That could be an interesting experiment- as long as we don't overdo it(ie. spamming the whole front page with it), perhaps we could run a few similar threads with other champions.
It was done with the HWs about a year or so ago and was the best thread out here in my estimation. It's interesting in that the conclusions drawn from real inspections can be surprising. I rank Liston very low in terms of greatness in a HW champion but at the top in this way.
Will do. I'll author some. After the Liston thread dies down, I'll do another poll like this outside of the heavyweight divison.
The point of these head to head is that they are only opinions-and they have two flaws: 1. They are totally unsubstantiated opinion 2. I notice that normally one picks a few bouts at his own guys peak and then tears down the opposition on the basis of much longer top-level performances. We had a classic of this with Liston and Louis where one poster kept bringing up Louis' loss to Schmeling. Louis was two years into his pro career and 22 years old. Could Liston in 1955 have beaten Schmeling? I doubt it, and I don't think anyone has any proof he could. So claims that Liston would do better are based on a peak Liston, but a peak Louis slaughtered Schmeling in one erasing the whole point. Your reasoning is no more or less objective than anyone elses. And spare the psychobabble about why someone might not concur with Liston sweeping the top ten heavies in history. Their reason might be that they just don't see him as being quite as overpowering as you do. Personally, I find Liston the most interesting and sympathetic of heavyweight champions. That does not mean he is the best. You rate Liston "on top of the hill" over even Ali, who badly defeated him twice. Ali was green in 1964. He clearly improved later, but Liston lost badly in 1964. Even in 1960 he was unable to catch the not nearly as fast moving Machen. I don't see him ever catching a top Ali. As for his detracters focusing on his brief reign. I would focus more on Liston only defeating three men, Folley, Machen, and Patterson, who were rated in the top five when he fought them. All lost to others at their peak at about the same time Liston beat them--Patterson was ko'd by Johansson, Folley beaten by Cooper, and ko'd by Lavorante and Jones, Machen ko'd by Johansson, and outpointed by Folley and Johnson. I would say there is just too wide a gap between his accomplishments and the level some are putting him at, as a likely winner over Ali, Louis, or Lewis, especially. With Lewis, for example, Liston was ko'd at 37 by the ordinary Martin. At 38, Lewis defeated the much, much bigger and more skilled Vitali Klitschko. I have just been watching Liston on film, to refresh my memory, and I must say his supporters have one good point. He is more impressive on film than his resume would lead one to think. I must say, though, that Patterson is far less so. Patterson seems to be neither fish nor fowl as a heavyweight. He did not have good enough movement to box to top standard, and neither his chin, nor perhaps even his punch, were strong enough to justify the swarming style of a Dempsey or Marciano or Tyson. I know Patterson had crushing knockouts of Moore, Johansson, and Cooper, but more often than not he went a long way with decent heavyweights. Jackson, Harris, London, Machen, Chuvalo, Quarry twice, Ellis, and Bonavena all went ten or more. Johansson and Cooper, moreover, were not noted for having good chins.
I just watched Patterson against Liston and he did bob much more than he did against Johansson or any other of his fights which I have seen. I know it sounds silly, but he did pretty well making Liston miss for a minute and a half or so, then stood up straight as Liston knocked him out with a couple of hooks. I have to apologize, as I guess Floyd did try to be a bob and weaver. Frankly, though, Patterson did not have the chin, and he did not show much early power in most of his fights at heavyweight. I think punchers like Louis, Dempsey, Tyson, and Marciano would be an entirely different kettle of fish for Liston.
Wrong. The good ones are based on informed opinion, and informed opinion is formed on patterns observed, styles observed, and objectivity. Well, those that offer selective examples that bolster their man and tear down the other are not objective are they. Perhaps you read selective posts --I think that most posts have sense enough to take each man at their peak and hypothesize from there. I am as objective as I can be and if I am not, I admit it --and others out here will attest to that. You will not read many opinions out here from me that are not backed up by argument. At the same time, others make no bones about their bias -and if you are paying attention out here you could name them. You're coming off like an old fogey. The psychobabble you accuse me of was not about why he isn't ranked higher, it was about the threat that society -both black and white found in him. The NAACP did not want Floyd to fight Liston for the title. Pscyhobabble? Try historical fact. You misunderstood the post. I said that when you take all of the HW champs and have each man fight his peers, Liston would have the best record in my (informed) opinion. Ali is second. Also, If you have been reading what I have written, you would have read that I don't believe that Liston should be favored against Ali, prime for prime. Anyway, you state that Ali was green in 1964 and say nothing about Liston's age in 1964. Someone needs an objectivity check. Again, Liston does not have the greatest scalps in HW history. You need to look at what his strengths were in the ring, how he dealt with different styles, and his level of skill. Styles make fights, indeed, and although it is true that Liston had some trouble with speed and particularly large men with demon speed, he could handle swarmers, punchers, and boxers. ---this has been the crux of what I've been saying! What took you so long?
