Ingo on Liston against Machen

While I agree, patterson also knocked ingo out TWICE. patterson was a better heavyweight than johansson. Patterson couldnt last 3 rounds in 2 fights with liston. that tells you something.

but he couldnt take a punch, He had no head movement and liston would not have trouble finding his mark. remember liston with his long arms didnt need to chase ingo around the ring, only get into range. Liston would outfight outslug ingo at all ranges, ingo didnt like to get bullied on the inside, patterson bullied him. i can only imagine how much liston would outmuscle him in the trenches. Listons two fisted assault vs ingos right hand, liston has the huge edge here.

 

I disagree with fleischer. Folley knocked out cooper in 2 rounds in the rematch anyway.

ingo faced such a lack of quality fighters that folley did its impossible to compare. had ingo fought more american fighters it would be easier to compare.

btw, are we going by common opponents or styles? name me one common opponent amatuer or professionally ingemar did better against than liston?

 

Sorry but i find that hard to believe. Machen was undefeated and had never been off his feet and was absolutely destroyed by Ingo, yet they thought it was a "fluke"?

Most of those martial artist are so dumb it's hard to believe.

But i was talking about the knockDOWN of Liston, not the knockout/rolling over on the floor. Did i say that?

 

this is a fact, read pattersons autobiography, he himself states it. Its common knowledge ingo would not throw his right hand in training camp leading up to the patterson fight, make a new thread if ud like. patterson's camp throught of ingos knockout of machen as a fluke, no one had really seen the film of it.





By the way machen was supposed to get a rematch with ingo, how do you think that would have played out? I think machen DEFINTLEY goes the distance.



how many rounds you think ingo would have lasted vs liston?

 

They both got the W. How did johannson do vs folley, williams, valdez, dejohn, bethea?? o thats right he didnt fight these guys. he simply tried to take advantage of the element of suprise his whole career and it worked. but once american fighters found out about it in 1960, it was not going to work anymore.

 

Folleys chin let him down once in a while, but certainly not all the time. lets not forget how skilled a boxer folley was, he made guys like machen valdez chuvalo jones look like fools with his jab and fundamentals. folley was a very good fighter. this is an underated liston win. people point out the machen fight, but forget what liston did to a slick mobile highly skilled boxer in folley.


back to the original point, ingemar was nowhere near in listons class, and frankly, i do not think ingo matched up well with liston at all. ingo was unproven against big punchers and skilled men of listons size. liston made a living out of knocking the daylights out of top contenders/champions ingemars size.

 

A very good response, and one that seems to have discredited the opposition...

 

Sorry to be a pest Q, but this was not your original question to Old Fogey. The question was,

He answered the question legitimately, and now you're doing this:

With all due respect, you have a bad habit of back peddling. Giving the other side his rightful dues once in a while, is both easier and more conducive to saving face..

This has more holes in it than a brick of swiss cheese attacked by an entire nest of mice...

 

Indeed, and I find it rather amusing that this young man ( who is all but 21 years of age ), claims that " no one saw it ", yet you as a spectator, who lived through those times happened to catch it. Therefore, I concur that if an average gentleman in the late 1950's ( meant complimentary of course ), viewed the fight, then I think it fair to say, that world class experts, such as say........The heavyweight champion of the world and his trainer, should have seen it as well........

Good points..

 

And Johannson obliterated Machen in one of the worst beatdowns ever put on film, whilst Liston could only muster a tedious decision.

Styles make fights. Just because fighter A beat fighter B, and fighter B beat fighter C does not mean that fighter A beats fighter C. This ain't armchair fantasy football. Raise your game.

 

The only fighter on your list who has a serious, legitimate case for being better than Johansson is Patterson.
By my count, against their four common opponents, Johansson is 4-0 (2 KO's) to Folley's 3-2-1 (2 KO's), and they fought most of those opponents in the same couple years as one another. Johansson has a substantially better winning resume, claimed his major wins in more convincing fashion, had a considerably better record without any of Folley's spotty losses, reached greater heights in the division and won the championship, all in a much shorter career than Folley's. I don't see any strong, reasonable, objective case for considering Folley a superior fighter to Johansson; in fact, I think this claim is pretty clearly not true. With Williams, there is less to compare in terms of common opposition, but nonetheless, unless I'm overlooking someone scanning down their records here, Johansson is 2-0 (2 KO's) to Williams' 1-0-1 (0 KO's) against their common opposition. And as with comparison to Folley, Johansson has a better (in this case MUCH better) winning resume, more convincing major wins, a considerably better record, reached greater heights in the division, and won the championship, all in a much shorter career.
As you know, you and I have similar opinions on many issues, but here I find you biased against Johansson. Some of your arguments are decidedly inconsistent- for example, you are loudly slamming Johansson for an amateur fight he had when he was 19 after having just made a thread declaring that Liston should be exempt from criticism for early pro fights he had while in his twenties.

 

You do realise that it is written by a ghost writer, right?



Just because it's in an autobiography doesn't make it a fact, unless you are willing to believe that Willard was in great shape against Dempsey and touted as a big skilled giant, Holyfield having a legit excuse for every of his losses and unwed children, etc etc.