1960 Sonny Liston vs 1919 Jack Dempsey

Liston had a lot in common with Dempsey. They both did not beat much to win the title. If Dempseys prowess is enhanced because willard made dempsey look good so did patterson against Liston. Given the choice fat willard was at least defiant, limp patterson did not want to know.

Both Dempsey and Liston also lost their titles to great fighters. However, Dempsey was not so lousy chalenging for a title as an exchampion as sonny was.

Dempsey never fought wills, Liston never fought ingo. Most think dempsey beats wills and most think Liston beats ingo.

Dempsey and Liston have a lot in common.

 

As good a breakdown of the comparisons of Patterson and Dempsey’s styles as that was I think we need to pull back from categorising champions into stylistic groups and saying one champ beats all types of champs who fought like the guys he beat.

Categorising fighters stylistically only works with non champions. To be a champion a fighter must be exceptional and most champions are an exception to the rule. If two exceptional fighters meet (Who are both exceptions to a rule) where does that leave the labelling of stylistic groups?

A very good saying is “a good boxer always beats a good fighter because a good boxer can always fight” but if that was the hard and fast rule why do so many boxers lose to fighters?

Desire, seasoning and reacting to the situation in a ruthless manor can and will always scupper silly rules to do with “styles making fights”.

The deciding factor at the top level is out-landing the other guy by what ever means - not always “styles making fights”. More often than not the deciding factor will be the guy on the way up beats the guy who has had too many tough fights.

To categorise champions both must be utterly reliable at the same level, willing to put it all on the line. This is simply not the case with all the men Liston beat and in fact Liston himself.

 

Patterson was a great fighter at his best but in the old saying did not "give best" against Liston. more fragile both mentaly and durablity wise than jack dempsey.

 

Yes simular style wise. Liston had a lot going for him against patterson. size, desire, reach but I dont think style was as much to with it as desire. Patterson had no desire to be in the same ring as Sonny - that had most to do with LIston beating up on him.

 

Thats fine by me that you pick Liston for that reason. I myself think that patterson not being able to perform made patterson too much of a sitting duck regardless of what style he used. Against Liston, floyd brought no form with him. patterson blew it. It does not detract from the idea that his style could/would be effective against Liston It just shows floyd blew it both times. IMO Pattersons loss has less to do with a simularity to dempsey's aproach to fighting and more to do with the underling fact that floyd was awful against Liston twice. Because a meek version of floyd never got going against Liston it does not mean a 1919 Dempsey wouldnt either.

 

Liston by KO

 

If Dempsey ever fought a Duran type fight maximizing speed and movement combined with power I never saw it .. to me he stalked and attacked ... I just don't see a 190 Dempsey trading blows with a 215 Liston and coming out on top ... this is a huge leap in class from an ancient, rusty Willard or a amateurish brute like Firpo ... While you never know , I have to favor Liston by KO ...

 

Yes 1960 Liston was more potent than any fighter dempsey ever faced but 1919 Jack was liver and hit harder than anything sonny had been up against by then. intrestingly Liston had trouble with fast smaller fighters in burt whithurst and marty marshal. In fact apart from ali all the fighters who bothered sonny were lighter and faster. Thats not to say all small men have a chance against sonny but I am saying Dempsey is better than all the smaller men who bothered Liston.

The problem with this "monster of power" thing Foreman and Liston have going for them is it is a half truth. For all Their power and how well they looked winning they did get beat when expected to win and were not so gallant or looked so good losing. They dont automaticaly beat other ATG's with their handfull of decent wins of a resume just because they were big and strong when things went their way.

Liston Is seen as a force of nature but by 1960 he was just seen as a strong threat to the champion, he had not been around that long and as good as folley and machen were only the folley win looks that good on paper. Harris, another worthy win, was himself not a world beater. The other guys Liston beat everyone beat. You could argue Listons whole resume is based on patterson, a good champion who was awful both times.

 

Your argument leaves out the matter of styles ... the smaller men you mentioned boxed .. Dempsey did not come to box, Dempsey came to fight and when hit doubled down and fought harder ... he would not run from Liston any differently than he did from Firpo .. the difference would be that against Liston he would likely not manage to get back inside the ring ..

Other than hard hitting, big , black menacing figures Liston and Foreman were very different fighters .. Sonny was far more polished and disciplined .. in addition to destroying Patterson he was very impressive in defeating Valdez, Williams, Foley and Machen ... if Firpo had Dempsey down three times and almost out on raw strength and power alone I cannot imagine Jack surviving Sonny ... Sonny may have been a bad man and a flawed man but he was , at this best he ws a dangerous fighter , especially in certain stylistic match ups ...

 

Can we all agree that they both knock out Marciano?

 

No, Marciano breaks both.