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

Thanks. :good

I feel a bit bad having to jog people's memories a bit about the 1990s but it's too often glorified and over-rated.
Of course, there were great moments like Douglas-Tyson, Lewis-Ruddock, the Bowe-Holyfield trilogy, Holyfield-Tyson 1, and up-and-comers Ibeaubuchi-Tua, but it baffles me when gross underachievers/hype-jobs like Mercer and Morrison get positively compared in the crop against the top heavyweights of the 80s.

 

In a one-fight scenario, Liston probably would've taken out a good number of the top fighters.

In a career scenario, I think he would've had significantly less success for two reasons: the top 10 fighters of that era, in general, weren't as vulnerable to Liston's best assets as his own era was. He'd have still won plenty of fights, but wouldn't have looked the 800 pound gorilla he did.

The second reason is that Liston's best run occurred before he won the title chasing that dangling carrot. Well, there's 4 belts floating around- how long until he picks up one, gets complacent, and loses a fight he normally wouldn't? Seems to me Liston's the type of guy who'd have a hell of a run to the top of the mountain but he wouldn't have the kind of mentality to allow him to rule any era with an iron fist for an extended period of time.

So, I see him as a beltholder who could pick up a strap at his best, maybe get a couple defenses, but that's about it. Which is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

I agree he's liable to get complacent and lose in an upset, but I reckon he'd be motivated enough to win the undisputed championship or unify the belts if this hypothetical scenario is a period of title fragmentation.
He'd do more than be just another belt-holder anyway.

 

I'm not so certain that'd be the case. If there's anything the top fighters and fringe guys of the 90's could do, it was dish out punishment and the punchers were well above and beyond what Liston dominated. I can't see Liston unifying the hard way (one belt at a time) in that kind of environment. Just another beltholder shouldn't be construed as an insult. Without the carrot dangling in front of him to motivate his destructive focus, I don't hesitate in thinking he'd never have had more than a couple defenses in any era before complacency got to him, which would also mean not enough time to unify.

Now, if he waited until someone else did some of the unifying for him or he waited until the best matchup for him, and then he got the fight? Then I could see him becoming undisputed.

But the truth is when Liston went into the Ali fights, Muhammad was looked at as a lamb going to slaughter and he still should've beaten a green Ali. That he didn't and had a horribly lazy training camp in the process in only his 2nd defense doesn't show me he had the focus or mentality to have prolonged success once he had the belt. I think his best work would've always come on the way up.

 

It might not be an insult, but ....

undisputed champs (linear, and holding the three major belts) of the 90s were :

Tyson
Douglas
Holyfield
Bowe
Lewis

with the following holding TWO of the three major belts :
post-prison Tyson
Moorer
Foreman
Holyfield (twice, the second stint due to unifying)
Bowe (when he ditched one)

And those who fall under "just another belt-holder" :

Bruce Seldon
Oliver McCall
Frank Bruno
Francois Botha (stripped for roids)

& the WBO circuit
Francesco Damiani (WBO)
Ray Mercer (WBO)
Tommy Morrison (WBO)
Michael Bentt (WBO)
Herbie Hide (WBO)
Henry Akinwande (WBO)
Herbie Hide (WBO)
Vitali KLitschko (WBO)

I dont think he would have been satisfied with just winning a belt, because clearly being a one-time belt-holder doesn't mean much. He did well to eliminate every significant available top contender of period 1959-62, including the champ, and that's about equivalent of unifying belts (2 or 3 wins max. over the significant individuals as you find them). I think complacency came after he had "PROVEN" himself top dog, not before.