Battle of the Williams, Carl The Truth Williams vs Cleveland Big Cat Williams.

Here's a couple. How long ago was this thread?

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...ve-anything-close-to-an-84-inch-reach.515110/

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/did-sonny-liston-actually-have-an-84-inch-wingspan.662482/

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...ach-to-height-ratio-than-sonny-liston.664317/

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/did-sonny-liston-really-have-an-84-inch-reach.594263/

 

Right! That we should happily isagree. Not that I know if we will about those MMA artists.
I clarified I did not contest your 80.5"-not that you necessarily already thought I did.
Yes I initially brought up various possibilities-although in the last post I was replying your your musings on the subject.
I think what is plausible should be a big part of these discussions, especially since we do not know what are the correct measurements.

A sum total of 1" in reachor a little more-is still not doing much for reach. But it is still something.
And if we are talking about reach for punches & being precise, we should take everything outside of the fist out of the equation. So longer or shorter fingers do not matter.

Those martial arts examples show how hard it is to know what is accurate.
But in a couple of the most extreme cases I linked, it seems that guys with ordinary wingspan were given-or claimed-rediculous numbers. Agreed?

 

Thank you, I do not know when it was, several years ago or so.
Reviewing all the threads, I do not see the listing I remember. Although your second link says in the 6th post:

No. There is a fight where he is listed with less (78 iirc) and in the Williams fight the commentator goes on about how Williams' longer reach is helping him. To me he looks about the same as Williams tbh.

I will try to ask him what fight that is.
Other sources above describe everything as 80-84" as plausible.

 

LOL, that’s the thing. I know you didn’t contest it - already and utterly understood. Goes without saying or repeating.

That you would say now “I never contested…” sounded as if responding to a recent suggestion or implication from my end that you did - which I didn’t - which you now say you weren’t saying that I did. LOL.

We can halt the infinite loop in progress right now, you didn’t contest it, I already understood that, period. Great.

Hand size, name length from wrist to knuckle can add to reach - particularly in the case of Liston.

I had a brief look at the MMA listings. The first guy’s listing is typed in wrong from
the get go - 840”, are we supposed to guess it’s just a decimal point issue - I’d just scratch it.

Cornelius Godfrey - 5’10 82 1/2”. No, the one and only pic I see doesn’t reflect that reach.

I see another guy - Johnny Walker, Nick Top Shelf - Australian - 5’8” 82 1/2”‘reach - doesn’t sound right, little to go by visually - though another Johnny Walker came
up on a quick search - 6’5” and 82” reach - possible confusion? - I dunno.

I don’t even know these guys and there seems to be narrow sourcing for their heights - from another perspective, when they are less exposed, fighters can gild the lily more - prior to Foreman’s first pro bout one article touted him as being 6’5” tall! When better viewed and compared, George later settled to a closer to truth 6’3”.

 

Yeah, he did look relatively okay didn’t he?

Unfortunately, IIRC, he didn’t comply with the commands to step forward or raise his gloves - as soon as Neumann waved it off - I think he he put his hands and nodded to indicate he was okay.

So do you think he wanted “out” after the KD, delib. not complying to carry the effect of not being viable to continue, only to complain after the stoppage to save face?

Otherwise, another option might be that he was cognisant, wanted to continue but somehow misunderstood the ref due to other reasons? - a problematic scenario since due comprehension is exactly what the ref is testing for straight after a KD -

 

Wow. Great work John. Thanks!

 

I quickly scanned the linked threads also. In one, you yourself state there is no evidence (tale of the tape etc.) to suggest Liston was not 84”. A poster then reminds you an earlier ref. to to the stats shown for the Martin fight - Liston 80 1/2”. I also saw the post you just quoted - which involved a poster claiming to have seen Sonny listed as 78” - no evidence provided and no fight referenced. Some time after that, you stated Liston as being listed as 78” - it would seem that was only based on the previous poster’s claim.

The same poster also mentions the commentator for Liston v Williams noting several times that Williams has the longer reach. Correct, in so far as that is what the commentator said.

