If Sonny Liston fought in the 1990's ....

Prime '59-'61 Sonny Liston would have beaten them all, especially Bowe and Holyfield, with their penchant for aggresiveness, but would have lost to the more conservative defensively Lennox Lewis, the best of his age, IMO. Lewis by a 15 round decision, or quite possibly a late tko.

 

I dare say I probably own more Liston footage than damn near anyone on this board. I've seen them all. His era was very, very weak, nowhere near the athletic ability and power of the heavies in the 90's. He was a great heavy for his day; he would be quite good at best in the 90's.

 

I pretty much agree with ChrisPointus 100 percent. People tend to overrate fighters of the past because they here so called boxing experts tell them they were good. Liston was a slow, slow, slow fighter who best wins came against guys alot smaller than him. Well he beat Cleveland Williams but that isnt saying much.

Liston's chin isnt as great as you people pretend either. Besides Williams and Ali how many other 205 plus pound modern heavyweights did he face? How many of them were huge punchers? Williams has a nice Ko record but who did he fight and knock out that you would consider top level?

I doubt Liston could even beat a guy like Hasim Rahman

 

Nino Valdez? 6'3 211lb. The man who you claim the great rocky marciano "ducked"

also Mike Dejohn? 6'5 205lb...A whale of a left hook!


As for Slow, if you want to see slow watch George Foreman. Liston would have had a field day with him in his prime.

 

Lets break this down


1. What on film do these guys lack that 1990s had?

2. What makes these 1990s fighters look so much more athletic than the 1960s guys?

As far as I am concerned the 1990s heavies looked soft and tired compared to Listons era. Only in the 1990s would two 45 year olds be able to compete on a world class level. How Embarrasing. Only Prime 25-30 year old Workhorses were competitive during Listons era.


You claim the 1960s guys of Listons era lacked athleticism...I certainly do not see it

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Do the 1990s guys really appear more athletic? These guys are young and built like rocks.

From the film i have seen and from the knowledge I have accumulated on this era, it was a very strong one.

Why?


Consistency

Most of the World Class Contenders during this era were all 25-30 years old. This meant that the men competiting for the world championship were all young, in there primes, putting up there best performances. This enhances competition. How many eras throughout heavyweight history were filled with such Live Prime Opposition? All the old men got weeded out during Listons era.


Balance


Some eras are typically ruled with punchers, others boxers. This era had a definitive balance between both powers thus creating a large talent gap. You had your dangerous punchers(Williams, Valdez, Dejohn, Liston, Johannson) and you had your highly skilled technicians (Machen, Folley, Patterson, Johnson)...You had both Quality and Quantity. The 2nd teir guys like Summerlin, Bethea, H Carter, Miteff, Cooper, Lavorante, Cleroux, Chuvalo were all young and capable of upsetting World Class men on a given night. If you look at the 1990s you will see a large group of menacing punchers. However, it lacks balance. In that group of powerful punchers, lacks a very good technician. Did the 1990s have any technicians outside of perhaps Lennox Lewis?

Film

I'll be dammed if I have seen better technically brilliant skills than fighters like Machen, Folley, and Harold Johnson on film. That included fighters today. We still have yet to see a fighter come along with the technique, speed, and power patterson all combined into one. Even the Big Sluggers like Williams,Johannson, Liston, Valdez were far from crude and displayed formidable Jabs on film. Speaking of Jabs, I dont think there has been a era in heavyweight history that was filled with such great jabbers.

 

How do you see


SRR vs Jermaine Taylor at 160
PAC vs Napoles
Monzon vs Pavlik
Bob Foster vs the current 175 crop
Ike Williams vs the 135 crop


etc

 

EXCELLENT POST SUZIE Q:good WHOEVER SAID HIDE AND SELDON WOULDHAVE GIVEN HIM TROUBLE PROBABLY HASNT BEEN A BOXING FAN THAT LONG,LISTON WOULD HAVE DONE WELL IN THE 90S NO DOUBT. ALTHOUGH ID PICK HOLYFIELD OVER HIM EVEN IF THEY FOUGHT 2 OR 3 TIMES ,AGAINST LENNOX ID HAVE TO SAY IF THEY HAD ACOUPLE FIGHTS LISTON WOULD KNOCK HIM OUT IN OF THOSE ID SAY LEWIS 2 TO 1,AN EARLY 90S TYSON WOULD PROBABLY BEAT LISTON,BUT LISTON MIGHT TAKE THE LATE 90S VERSION,AS FOR BOWE I ALSO SEE THEM SPLITTING A COUPLE FIGHTS,LISTON WOULD KNOCK OUT MOORER,MORRISON,BRUNO .HIM AND RUDDOCK WOULD BE A GREAT FIGHT.AS FOR MERCER THAT IS A PRETTY EVEN MATCHUP BUT ILL GO WITH LISTON BETTER JAB.HED PROBABLY BUST TUA UP AND HED KNOCK OUT RAHMAN. I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT LISTON WAS THE FIRST HEAVYWEIGHT GREATSOF THE PAST TO DO WELL AGAINST TODAYS HEAVYS HE PUNCHED REAL HARD ON THE SAME LEVEL WITH 90S PUNCHERS LIKE TYSON,LEWIS,BOWE,RUDDOCK ETC ASK GEORGE FOREMAN SOMEONE WHO FOUGHT IN BOTH ERAS TO THIS DAY FOREMAN TALKS OF LISTONS POWER THEY SPARRED ALOT WHEN GEORGE WAS ON HIS WAY UP

 

As a young man,Williams had a powerful physique:

This content is protected

 

I'm convinced that the heavyweights didn't improve from the 1980s to the 1990s. And while I dont think being American makes a heavyweight a better fighter I do think that the 1990s was when the depth of numbers of good American heavyweights started to dip dramatically, and promoters attempted to fill the gaps with several who didn't have the talent.

