Early 90s Tyson would wreck Liston in a slug fest

Ali? Haha the funny thing is that Ali said this bull**** BEFORE he fought Foreman( and it is proved in the documentary "when we were kings" , so it makes no sense and have not any credibility.

Like i said ,Liston was not the puncher that Foreman was. Besides the evident eye test, Foreman has much higher %ko and against bigger and better rivals.

You said that Liston was in his last fight against Wepner? Foreman was destroying better guys than wepner in his 40s.. Moorer,Bert Cooper,Cooney.. All them Were much better than Wepner, this tomato can would not last 5 rounds against any version of Foreman.

Ali also said that Marciano was better than Frazier but I suppose in this case you are not interested in using Ali's opinion as proof, right?
.
The words are words. A fact beats an opinion any day.

Tell me any victim of Liston that Foreman would have not stopped as fast or faster than Liston did.

However i don't see an old Liston beating Cooney in 2 rounds(if he wins). Bums like wepner lasted alot of rounds with him.

I don't see him destroying Frazier in 2 rounds, not at all.
However patterson,Williams etc would be easy money for Foreman.

 

I know you are Tysonite but there is no need for insult man because you are angry since your hero is overrated!
Liston best win is small glass jaw Patterson and Tyson best win is washed,sick small glass jaw Spinks whom Patterson would beat like a drum!
Patterson is alot better than old Spinks!
Who Tyson beat who was bigger and stronger?Coke addicst Tubbs,Thomas and Tucker big bums?Or 39 years old Holmes?Didn't he lost against bum Douglas and old Holyfield?
Liston was atleast knocked by Ali who was far better than Douglas!
Liston wins over DeJohn,Valdes,Machen,Patterson twice,Whitehurst,Besmanoff,Wepner,Cleveland Williams twice are much better thna Tyson wins over small Spinks,coke addict bums and old Larry Holmes!

 

Well the funny thing about using evidence from when we were kings is that in the documentary, there's a boxing historian commenting on Foreman hitting the heavy bag and said he hadn't seen any other boxer do that kind of damage and includes Sonny Liston by name.

That's why you have to be careful when using quotes.

 

This is one of those excuses (having a flu) that are easily supported by fact: watch Holmes' post-fight interview and hear how horrible his voice sounded. It was obviously a terrible flu...the reality is, he probably didn't belong in ANY ring that night...and yet he still knocked the crap out of a future champion.

 

Exactly, probably not the first bout I'd bring up when talking up Weaver....

 

No you didn't just "misremember the Terrell results", along with the Terrell bout (which I in fact suspect was to berate Williams further as an SD isn't nearly as good as a mid round stoppage win). You also said, Williams wasn't a top contender, Williams lost to men smaller than Marciano, and that he wasn't green when fighting Satterfield, who supposedly knocked him out for minutes at a time (he didn't).

So let me get this straight, a younger Williams, much faster, more durable, and powerful than the version who faced Ali who DIDN'T have a bullet in him that caused permanent partial paralysic and balance issues would've lost basically the same way? lol

He may not have been fully prepared for Bob Satterfield, but he had 33 wins under his belt and a 25 pound weight pull, but what can you do, right?[/QUOTE]
We've went this route before and I've wiped the floor with you every time.

Williams' promoter is saying it's a risk and they only took the fight because His manager owed the promotor one. "Cleveland Williams a 20 year-old heavyweight with the potential ability of a champion, faces the first major test of his three year career tonight when he meets Bob Satterfield of Chicago in the feature 10-round bout at Miami Beach auditorium. Satterfield, a far more experienced fighter is a 7-5 favorite."

"Williams took the Satterfield match on short notice replacing Charley Doc Williams after the latter pulled out of the match."
"His fighter is in perfect physical condition but has had very little sparring. Cleveland has done pretty of road work since beating Jones two weeks ago but did not do any sparring until Sunday."

"but Chris (promoter Dundee) was in a hole and I decided to take Satterfield. I'm as anxious to see this one as you are."

"So we took the gamble. I know Satterfield is a helluva puncher and he's got a big edge in experience."

Source: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1...?key=MkRCSU1TY1dfWFJSMWhVRUc4dTBWNWN5dzF2SXBB

He was also a 20 year old kid, whom had yet to finish growing and devoloping. It's honestly hysterical hat you try to use this against him.