The commentator might’ve been basing it on assumption since Williams was taller and perhaps felt he also felt it was visually apparent. However, it is possible that the commentator was privy to TOTT measurements he wasn’t imparting in full detail - and if there were details available to him only - they might not have limited Williams himself to just 80” - I think I’ve seen Cleve listed as 82” also - and if you check Big Cat vs Chuvalo they’ve listed Williams at 86” IIRC - that’s not an argument for that reach, just the simple FACT that Cleve was listed as such.

Based on the vision, I’d still give Liston the edge on Cleve, BUT Cleve was very broad and had long arms and large hands in his own right.

I think I already said 6’6’ Terrell was listed as 82” - just a 4” pull on height so sounds fair - and you can compare Ernie in the ring with both Sonny and Cleve.

 

There are some things it seemed you did not understand I was saying & thus I repeated them-& clarified what you discussed above.
I am glad we are on the same page.

I showed a guy who was listed at 5'8" with a 6' 10.5" reach, his arms did not look long at all, that seems at least a foot "rounded up lol!
Yes some of these men are just thrown high wingspans....

Watching a couple of videos about the longest wingspans in the NBA-& one on hand size, yes length to knuckles can also add a little I am saying fingers do not...Herein is my

This content is protected

:


1) The average man obeys Leonardo's Golden Mean, & like me is a "square"-no ape factor.
2) Negative ape factors only get fairly large if there is a physical problem-malnutrition in childhood is one factor.
3) The average boxing wingspan I read is 2.5". The average in the NBA? 5". That is already getting very long-compared to the avergae man.
4) An 8" Ape Factor is huge-& uncommon even in the NBA.
5) The last # that is at least not very rare even in the NBA? 9".
6) 11" is almost vanishingly rare. The longest arms at this measure even in relative terms at +11"---> Although rarely shorter folks have a slightly higher percentage of greater wingspan than height-since his upper body is narrow, & certainly in absolute terms-is Manute Bol. Photos of him are astonishing.
7) Unless someone uncovers a 'Mo Better Freakazoid or shows an unlikely problem is a fairly publicized measurement, I long ago "discovered" Beejay Anya is the GOAT of relative Wingspan/Ape Factor at +13". I am taking his shorter listed height, since this is routine overstated/taken in sneakers in B-Ball.
Photos show that even with thick arms, & also including breath + when you can find his fingers, he has a massive wingspan. See HERE.
8) Unless one of the couple of historical giants even in his height ballpark exceeds him, Robert Wadlow as the tallest man ever cracked although only a bit over +5 Ape Factor-especially considering he was not overly broad-likely had the longest arms ever-along with biggest hands & feet. With hands whose length was over a foot, span must have been somewhat longer...And I recall seeing his shoe size having a bunch of "A"s, but listed avriously as a 36 & a 40.
Photos even absent his fingers extended & of him in general are at the edge of what we would find imaginable!

Thus Spake Zarathrustra.

 

Besides my demented presumption of being definitive in terms of wingspan statistical tendencies (see just above, with photographic evidence)...Here is the note I received-with video footage-from the kind lister of the 78". I have not found the one where at least one other poster mentions 79" & references a particular fight-yet.

Yeah, the fight with Williams is definitely the one where Liston was listed as having a shorter reach.

This link has the commentator saying at 0:36 that Williams has a height and reach advantage on Liston. At 4:05 the commentator again remarks on Williams as having longer arms and that Liston needs to get inside so that he is not at a complete disadvantage against the longer reach.


On the other hand I know that the commentator in the Cassius Clay fight specifically mentions Liston's reach as being 84 inches.

Here they have Liston's reach at 80


Damned if I can find the 78 inches measurement though.

Man's made of rubber

 

Err, I’ve understood and read you perfectly.

I can’t let that statement go through to the catcher/keeper.

Therefore, my replies and associated comments stand correct.

Btw, it appears that your intended links were inadvertently left out of your post -

I already ref. the first Liston- Williams fight and the commentator stating Williams’
had a longer reach - now you’ve just said that was the fight where Liston was definitely “listed” as having the shorter reach.

As per that telecast, that is incorrect - no stats were listed - we only have the announcer’s comments. So there’s another twist in the tale right there.