1. On Ali over Liston--I was responding to the direct quote of Liston rating at the top of the hill not the post of two days earlier which frankly I no longer remembered. You did say back then that Ali would beat Liston. I apologize for being mistaken. 2. Objectivity--Well, you brought it up by criticizing Ted Spoon, and by implication myself, with "it begs the question of objectivity." Gas about observed patterns and objectivity means nothing because there is no pattern to be objective about. Who did Liston fight who compares as a puncher to Tyson? Who was as big and skilled as Lewis? Holyfield fought men who were bigger than Liston and who punched extremely hard. Who did Liston fight who was both as big and as skilled as Holyfield? An arguement that he blew away the weak-jawed 189 lb Patterson, so therefore he blows away Holyfield or Tyson or Lewis is just not convincing. 3. On the point about psychobabble-where is Liston necessarily underrated. In the 2000 poll by the AP to rate the best heavies of the century, he was #7. Ring Magazine rated him #7 in their 1999 yearbook. Nor was he underrated in his own time. He was favored over Patterson and Ali, 7-1 against Ali, and even 7-5 in the second fight, which I think was kind of nuts. Liston has an interesting back story and like others with an interesting back story, such as Dempsey, he is more likely to be overrated than underrated. 4. How did he deal with different styles? All top fighters met a wide variety of styles. Liston is below average in this regard. His best, and indeed only, top tier victim was Patterson, but Patterson never showed consistent or early power at heavyweight. He scored 18 knockouts in 34 fights after moving into the heavyweight division in 1956 to fight Jackson. He scored only one 1 round knockout at heavy. And Patterson had a shaky jaw. He suffered four crushing stoppages in his prime years of 24 to 30. As the jewel in the Liston resume, he hardly convinces that because Liston handled Patterson; Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano, all of whom had bigger punches and better chins, would follow suit. 5. Patterson aside, what about the rest of Liston's resume. I would say that if Liston had never boxed, and if Ali had never boxed, none of Liston's opponents would still have ever have been champion. Machen lost to Johansson, Folley, Johnson, Patterson, and Terrell in critical fights. Folley lost to Cooper and Terrell, and was stopped by Lavorante and Jones. Williams did stop Terrell in their first fight, but was outpointed in the second. One could argue he might have the best chance, but I think Terrell would most likely have eventually replaced Patterson as champion sometime in the mid-sixties. 6. Liston looks better than his resume--so do a number of other champions, Dempsey, Walcott, Tyson, among others. The problem on judging by film is that Liston was rarely in deep and when he was, he folded rather quickly. It makes it an act of faith to assume he would win against top men who were tougher and more talented than anyone he defeated.
Fair enough. Did I argue that the Floyd decimation represented anything indicative of anything? "Gas"? You said that head-to-head hypotheticals have nothing but "unsubstantiated opinion" and I retorted that such a position is simply wrong -observed patterns and objectivity substantiate an opinion. That is pretty plain and easy to understand. You then proceed to "gas" about Liston's conquests which I conceded long ago are not nearly as formidable as others'. You have either forgotten or have chosen to ignore that I asserted that Liston's strengths and style and skill level should be honestly factored in. The rest of the paragraph is a study in irrelevance. To wit: who has Dempsey faced that had the jab of Liston? or endurance of Marciano? or the power of Foreman? Who has Louis faced that had the coordination and mobility of Ali? or the relentlessness of Frazier? Who has Marciano faced who has the functional size of Lewis? The adaptability of Holmes? The slicing straight shots of Ali? The strength of Liston? We can see and raise each other all night with that merry-go-round. I said that considering his smarmy reputation and police record, he was likely to be "disdained" and there are posters whose apparant disdain of Liston shades their objectivity. Liston is getting some credit these days, but how is he generally remembered? --as the guy laid out at the feet of Ali in the famous photograph. The guy who took a dive. The guy who died mysteriously in 1970. Most people never saw film of Liston's reign of terror in the late 50s and early 60s. Even out here where analysts dwell, they can't help but focus on Clay-Liston when discussing him. The Martin fight is thrown about as evidence despite the fact that Liston was old and a wreck by that time. Forget Patterson and look at the whole record. How did he deal with different styles you ask.... Liston