There was just as much obesity in the heavyweights of the 1990s as in the 1980s, so that "fat" criticism isn't relevant. In fact, how many of Tyson's title fights in the 1980s were against FAT men ? I say 1 (out of 10) : Tony Tubbs.
Of the "1990s hard hitters" you list I could call 4 of them fat - Foreman, Bowe, Tua and Moorer - at least they are fatter than 9/10 of the guys Tyson fought.

How many were "drug addicts" ? I dont know. But I do know that drugs are prevalent in our society going back decades and that not everyone who uses drugs or alcohol admits it or discussing the extent and details of their use. Nor can you say for sure who was affected by their use for what particular fights. From what Mike Tyson might say now you could argue that he's one of them who had life-long drug problems, but that wont strengthen your argument.

The 1980s saw such hard hitters as peak Mike Tyson, Mike Weaver, Gerry Cooney, Bonecrusher Smith, Frank Bruno, Gerrie Coetzee and Tim Witherspoon who stacked up well against those you mention. And of course, many of the 80s heavyweights and 90s heavyweights are the same people anyway.

The 1980s gets a bad rap in comparison. People concentrate on two or three "fat guys" at the top when it comes to the 1980s, but rarely talk about the flabby 90s guys like Bowe, Mercer and Moorer.
People talk about the alphabet champs of the 1980s as an uninspiring bunch, but have amnesia about the crappiness of McCall, Seldon, Botha, etc.
Botha, Bruno and Seldon held the three major titles simultaneously in the mid-90s ! While 46 year-old "linear" champ Foreman fought bums, followed by prison release Tyson fighting bums for zillions of dollars, and Bowe-Holyfield fighting each other in a great trilogy - one that probably single-handedly elevates the 1990s into a "good heavyweight era" but one that more or less used them up by mid-decade.

Lennox Lewis fought his fair share of has-beens and drug-addicts too, and of course he fought the great Lionel Butler who was both fat and a druggie and who himself had cracked the ratings with wins over 1980s has-beens Tubbs and Smith. Lewis lost to the CRACK ADDICT Oliver McCall, who was a bit crap to be honest, as evidenced by his defence against the "put-your-shirt-on-grandad" version of Holmes and his fairly one-sided loss to master boxer Frank Bruno. Fat wheezy Ray Mercer almost outboxed Lewis. The Tyson bubble burst about a year after his release from prison when heart-attack Holyfield, a washed-up warrior, beat the crap out of him.

Riddick Bowe never learned to slip Golota's punches and looked shot at 29. Michael Moorer barely deserved the win over a cardiac-arrest version of Holyfield, and followed up with a defense over an undeserving George Foreman (18 months out of the ring, coming off a loss to Tommy Morrison), and got KO'd by him. Morrison was both a druggie and an HIV-carrier.

Lewis-McCall 2 was a farce. As way Tyson-Holyfield 2. As was Lewis-Akinwande. Tyson-McNeeley.
..... and of course Bruce Seldon's gallant brave losing defense of his title against Mike Tyson must stand out as the most moving and spirited performance in the history of boxing !

Etc. etc. etc.

 

bump my post

 

Liston was a king kong type. He could seize the fair maiden in one hand and beat off the cops with the other. Sonny was arrested 16+ times. I wonder if his connections limited his jail time. I don't think we would see much of Liston in the 1990's in the modern legal system.

But assuming we take the outside the ring stuff out of the equation, Liston vs. Bowe, Lewis, Mercer, Morrer, Foreman, Tyson, Morrison, Golota, Tua, Holyfield, and Ike would have been interesting.

 

I have most of Liston's fights on film. I agree his era, prior to Ali was rather weak. I tend to disagree somewhat on the athletic comments of the time. Patterson, and Machen were good athletes with speed, balance, and quickness.

 

Tyson of 1991 KO's Liston.

 

I think people view the 1990s through rose-coloured glasses more than they do Liston's era.
Probably due to HBO and Showtime and PPV mega-purse extravanganzas.

Several of Liston's opponents would have landed alphabet titles in the 1990s also.
Guys like Bruce Seldon and Herbie Hide would have been lucky to main event on Gillete's Friday Night fights in the 50s, though Patterson probably would have given them shots at the title.
Tommy Morrison would have been murdered by Liston, let's face it.
McCall would have eaten more jabs than old Foreman's had cheeseburgers.

 

Well, it pretty much goes against what I was saying about the 90's earlier, but you make some very good points, I must say. Nice job. :good