Earlier in the thread you first said Liston WAS listed at some time as 79”, no more, no less. You also said IF I didn’t believe he was listed as such (which I never said or implied that I didn’t believe the listing might’ve existed) that you were pretty sure I would be incorrect.

There’s a difference between clarification and modification - I’ve not misread you at any turn. But I’m not interested in getting bogged down in such - quite simply, and it still holds true for myself, the lowest listing I’ve read for Sonny is 80 1/2” for the Martin fight - a one off low, the next lowest being about 82 1/2” - so much ado about nothing since my simple and correct assertion -

It’s more important and relevant to muse on the hows, why’s and wherefores of the provable lowest measurement at hand, a one off and should be weighted as such - 80 1/2” - was Sonny literally measured for the fight?, was it carried out correctly?, was it even possibly a typo - I’ve not seen it ref. or published elsewhere.

He didn’t but useless Cosell didn’t bother making a ref. to the listed reach as an anomaly - which would’ve been apt given prior listings of 84” - he was too busy talking eccentric rubbish - LOL - though I’ll give him credit - his post IV with Sonny was surprisingly tactful and thoughtful - and Sonny was notably reflective and genuine. Somewhat sad really.


So, yes- to repeat, as I’ve read you to date, you now say you recall someone else on this forum stating they saw a listing of 79” - not that you saw said listing yourself. Very different to you having sighted the listing yourself or flatly stating that Liston was listed as 79”.

I’m keeping on track with what I have seen listed first hand and the listings that can be ref. and called up and how those listings hold up to the visual evidence. If I read someone attesting to their own first hand evidence and made ref. to same - I would describe it thusly - but likely, I wouldn’t bother if they didn’t have evidence in tow - if they did, then I would be directly ref. the evidence.

Remaining relevant to Liston and available listings and/or published stats - newspapers present as a good potential source. Late 50s would seem to be a good period to check - as it is clear that Liston’s fist size (from 14” to 15 1/2”) and biceps (16 1/2” to 17 1/2”) were inflated around the time of the Patterson fights and certainly by the time of the Ali fights - but it seems all other measurements remained as they were listed or referenced previously.

To that end, I did a quick search on newspaper archives - only those that are free viewing thereby limiting the scope, O found several articles re some of Liston’s later 50s fights - but alas, no TOTTs or references to stats - however, I did come up with this short 1960 article re the upcoming Liston - Machen fight - staying that Liston’s reach was 86” vs Machen’s 75”.

LOL, if anything, I was probably expecting to see maybe about 82 1/2” - so now, we’ve just torn a new one in terms of Sonny’s published reach upper limit. Co-incidentally, 86” is the same as that which was put up on screen for Williams during the telecast of his fight with George Chuvalo.

If anyone has better, broader archived newspaper access - that’s certainly a potential go to source - not infallible but at least a guide.

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SCS19600907.1.7&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-Sonny+liston+Eddie+machen-------1

 

When I wrote "again" I was repeating things you did not seem to understand.
Including that I always indicated that the 79" listing was seen by me on this forum.
When I searched & could not find it, I wrote someone who said Liston had a shorter reach-& when he E-mailed me here, I copy & pasted his reply-absent the videos he included.

That showed his comments about the announcer saying Williams seeming to have a longer wingspan than Liston, which I agree are not authoritative indications.
But again I have yet to find the late 70's/79" indications-I believe some mused he was at that level, & one guy used 79" or a very specific #,almost precisely that.

The hyperlinks I tested when I included them, & again now-the photos & search results for Bol, Beejay Anya, & Wadlow each time work fine for me!
Maybe the Internet Gods instructing us to shut-uppa-our-face, but the hyperlink at the end of your last post here...Does not work for me!

Under 80 does seem a little short , a 6.5" factor seems scant for his look.
84" seems excessive, the 2nd longest ape factor I ever saw looking far & wide-especially if you are correct he is not even as wide as folks like Cleveland!
I just think we can not know any of these figures with confidence.
If I had to guess, I would say a roughly +9.5" ape factor is very plausible.
Still huge. Also consider that although statistically the same # of folks are at any particular fraction as a round #, we rarely see the 1/2" listings.
While folks will tend to round up, since wingspan does not wear footwear, it at most lmay compensate for overstated height...
Except for a few of those MMA type cases where people threw in any old #, or their was a typo or misprint.
Such as the dude who looked average but was 5'8" with an allegedly 6'10.5" wingspan (eyeroll).

