Ingemar Johansson vs Sonny Liston 1959

Yes I have long agreed that fighters like Marciano, Bowe and Tyson could well have lost a decision on the way up as part of the learning process.

 

That’s probably what folks thought about Machen before Ingo fought him.

Cleveland Williams was a “bigger” puncher than Ali, Yet Ali knocked out much “better” fighters than Williams ever could have.

Against Ali Foreman took the ten count. Against Ali, Miteff took the ten count. Both guys shared a ring with Williams. Food for thought.

 

I don't follow your last paragraph. Williams also stopped Miteff and never fought Foreman.

What is far more relevant is Patterson had enough power to stop Ingo 2 out of 3 and couldn't yet couldn't hold Liston off for long enough to see the end of the 1st round in either attempt.

 

That will be undigestible food for Chok! lol

 

Choc - it really is a matter of judging each case on its own merits - there is no rule of thumb. But it can't be said that a fighter beat a "ranked" HW if the opponent in question wasn't ranked as at that time, even if that opponent was ranked before or after.

To be totally accurate, one would say that Fighter X beat a "later" ranked or "previously" ranked fighter. If one does think that a before/after ranking speaks for the quality of an, "as a the time" UNRANKED fighter, they are free to argue for it and outline the case - but again, it can't be said that Fighter X actually beat a "ranked" fighter - that will always be interpreted as a "real time" status which will equate to misrepresentation, intentional or not.

I don't have the resources I would like to ascertain all historical rankings. What ranking did Terrell have when he faced Williams in the rematch? As far as I can see, Williams was the # 4 contender as at the time of the rematch when he was "upset" by Terrell - and, as such, that win in itself over the # 4 ranked Williams moved Ernie into the top 10 - resulting in rankings of # 8 by the WBC and # 9 by Ring Magazine.

 

Quite a 180 considering you thought that was the same Terrell who'd lost to Johnny Gray.... despite his most recent (SD) loss to him being a whopping three years prior.

 

While by no means a robbery, I've always scored the rematch for Williams and thought a KD should've been called in round 3 (which I believe still would've given Terrell the victory as the fight was scored on rounds not points and Terrell had already been given the round). Terrell was looking bad at the last round. I don't think he survives another 5 rounds or even 2 which is why I've always thought William would've won that WBA title match had he not been shot.

It should also be noted, Williams's had some very damaged hands in that bout to the point where the fight was almost cancelled.

 

It agree with much of this and ranking a fighter merely by how many ranked guys he defeated is a questionable method.

1. When counting "how many ranked" fighters a boxer beat, beating the number 1 ranked fighter and then the champion in back to back fights would count for as much as beating the number 10 and number 9. Clearly it is way more impressive to achieve the first and can be argued that what Johansson did over Machen and Patterson can not be measured by a "number".

2. In what fashion did he beat those guys? Clearly knocking out the no. 1 contender and then the champion is much more convincing than getting a questionable decision over a lower ranked opponent. You need to look at how clear the decisions were. Having fewer but clearer victories can rank for more than a high number of very close ones.

3. In getting those victories, how many did the fighter lose on the way there? If a fighter has many cracks at top 10 guys, he may only win half but due to the number of fights still have a high number of ranked wins. This must also be taken into account.

Just ranking Johansson based on the number of opponents is a bit misleading. The top 10 guys he fought he beat convincingly and only lost to Floyd in rematches. The third fiht was close and with a questionable stoppage). He not only fought the ranked guys of Machen and Floyd but the TOP RANKED guys and knocked them both out in a total of less than 4 rounds. Such was his efficiency at his peak. He didn't slip up against lesser opponents either (except for the last 10 seconds of his career) even in his early career even though he never faced anyone with a losing record. This is unusual even among champs. To his achievements can be added a olympic final in which he should not have been disqualified.

If you beat Machen and Patterson in that way, you could have raked up wins also against the number 10, number 9, 8 etc... That shouldn't even be questionable. but would that have made his record so much better? Clearly not. What he did was already way better than that as he became the champion of the world.

 

I think a question which should be asked is if a foreign fighter, let's say Joe Erskine, is as likely to be rated at the time, the late fifties, as an American fighter. These ratings were done by Americans. The NBA was a de jure American organization. The Ring was only a magazine and had no de jure authority, but was the de facto most respected ratings. The ratings used by the TV Guide for the fights on TV were The Ring Magazine ratings and the evaluations of the fighters were written by Nat Fleischer.

Boxing in the USA at this point was dependent on TV revenue. I wonder how much subtle pressure, or perhaps even overt pressure, was on Fleischer to rate fighters who appeared on American TV.

The networks would not want the TV Guide to list their fights as a match of two unrated fighters rather than a fight between two contenders.

