[1964 Boxing Illustrated] Marty Marshall: Liston doesn't hit harder than Bob Satterfield

Right, he said he punches no harder than Bob Satterfield

 

Sounds to me like he was saying they were about equals

 

This probably says more about Satterfield than it says about Liston!

 

Yes. Personally i don't have 100% faith it the comments but Satterfield certainly hit damn hard regardless.

 

Really a great post, the blueprint on how to beat Sonny Liston, it appeared that Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) followed that plan and defeated Liston for the title in 1964.

 

This forum rates Shavers as the #1 undisputed hardest puncher of all eternity because the fighters who faced both Shavers and other hard punchers (like Foreman) testified that Shavers hit harder.

Marty Marshall's statement about Satterfield and Liston is exactly the same kind of evidence as we have for Shavers.

 

George Foreman never fought Shavers, Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Jerry Quarry, and Ken Norton have.

 

I know. That's what I'm saying. The guys who fought Shavers and Foreman rated Shavers the harder puncher.

 

You made it appear as though George Foreman said this of Shavers., how would he know? Jerry Quarry stopped Earnie Shavers in round 1 on Dec 14 1973.

 

Looking back, the sentence I wrote is ambiguous. Foreman could be read as part of either the common opponents or the other punchers. I think there's a grammatical term for this kind of ambiguity; I just don't remember it.

Anyway, yes. I can see why my post was confusing. No worries.

 

Cool.

 

The comments on Shavers are universal and many. Norton, Ali, Holmes, Lyle, Tillis, Cobb, Caldwell etc. That some serious testimony right there.

Marshall has been caught out talking dribble about the Liston meeting before but he's hardly alone in the boxing world.

Having said that no doubt Satterfield packed a big wallop and punched way above his weight, so to speak.

 

Problem is, it's a rare heavyweight boxer who is known for being forthright and objective about his opponents.

Ali in particular was often in marketing mode, no less than Marshall. The title of hardest puncher "who hit me so hard he shook my kinfolks back in Africa," as his recycled quip went, was very much a moving target.

The multiple sources are the biggest difference between the two, yes. But the type of evidence, and reliability of that evidence when taken as a single piece, is comparable. That's my point.

 

I get your point but when a single guy says it and has lied about other aspects of the affair it's hard to take at face value. Your first line says it all and hits the nail on the head. That's why the shavers testimony is so ridiculously strong, and rare.

 

What bothers me about the Shavers testimony is that it may not be as independent as we would like. Once Shavers's power becomes a meme, it's fair game for heavyweight raconteurs to start waxing lyrical about the time they took his punches.

I agree it's more reliable than Marshall, though, by a good ways. But only because of the cumulative effects you mention.