Convince me about Sonny Lston

Read my post again and think about what you said.

 

Nice parallel. Lennox has been an acquired taste for me and I credit the Classic's classic posters with my conversion. I still do not consider him the technician that others do, but his formidability cannot be denied.

 

1964 Clay had already advanced by leaps and bounds since his professional beginnings. He was impossibility fast for a HW, threw combinations like no other HWs and few MWs threw and he had excellent timing and instincts. He was a phenomenon in that first bout in Miami. And although Liston trained like he was going to play a round of mini-golf, you just don't handle Liston like he did unless you are something special. I'd encourage you to watch that fight again.

This bout marked the true emergence of the Greatest that we know. And he got exponentially better still with every subsequent bout.

 

Cassius X.

 

Ali's fast rise really isn't that suprising in hindsight. He was a Gold Medalist.

Backed by extremely wealthy people before he even turned pro.

Right off the bat he learned from the likes of Archie Moore.

Hell of a pedigree right there.

 

Liston didn't fight top Ring ranked contender until 1959 and stopped doing so after 1964, until he fought Martin in 1969 and got knocked out. So, he was beating top contenders for six years, not thirteen, like Lewis. I don't mean to be a ***** here, but that's a difference of roughly 100%.

 

:happy

 

Stonehands, what is your take on the Leotis Martin fight? Sonny was old and said he had the flu, and those shots would have put down many good heavies.

 

My guess is that you don't see any significance in fighters winning world titles. It clearly hurts Liston regarding his credentials of being an elite heavyweight that he only defended his title once and held it for around a year. Now, where he would be excused is an outstanding resume outwith his title reign. And does it impress you that he fought top contenders over a lengthy span during the 50's and 60's? It impresses me. Although not overly, and certainly not enough.

Excluding Patterson, none of these contenders he fought held the heavyweight title before or after Liston fought them. Which is pale in comparison to someone like Ezzard Charles at light-heavyweight who never even won the title. Maxim x3, Moore x3, and he also beat Bivins and Marshall more than once. These opponents were head and shoulders above Liston's. And Charles holds a successful defense of his heavyweight title against Maxim.

Just 'food for thought' on my title fetish.

Charles' resume at light-heavyweight exceeds Liston's. By quite some margin.

Joe Louis happens to be rated highly because he defended his title 25 times over a period of around 11 years. Thats what you call longevity at the top. Take away the indentification of Louis being a champion during those wins, and I can say for sure he wouldn't be held in such high esteem without "world heavyweight title" scribbled below them. Pumping up Liston's record based around him not fighting opponents with losing records over a certain period of time is desperation, to say the least. I have never heard the same when the records of Louis, Ali, Lewis, and Holmes are being discussed. I wonder why.....

I think it's about averaging things out. Title wins, and the quality of opponents regardless if a win is for a title or not.

Duran's win over Moore without the WBA jr middleweight title at stake wouldn't be a win worth shouting about. Moore's resume for a fighter with very few fights was decent and he had a number of defenses under his belt prior to facing Duran. But he was relatively inexperienced when looking at the broader scheme of things. Duran's standing in the game at the time was average to say the least. Previous defeats after "No Mas". Benitez, Laing, etc. Cuevas was his best win prior to facing Moore. So I guess that Duran getting the win regardless of a title at stake held a degree of importance.

 

Mason was ranked in the ring ratings when he fought Lewis.

But even if we dismiss that, i think we can agree that Liston's captures in Clark and Zech (and loss to Martin) are far from on par with what Lewis was doing in the same period. And even more, if we count them on par, we're still talking about several years shorter than Lewis.

 

Agreed. When combining the quality of opponent with his convincing shutout over the course of the fight, it could be argued it's his best win. The Foreman win was superb as well, but that was pulled off due to other strengths in the locker he showed post-exile; punch resistance, crazy tactics that payed off, etc. That fight never showed Ali for how he's viewed at his peak. Athleticism, long range ability, regular use of the jab, fleet footedness, timing, etc. He showed those attributes by the bucketload in Miami.

 

I still don't find Clay, X, Ali that impressive in 64-65, nor do I find the 66-67 version the greatest ever that some propose. He beat up a mediocre crew of fighters, guys past their prime or whose primes never amounted to much. He was ****ing fast, sure, and stylewise that killed Liston. But overall, I don't really believe he made his greatest impact at that point.

 

Ali didn't look impressive against Liston or Patterson (64-65), stop talking **** like Ponceass.