Personally, in hindsight, I think a fighter's entire career should be the criteria, with the caveat of how he was doing at the time. I am going to study Erskine and the ratings at the time he fought Johansson and see what I think about Erskine being unrated.

*After studying the ratings, I think Erskine could easily have been rated rather than guys like Pat McMurtry, Alex Miteff, or Mike DeJohn, who were rated by the NBA at the time Erskine fought Ingo. Was the fact that he wasn't and they were have anything to do with who was appearing on American TV?

 

Untrue. If you're going to post with an agenda, at least get your facts straight.

 

Bear in mind that Erskine's previous attempt to make his mark internationally had ended in a first round loss to Nino Valdes (who was unranked at the time following losses to Machen and Folley). This diminished not only his reputation but the reputation of all the British heavyweights he'd beaten.

 

Okay. This is a glass is half full and half empty situation. Depends on what you judge important in his record and the records of the others. My question is did appearing on American TV affect this judgment? There was a financial reason to build up a guy fighting in America, let's say Besmanoff, over a guy fighting exclusively in Europe.

Looking at it in retrospect, and remembering hindsight is 20/20, almost all the top contenders, plus the champion--Patterson, Machen, Folley, Harris, Pastrano--would be beaten by Europeans over the next couple of years. So that there was a huge gap in talent looks unconvincing to me.

 

Valdez beat Eskriene in one round while Johannson needed 13 a year later? Wonder what Bah Lance and Chok think of this comparison.

 

I agree how a champion got on against their best opponents is a good indicator of how good they were.

Ingo's best opponent was Patterson. He was stopped 2 out of 3. Patterson proved himself Ingo's superior, albeit vulnerable to his power. Patterson was stopped in the 1st round of both his fights with Liston. Liston didn't just prove himself superior to Patterson, but did so to such an extent that frankly, it made an early case for creating the CW division, as it made a 180-190lbs boxer fighting Liston appear like an unfair mistmatch of a fight that was cruel to be sanctioned.

Even if you extend this comparison to Ingo's best 2 x opponents, he went 2-2 with them, winning & losing both by KO. Against those same 2 x opponents, Liston went 3-0, scoring 2 x 1st round KO's and a clear UD.

 

Fair points but I think that solely using one opponent for comparison can be misleading. Patterson was just his perfect opponent may have made him look even more superior than he really was. We know that Frazier beat Ali in their first fight, Foreman destroyed Frazier so Foreman should also beat Ali, right?

I found this in an article about Liston and that he was not always as impressive in the Patterson fights. Not saying he was not good but maybe one cannot use only that fight to judge him.

"What one sometimes forgets is that a large part of the Liston legend is built upon his last three fights, fights that were spread out over a three-year period and lasted exactly six minutes and four seconds. In less than a round Liston twice knocked out Patterson, the weak-chinned former champion, and humiliated an inept German, Albert (Quick-fall) Westphal. But before that Sonny Liston sometimes had more than a little trouble defeating fighters whose names were hardly household words. Even in their own households.

There was, for example, Eddie Machen, who went 12 rounds to a decision, taunting Liston all the way. Bert Whitehurst twice lasted 10 rounds to decisions. Mike DeJohn staggered Liston, and later, when the fight was stopped, DeJohn had to be restrained from going after Liston once again. Zora Folley had Liston cowering and covering from a volley of combinations. Cleveland Williams all but knocked Liston out. Lumbering Howard King went eight rounds with Liston, standing toe to toe, swapping punches all the way. Marty Marshall broke Liston's jaw and beat him. In a rematch Marshall knocked Liston down. In a third tight Marshall hurt Liston, by Sonny's own admission, and went 10 rounds before losing the decision. Rotund Willi Besmanoff slipped Liston's jab and lasted seven rounds. Jimmy McCarter, who beat Liston in an AAU championship bout, later stood up to him defiantly in training camp.

Some of these fights were long ago, and Liston has improved; perhaps none of the fighters could do as well against Liston today, although at least four are eager to try. But their success and their tactics indicate how Liston can be beaten by a strong, courageous man.

The pertinent experiences arc those of McCarter, Whitehurst, Marshall and, to a lesser extent, Machen. These four developed individual styles for fighting Sonny. Machen stayed away and kept Liston lunging and missing, although he was never in danger of winning the fight, since he seldom bothered to risk a punch of his own. Marshall did everything that was unexpected, and Liston, a predictable fighter, found the unpredictable Marshall beyond his ken. After three fights he was still frustrated by Marshall's style. Whitehurst, a thick-bodied, heavily muscled man, moved in and out, kept Liston busy and smothered his power. McCarter, a former college football player at the University of Washington, was the equal of Liston in bulk and strength. He stayed inside and traded punches. He was too big for Liston to throw around, and his body blows hurt the future champ."

The four who baffled Liston - Sports Illustrated Vault | SI.com