Is Sonny Liston A Top Ten HW ATG?

Stop being all twisted up, it was just colourful talk. What do you think makes a good record? What about Patterson at the time is so good to you? - well better than Louis’s opposition anyway. I also never called his record weak.

 

Where is the proof Douglas was ready to quit against Tyson?
Braddock told his manager that if he stopped the fight he would never talk to him again.
Liston quitting can perhaps be balanced by continuing to fight with a broken jaw.
Duran quit in a fight, was he a coward?
Vitali quit with an injury,whilst leading on the cards the same in jury that Buddy McGirt sustained in a fight and continued to the finish with.
Cerdan quit in a fight,with the same injury Danny Williams continued with and k'd his opponent.
Genaro Hernandez quit with a broken nose ,Liston got the same injury from Williams but carried on and ko'd him .
Liston makes my top ten on a H2H basis but anyone saying he is dsq'd because of his 2 losses to Ali is entitled to do so.
You are assuming a lot of responsibility pronouncing who should do what and I don't see the inside gravitas in your posts to justify it.

 

Definitely top 5 most intimidating heavyweight champ. Maybe even top 10 biggest hitting but I wouldn’t say he’s overall top 10 Atg

 

"Being twisted" up?

I honestly don't know where you're at at this point.

You said that Liston was overrated because someone like Machen was his best win.

I don't really see that it's very arguable that Machen is his best win since Patterson has a better record and also beat Machen (when he probably was a bit on the slide, though) and you haven't said how it is.

I also don't see how peak Patterson is a such a poor top win (which you have to think since you think that the win against Machen is the best and that that is a weak top win). Few have a better win than over a peak version of a fighter that competed at the top level for more than 15 years (that makes a good record btw).

So while I don't have Liston in the top 10 due to his fairly short time at the top and relatively few wins over contenders, I don't see how his best win is supposed to be so subpar.

 

Reframed, Ali won the first round on 2 of 3 cards.

Most people who have seen the first round gave Ali that round - you didn’t?

The one card (1st card) that didn’t award Ali the first round inexplicably had a battered, bleeding and bruised Liston ahead by 2 points after 6 completed rounds.

Ali was temporarily, partially blinded toward the end of round 4 and for a good part of round 5 - but he still managed to come back toward the end of round 5.

Round 5 was an anomaly - an obvious interruption to Ali’s momentum - yet Ali still clawed some of the round back.

Vision recovered by round 6, Ali won that round on ALL 3 cards - the only round that ALL agreed on I believe - 10-9 each.

As far I’ve read, most people were surprised to find that the scorecards were closer than they expected.

Do you normally adhere so faithfully to scorecards and/or did you in fact see the fight as being that close after 6 rounds?

Per my own eyes, the fight wasn’t as close as the cards reflected - and again, round 5 was an anomaly which I still wouldn’t award to Liston as a 10-8.

Though he landed well at times, Liston was swinging and missing a lot - exacerbating an existing condition later turned injury. He opportunistically shot his load in round 5 and was tiring fast by and during round 6.

Yes, there was momentum and growing domination - and it was all going Ali’s way.

In the rematch, Ali didn’t head to and stay in a neutral corner. He was pushed in that direction by Walcott - Ali was on top of Liston as he fell the second time - Liston was clearly aware of where Ali was - and Ali didn’t arrive back after waiting statically in the neutral corner - Ali barely touched base if at all and was running back at first opportunity to get at Liston.

So it’s okay for Ali never to properly retreat to his corner and for Liston not to be afforded and actual count??? - Clearly Ali’s antics were a big distraction from and the cause of an actual count not being started - a count that should’ve been legally suspended.

When he was up Liston didn’t surrender or wave himself off - he was still “fighting” as that term is reasonably understood. His hands were up, he didn’t run or turn his back.

Liston didn’t say No Mas - it was Fleischer who indicated no more, not Sonny “The Fall Guy” Liston.

 

Stop putting words in my mouth, you’re also making a lot of assumptions…- I said it’s arguable Machen is his best win, that makes him overrated, not bad just overrated. -

I’d say on the landscape of HW history Machen if he fought everyone would come out looking better then Floyd, durable technician that he was but that’s just IMO - let’s not go down that rabbit hole yet.