Another myth is Kevin McHale with n 8' wingspan.
He had famously long arms, but since lean looked longer, was not wide, was already 6'10"...
And looking a photos of him his fingers do not appear to be able to reach near his knees-which you would expect from a +14", no yeoman's torso enhanced, ape factor.

 

No, again, you haven’t been misunderstood.

You’ve mis-stated information a number of times.

Due respect, but I don’t want to get bogged down going back and highlighting same - particularly because many of the posts contain stuff not directly related to Liston - and it’s a waste of time digging back for same.

Just a few things:-

That’s a flat statement - one would reasonably interpret you sighted said listing yourself and it certainly shows also that you did not “always” indicate you read it on this forum - further, it seems you didn’t read the 79” listing yourself - rather, you read someone else say they did - heresay.

As to anyone misunderstanding, not me, I didn’t say or imply that the alleged late 70s listing(s) did or did not exist - I was simply clear that I hadn’t seen same for MYSELF.

Further, as quoted, you said I would be “wrong” - atop all that - how could you say that if you didn’t see the listing yourself? Obviously you can’t.

This is recent and I already highlighted the obvious error here.

No, as per the telecast, the Williams fight was NOT where Liston was listed as a having a shorter reach - the commentator merely said Williams had the longer reach - that commentary is already well known and has been referenced previously and the commentator’s knowledge questioned by posters on this forum and obviously doesn’t constitute as a “listing”. I already mused earlier in this that in “all possibility” the commentator might’ve been privy to published stats he didn’t share in its entirety or full detail - otherwise, he just “assumed” a reach advantage but either way - still not a sighted “listing” involved.

As to the poster who said Liston was listed less (less meaning less than 84” I assume) - I have seen that post - it simply said “there is a fight” and IIRC 78” - it then added the well known commentary from Liston- Williams fight - stating that Williams had the longer reach - again, certainly not a “listing”.

Those old threads also indicate that you held to Liston’s 84” reach listing, asking for any possible evidence, listings showing less - and without said evidence then 84” it must be accepted as - and that evidence was already provided by a poster - being 80 1/2” for the Martin fight - you had over sighted the post and acknowledged same when the poster in question brought it to your attention.

I also read a later post by you in the old threads flatly stating that there was a 79” listing for Liston but nothing else in tow.

Going back, as far as I read, the only prior post (to your own as above) suggesting the sighting of any listing of < 80” (no evidence - just heresay) was the poster who didn’t ref. the related fight and simply said “IIRC 78”.

So is it possible that you confused the ref. to 78” by later calling it 79”? - and at this point anyway, the evidence for 78” and 79” listings (actual, not heresay) haven’t been produced and you didn’t actually see them for yourself.

Anyway, no more bog downs - I haven’t got the time -

Re your hyperlinks - nah, no good for me. Not sure, there might’ve been a void in the post where they should’ve appeared for me. I clicked an underscored word but nothing doing.

The site hasn’t been playing nice for me of late - maybe that’s related.

Anyway, I’ll try my hyperlink again - remaining on the actual point of Liston and viewable published listings or refs. - I put it through tiny url to see if that remedies the access issue.

Prefight 1960 article - Liston v Machen 86” vs 75” reaches referenced:-

https://tinyurl.com/2p8jwzp6

Man, it took ages for the URL field to present - arrgghh - an omen? - fingers crossed.

 

You can decide what is "bogged down", but that usually means there is a larger point that is being neglected, when we are just both willingly discussing a trivial matter-& if we continue to should exhibit the same equanimity for honest disagreements lol!

First to acknowledge my agreements: I did not introduce it before because it seemed we already have various misunderstandings, & again, ironically when I said 'again" I was repeating things I do not feel you comprehended. I will address the relevant ones you just brought up, but you are CORRECT that I both missed that 80.5" post, & the bigger point-I was unsure of things but given what I had seen by then & using logic as to his potential horizontal spread length-I thought that the 84" was more likely than not true.

