Convince me about Sonny Lston

To be clear: the point isn't that important. It really isn't. It was a throwaway that has been expanded upon because you misunderstood the original point. That's all.

 

Of course his career is comparable! Both matched the best of their era, both are generally acknowledged to be great HW's, both are serious head to head threats. Not only are they comparable it is important we compare them. The only difference here is you are more sold on Lewis than Liston and I am more sold on Lewis than Liston - barely. I have them back to back.

Yes, Lewis lost less. He also fought less, was matched easier earlier and checked out when he started to slip. Liston fought on past slippage.

I, actually, think claiming better longevity for Lewis is reasonable - though he is one of the few.

What is absolutley unquestionably true is that peak for peak Lewis lost to Rahman and McCall and Liston lost to Ali twice. You have made the point that nobody would be talking about Marshall now if he hadn't beaten Liston. Will anyone be talking about Grant in 2040? Would anyone be talking about Rahman in 2042 if he hadn't beaten Lewis? I'll be an *******. Historically, Lewis lost to two nobodies during his absolute peak. Yes, I cringe when this is repeated by some other posters. But that doesn't stop it being relevant in this context. And as long as you are discussing Patterson's chances against Lewis, how do you think Rahman would do against Liston? My guess - KO1, KO2.

Those are losses for Rahman if you're wondering

There might be ways of losing that are more humiliating than brutal stoppage by fighters who are not in your league, and Liston might even embody them, but I think you know that Liston's situation is more complicated than that.

The bottom line:

McCall TKO2 Lewis
Rahman TKO5 Lewis

v

Ali TKO7 Liston
Ali KO1 Liston



I know which set I would rather my man endured.

 

Thanks. I'm always a bit vague on historical rankings. This is because I don't think it is that important - though it's always relevant. Having seen Clark fight I think he's a very, very decent scalp, and I think the way Liston beats him - generalship, a very nice change of gear - is very impressive.

I agree he was lacking a "top shelf" opponent, if by top shelf we mean historically relevant. That wasn't happening for Liston after Miami.

 

Actually, I agree with you. Some points -

1 - Sonny was beating the guys Floyd should have matched. Williams, Valdes, Folly, arguably Machen.

2 - Floyd's manager knew Floyd couldn't beat Sonny (which always leaves a taste when that man is matched late)

3 - I would have been happy to see Liston matched Floyd - with expectations of a win - any time after the first Whitehurst win in '58. In other words the same year Patterson was matched for the title. I'd also be happy for THAT Liston to be matched with THAT Moore. So SIX YEARS seems to long.

The champion certainly fought weaker opposition than Liston.

 

In 1960 Liston said: "I guess I may be #1 [ranked contender] some time."

Cus was on the record as saying he didn't want Floyd to fight Sonny. Only instead of saying "He's a black man" as is traditional, he said, "he is under the sway of criminal influence", which was new. And which also ceased to matter after Sonny.

 

This doesn't matter two ****s when we are talking about Sonny Liston.

One year? Six years? Does it matter? He was ducked, and probably would have knocked Patterson out in one round any time during the1960's.

Note that he gets nowhere near Patterson - a sure fire victory over a top contender - during Sonny's own "second career". Patterson got a shot at the title himself in '68 for Christ sake. Liston? Who beats Patterson 99/100? Nah.

 

You've determined to emphasis my supposed attatchment to an argument regarding Liston's being matched with fighter's with winning records during a certain period. I've endevoured to explain that I do not see that argument as being that important.

The only reason it recieved emphasis was you thought "winning record" and "unbeaten" was the same thing.

 

Robbi: no way to know. Some have him old, old, old when he was killed. At least one soucre has him in his early fifties. This is likely to be BS, but it describes the problem you have when trying to document Liston's age.

 

Well here - you wrote, " 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." - a direct reference to that discussion.

I mentioned it the second time in response to "It just highlights the fact the Liston's impressive record of fighting opponents with "winning records" doesn't hold much weight at all.", where you again, reference the discussion yourself. I also mentioned it this second occasion in hope of putting the discussion to bed once and for all - it's just not relevant.

 

No, I been out and about all day. Pretty hammered too which doesn't help Never worry.