a pro whereas Liston lost to much lesser opponents than that. Acting like Liston was a god with the best chin ever even though young Ali stopped him and of course Ingo was a much bigger puncher. I don't mean to discredit Liston as he was clearly a great boxer but Ingo is seriously underrated. However, he was also underrated and ridiculed before the Machen and Patterson fights and he hammered both guys. Biased american opinions are only worth that much.

Some posters here even make excuses for Machen stating that he had no idea about Ingo's right hand power and that is why he was stopped

 

Ingo got stopped in 2 out of 3 vs Patterson. Patterson couldn't make the 2nd round vs Liston in 2 x attempts.

 

I’m happy to answer that question in the obvious way. But it isn’t the point I was making.

If a prolific KO artist makes it to champion, and a swath of his victims manage to make it into the top ten “After” he knocks them out…in time for him to become champion, I see that as relevant too. It shows they were worthy all along.

Because despite being knocked out by Ingo, they are still good enough to score wins after this to earn their position in the top ten. None of them were gifted these positions. It was legitimately earned. Cooper beat Folley. Etc etc.

Had we seen Tyson victims like Sammy Scaff, Alfonso Ratliff or Mitch Green score wins after losing to Tyson and project themselves into that top ten in time for Tyson to be coronated as champion I imagine it would be a relevant factor also.

 

And because of that you come to the conclusion that Liston easily wins a fight against Ingo?
Because it seems to be the main argument here.
I just wish boxing was that simple and we would all be millionaires betting on fights.
You can twist it and turn it as much as you like but the number of insightful observations here are very few and extremely biased in one direction.