The change is that given various claims like that one AND upon reflection that includes visual evidence & the odds of having the second largest ape factor I ever saw after mucho investigation-I now am both at least as unsure, but feel that something *around* 82"/6'10" & a 9.5" ape factor is most likely to be true.

1) It is not only possible, not the one reasonable interpretation, that I saw 79" listed myself.
If there is a credible intelligent poster (like yourself) who refers to any particular number, I & most people will say they were listed at that figure.
2) It is true that the first time I said he was listed as 79" I did not indicate it as listed here.
I meant that the first time it was discussed or questioned I said this. I did not think to say where I saw or heard it before it was contested.
3) You have said many times I did not read it myself-I do not know why, this was never disguised & I keep affirming it.
4) "Hearsay"? Even seeing something myself does not establish anything as to the reliability of a source or if it is 2nd hand or more removed. However I claimed no special authority for the figure, just as one edge of what is plausible.
4) I said IF you meant re: the late '70's listing existing-basically saying I was unsure what you believed, & open for clarification.
I was not saying you did not believe it.
5) As for how could I say I am "pretty sure you are wrong" IF you disbelieved-it is the question of an astute mind.
I could not be sure, but these things are matters of degree.
If a reputable poster says he saw a listing for a specific fight they referenced, it is rational to assume he is at least very likely to be both honest & correct-that it was at least listed.
And things are listed all over the proverbial map, like Liston at 86" so if accurate he would even exceed Beejay Anya in ape factor-who seemingly has everyone else beaten by 2 full inches(!): so that is highly unlikely.
By the way just Google images for those folks-do you agree that given all the respective elements of relevant Anya anatomy-& considering that he is thick & thin things look longer-that the visuals show him as the most credible primate-proportions around?
Also that they measure this more carefully & it is very sought after for the NBA draft & before...Plus articles discussing his wingspan are readily available.
6) No there was definitely at least one post/poster who referenced 79"-or a tiny fraction off of that-for another fight.
It was not the one I pasted that also showed the announcer & his comparison & speculation of how Liston's wingspan matched up with The Big Cat.

 

Sorry just saw this will have to rewatch.

 

There’s no loss of equanimity here.

That’s a false narrative. Implied or not - take it as a stand alone statement for its own sake - LOL, a preemptive strike on a potential disclaimer.

There’s been a mere citing of facts and highlighting of time wasted on inaccuracies.

And yes, it is getting “bogged” down again, as I said.

I stand completely by what I have stated and if I were to completely counter what you’ve said in your last post (easy to do), it would amount to repetition in large part.

You’ve purely and simply mis-stated a number of things which I have clearly illustrated - which doesn’t at all equate to not comprehending what you have stated - false narrative - you were duly and properly interpreted at each turn notwithstanding ifs, but and maybes after the fact.

Now, it’s even down to trying to bend out of shape the simple definition of heresay - which I appropriately and correctly applied in my earlier post.

If I read another poster stating that THEY saw a listing and wanted to reference THEIR claim, I would duly qualify it as such - simple and very reasonable.

Nothing to do with doubting the rep. or credibility of said poster - I wouldn’t “own” it as if I saw the first hand evidence myself and OF COURSE I can’t personally vouch for it when no evidence was in tow in the first place.

Secondly, IF any poster makes a stand alone claim that they saw that fighter X was listed as blah blah - then it’s more than fair - in fact normal -to assume that the poster saw the listing for themselves.

By your methodology, the poster you read, if he was asked, could just as easily have said what you’re saying now - that he ONLY read it from another poster but believed in the credibility of the poster who claimed it, therefore ran with it as an unqualified fact thereafter.

If someone takes that claim as above and states it as a flat fact, no more, no less, no due qualification, they are very much then implying that THEY saw the listing for themselves rather than duly qualifying it as heresay.

You also took that implication and the related conviction that goes with sighting something for yourself even further, suggesting that any potential refutation of the 79” listing you claimed would likely be incorrect.