 

Again, something like this can NOT be proven statistically. Using your logic, Marciano hit harder than Tyson because he had a higher KO percentage so the "statistics" are on his side correct? Or does that not suit your agenda? Also, He bought up oddly specific catergoies in which Tyson held an advantage yet ignored all catergories in which Foreman held an advantage.

Glass City Cobra explains it beautifully here

 

Statistics without context are about as useless as dudes bragging about getting phone numbers without pictures or phone calls. It can change the entire story.

Boxing and sports in general cannot simply be reduced to numbers. Basketball fans do this all the time and it is extremely irritating.

"Statistically":

-Statistically Tyson had one of the worst chins amongst HW champions seeing as he had 5 KO losses and never got off the floor to win.

-Statistically Shannon Briggs was more dangerous in the 1st round than any other heavyweight since he set the record for 1sr round knockouts.

-Joe Frazier was the most elite Heavyweight of all time in terms of competitiveness since his only losses came at the hands of 2 all time greats. Every other champion has an embarrassing loss or struggled with a fringe contender/journeyman/bum.

-Deontay Wilder is the hardest puncher of all time if Mr. Inmemoryofjakelamotta values size of opponents and KO% numbers over everything--doesn't matter how good those opponents were.

-Holyfield has the best longevity by being the only 4x champion and fighting the longest; doesn't matter that he had double digit losses, constantly lost his belts, and was struggling with John Ruiz and getting his ass kicked by fat middleweight James Toney.

-Floyd Patterson had the best endurance and heart if all time since statistically he got up more times than any other heavyweight champion and won many of those fights.

-Rocky Marciano has the best resume of all time since he retired undefeated and beat several ranked contenders; doesn't matter their age or record.

-If Tyson Fury retires he will take Rocky's place as having the best resume of all time simply by virtue of his opponents being much bigger and being undefeated; doesn't matter that he never cleaned out his division or unified the belts.

Are You beginning to see the problem?

If you agree with all that with a straight face you are either trolling or don't understand statistics. You also dont understand that context is just as important as numbers.

 

No offense but you really need to work on your reading comprehension. Not once in ANY of my posts did I say numbers and statistics are completely meaningless or secondary. I said statistics without context can be misleading. The point I was making is that numbers can be used deceptively to spin an agenda.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

And for the record since you brought it up, Foreman has Tyson beat in terms of punching power for both statistics (KO%) and the testimony of common opponents. In nearly every interview or article featuring a Tyson opponent they rarely mention him as being the hardest hitter they faced but the #1 thing they always bring up is his speed and angles. You have to hand it to Tyson's marketing team for really selling his punching power to the public. No one knew how to knock over tomato cans in a spectacular highlight reel quite like him.

 

His video was terrible. I already explained the many flaws with it. He basically kept shifting the goal post whenever it was convenient and came up with arbitrary numbers to categorize both boxer's opponents. As i mentioned, Foreman actually does better against heavier opponents than Tyson so his own video goes against his own logic. It was just plain horrible.

I don't actually believe Briggs was the hardest puncher of all time based on his 1st round KO record. That entire post was sarcasm to show you the flaw in relying solely on statistics. I'm aware many of Briggs' victims were bums or mediocre fighters, but so were A LOT of the opponents they fed to a prime Tyson before he stepped up and fought guys like Green, Tillis, etc.

Again you're not using reading comprehension. I'm not saying Tyson couldn't punch, he obviously had some raw power. It's that his power was greatly amplified by his head movement, hand speed, and technique.

Foreman ended up having a higher KO% in spite of the fact he mostly used thudding heavy handed arm punches with very little snap, speed, or explosiveness compared to Tyson. That's why many people consider him possibly the hardest hitter in terms of raw clubbing power. He was a different kind of puncher than Tyson anyway. If you've ever boxed you know that different guys blows feel different. Tyson was more of a sharp and explosive hitter relying on combinations and momentum to generate KO power.

Foreman stopped ranked opponents. Rodrigues was ranked 10th. Roman was ranked 9th. Frazier was an undefeated champion. Moore was an undefeated champion. Norton and Lyle's resumes speak for themselves. Chuvalo was a good stoppage too considering his iron chin and very long career, no one had ever made him look that bad.

Anyway, I'm really tired of going back and forth with you on a subject that has been done to death thousands of times, and I don't really feel like discussing it with you in particular. If you'd like to get back to Tyson vs Liston we can do that but not if you're going to just keep repeating the same old things and flawed logic.