I asked you to answer some simple questions which you haven’t done properly at all. I need those questions answered so we can discuss don’t create more avenues or we’ll get tangled up - let’s keep it on track answer them properly.


1. What do you think makes/defines a good record?

2. What about Patterson at the time is so good to you? so superior to Louis’s best wins?

 

That is literally how I quoted you.

They did about the same against common opposition and he also beat Machen (though probably a somewhat faded version), but Patterson was more proven. But ok.

I've answered both those questions.

Also what is the mystery with a good record? Fight good opp and do well against it.

You haven't answered mine, though, despite this being the fourth time I ask it:

Whom among the guys Louis beat have a better record than Patterson?

 

I’ve honestly just nearly plain had enough of you, you’re purposefully (maybe?) not even properly defining the things you’re arguing for. I think it’s because you might not have a definition a real answer for the question. Answer the two questions properly, flatly.

 

This was the weirdest in a while.

I have made it quite clear that I think Patterson (and his record) was good because he had many wins (11, arguably 14) over rated opposition over a 16 year period, none of the wins even slightly controversial. I can add that only two men truly got the better of him, one of them a consensus for top 2 at HW.

I fail to understand why I need to qualify why I think this is a good record, but I did anyway: stating that competing at the top for a long while/doing well against good opposition make for a good record. Don't know why this needed to be clarified, but did so anyway but still you harped on about not getting a straight answer. Straight as ****ing Lee Marvin to me.

And I've said that the version Liston beat likely was the very peak version at 27, blending experience, maturity and physical ability. So the peak version of a very good fighter with a very good record. How much clearer can I be? A ****ing ability scale like he's a Punch Out (a video game) character?

I've given you these answers and you have refused to answer me in return and still you have a hissy fit

But as I've said earlier, you staying out of discussions is good riddance. Literally the only thing I've seen you contribute is to denigrate 60's fighters, despite demonstrating little knowledge of the era, and hail Louis's era as much superior on unclear grounds.

That's it. No interest or respect for anything that falls outside your favourite era. You're like White Bomber, with the difference that for him it's Tyson and the 80-90's.

 

No, I'm expecting that if you want to have a debate about Liston we can actually talk about the merits of his career and follow a line of reasoning.

In a debate, people ask questions to understand each other's line of reasoning. They expect the other person to respond. Kind of like how adults in politics or business have debates. Has nothing to do with me thinking I can give you "homework". This is why you suck at debates NoNeck.

If you refuse to answer questions, you lost the debate.

Thanks for playing.

 

You're the one who changed the topic.

You made points about how Ali "wasn't in his prime", how Ali looked better in other fights, how Ali couldn't have been in his prime because he struggled in previous fights and was only 22.

So I literally took the time to address EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU MADE and then you refused to respond back. Now you have the audacity to claim I'm changing the subject after ignoring me addressing EVERYTHING you said? You are delusional!

Once again, I'm not going to bother any of this other crap you're writing till you go back to our original discussion. All you're doing is deflecting and changing the topic. Cry if you want.

 

There's literally an entire training camp that was well documented Several clips are on youtube showing the disinterested Liston going through the motions. Liston was not doing intense training and had written off Ali. This isn't an excuse, it's Liston's fault for not staying in shape. I'm simply stating a fact that Liston was not as sharp and active as he was between 58-62.

Him not having more than 3 rounds of action in 3 years is a fact. Sparring and fighting are 2 different things. Do you think Errol Spence was just as sharp leading up to the Crawford fight as he was when he was active fighting multiple times a year?

Name a fighter or trainer who agrees with you. Just 1 who agrees a fighter can stay sharp for 3 years just by sparring and staying in the gym without any fights.

No, I'm saying Ali was in his prime when he fought Liston. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the original discussion I said I doubt any HW champion could be relatively inactive for 3 years with only 3 rounds of action and keep their belt defending against the Ali Liston faced. I stand by that.

 

It's amazing how you can ask a simple question 3x in a row to understand the other person's view and people think you have dark triad personality traits and are being an unreasonable oppressor. What planet are we on?

 

I love how weirdly divisive Liston is. I have him in my lower top 10 or right outside of it.

 

The things is that for all the commotion here, I think the vast majority here have something similar.