In my travels, I’ve read someone on another forum claim 77”/78” for Liston, no evidence. Period. They went on to very unreasonably denounce Liston as a fighter in many ways, so it was possible that they were talking out of their a** on all counts with an agenda.

Would I take the mere sighting of someone else’s claim of seeing such listings as being FACT - no matter who they are - and then repeat myself simply as “Liston was listed as low 77”/“78”? Of course not. If I wanted to ref. it for whatever reason - I would frame it exactly as I did in the preceding paragraph.

I JUST recently highlighted that you also errantly stated that Williams fight was def. the fight for which Liston was LISTED as having a shorter reach. Absolutely incorrect.

Now someone could easily read what you wrote as above and replicate it as if it was first hand evidence viewed by themselves. Due queries would then find NO, there were no listings put up for that fight - waste of time, right?

As to my repeating that it “seems” you never saw the 79” listing yourself - because you never clearly confirmed it - you later ref. having seen it in a discussion - which could’ve included a link - who would know - and you did leave it open that you still might’ve seen it for yourself. I also highlighted that even in the older thread you , in your own capacity, flatly stated that Liston was listed as 79” - misleading.

If it helps, please imagine ALL this being said in the accent ,dulcet tones but always matter of fact conviction of the Love Guru.

Also, please addend a mental good will gesture of “Mariska Hargitay” to the end of each paragraph to maintain the peace.

Plausibilities and possibilities are fine: but let’s at least incorporate and reference published listings as they are reasonably understood and seen for ourselves.

Reset.

**************************************************

Focusing on Liston.

We have listings and/or references that can actually be pointed to ranging from 80 1/2” to 86”.

It doesn’t mean they are correct, only that they exist and present as possible guides.

I already know and understand the golden ratio, ape factor, Vitruvian Man, Mona Lisa, stuff etc.

Oops, scratch that last one - Mona’s arm length appears to be within normal range - unless Leonardo exercised some creative licence - maybe that’s why she is smirking - not knowing until she saw the final product whether or not the often unreliable Leonardo did or didn’t comply with her request to “kindly” shrink her real life Orangutan’s arms to more aesthetic and pleasing proportions for the painting.

Also, I can’t say either way if informal word was going around in the Renaissance forums of the day that Mona was actually a knuckle scraper - who knows? Maybe that archived that stuff.

Anyway, let’s look at Listruvian Man, as constructed not by Da Vinci, but by nature, God or what have you.

Here’s an excellent photo of Sonny weighing in for the second Ali fight.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-muhammad-ali-sonny-liston-aka-cassius-clay-1970-78277915.html

Now, given a legit 84”, where do you suppose those arms should hang down to?

Conversely, given what you see, what might you calculate Liston’s reach to be otherwise? Bear in mind (LOL, how clever is that?), as Liston stands, his arms are naturally bent a little and out from his body (specific well dev. muscles can lend to a greater degree of the latter). You can endeavour to mentally extrapolate fully straight arms, adjacent to the body, hands unfurled, fingers straight, pointing to the ground.

We can try and factor shoulder width - quick check online - informally, average claimed to be 17-18” (non worker outerers) significantly broader than average, claimed to be 20”, GTFOH shoulders claimed to be 22”.

What can we give Listruvian Man - 21”/22” maybe? Of course broader = less required arm hang - and there’s the risk of building a leaning Tower of Pisa upon each inaccurately filled variable.

Say we give Sonny 22” just for sh*ts and giggles. Split the remaining 62” for an individual arm/hand length of 31” a piece. How well hung should Sonny appear then? (Sorry, couldn’t resist).

We also have Hasim Rahman as a potential ref. IF, for the sake of comparison, we accept his stats of height 6’2” and 84” wingspan to be correct. I’ve read on forums a general impression that Rahmans hands are huge - but only found one TOTT v Lewis so far - he was listed as 13”. Visually, his hands do look above HW average but not quite Liston size.

Anyway, I’ve said a number of times myself for a good while that I think 82 1/2” is at least a fair guesstimate to go along without precluding 84” in all possibility.

The published/listed range markers 80 1/2” and 86” are one offs, as much as I’ve seen so far.

EDIT: I’ve spotted an error on my part - I said 84” reach for Rahman, I meant 82”.