could go a solid 10 rounds with a skilled boxer in Machen -and outbox him. He could outbang a larger slugger in Williams and take monster shots. He stopped Mike DeJohn in 6 and DeJohn was considered up there with Foreman in terms of power by none other than Chuvalo. Chuvalo fought him in deJohn's last fight. Liston got him near prime. He went right through Nino Valdes. Liston dominated punchers. While green, he could drop a split decision after getting his jaw broken. Cleveland slammed home monster shots on him and Sonny took it and returned it. That shows heart. He could do exactly what he should have done against a smaller champion -destroy him. Twice. He handled boxer-punchers like Summerlin, Henry Clark, and Zora Folley -giving Folley his first KO loss. Folley went on to defeat Cooper, Bonavena, and Chuvalo and was no joke. He knocked out #2 ranked HW contender Roy Harris in 1 round. If my memory serves me well not only Harris, but Folley, Clark, DeJohn, Williams, and Wepner were all HW contenders at some point. Right after the dive in Maine, he fought Zech, who was a superheavy and rendered him a bleeding mess. Another fringe contender in Amos Lincoln cound't last either. His last fight was against a young Wepner -who was over 6'5- and utterly destroyed them. Liston barely trained for these. Wepner needed 75 stitches in his face and was later quoted "no man should ever have to take this kind of punishment." Liston can be outboxed by larger men but I find it hard to fathom how Dempsey is going to accept Liston's straighter, more efficent bombs when he got lucky against a cave man named Firpo. Or how Marciano is going to deal with that jab without getting sliced and diced like Wepner. Or how the offensive minded, less physically powerful, and plodding Louis is going to overcome a superior physical speciman with matching skill, a longer jab, and a better chin. I am indulging in Devil's advocacy there, but it is still clear to me thath you are the one making the leap of faith. I would be curious to hear from you how any of the punchers you mention are going to overcome Liston's strengths. You are magnifying Maine again. That was a fix, and it is as clear as day to most historians and people who were there. Liston mirrored Ali's courage against Norton when he fought Marshall by fighting with a broken jaw. Go watch the hell that Williams put him through. Watch him at about 40 years old against Leotis Martin. Liston had plenty of heart. Not alot of luck, but plenty of heart. I do not see Louis' record of conquests as that much more formidable than Liston's --and I do not see Conn ever hurting Liston. Liston, I believe, went down legitly once when he was about 40. I think that you are really underestimating Liston and you are justifying it with arguments that are weighed down with selective evidence.
I would favor him over Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, and I dont know about Lewis, Louis, and Holyfield. So 4 at least but with the possibilty of getting a few more than that.
No assertion about relating Liston and Tyson's substance was made by yours truly. The point was presented to question the general assertion made by the masses that Liston unquestionably has the 'resources' to deal with the very best of all time. Now if lesser fellows continue to read Ted Spoon wrong then you'll find it hard to lap-up the fistic elixir of life.
Here is what you wrote: Seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps, if you exchanged turgid verbalisms for concise statements it would be pretty clear to you too. ~ A "lesser fellow".
4 Johnson(who knows, Yes), Dempsey(50/50,no), Louis(not a chance), Marciano(great fight, but no), Ali(been there, no), Frazier(sadly yes), Foreman(no), Tyson(not in his prime, no), Holyfield(great fight, but yes), and Lewis(yes). *if he fought Holmes* Yes :nod
A point was made, not a direct comparison referring to how Tyson fans elevate their mans abilities beyond his actual capabilities. Liston is in the same basket in the sense he gets people drooling over his tools, but did not underline an aptitude towards churning out sticky situations where he was dragged into deeper waters than usual.
The insinuation you made was clear, it's not being a direct comparison was never disputed. The statement stands. It is difficult to place a measurable value on "aptitude towards churning out sticky situations where [a fighter] was dragged into deeper waters than usual." Perhaps if his chin were a bit less solid, he would have proven himself more (?). It may simply mean dominance. It may also be the formidability or lack thereof in the field. I give Sonny credit for fighting only 6 guys in 54 fights who were without winning records. In his 6th fight he's thrown in against Summerlin. Sonny, mobbed up or not, wasn't fed a series of tomato cans like most fighters. Compare the w/l records of his opponents against say, Marcel Cerdan.