Jack Johnson vs. Sonny Liston

It's funny that you dismiss Hart as though he were some little guy.
Hart's measurements.
Chest.45"
Exp. 47.25"
Height. 5.11.5"'
Biceps. 15.5"
Forearms. 14"
Fist 14"
Weight. 195/200lbs

That's bigger in the chest than.
Liston.1"
Foreman .2"
Tyson.1"
Louis.2"
Lewis.1"
Holmes.1.5"
And nearly all others. Hart was a very big man, in build , just under 6 foot, he is a match for most champs in size.

 

I did not like the way johnson fought but he was a great fighter. I would want sonny to win but Liston would be the one making the fight and therefore loses to Johnson. At his best Johnson would stop people working. I see Liston win against machen who is trying to frustrate and neutralise sonny but johnson at his best was cleverer, stronger inside and much more potent than machen. Johnson would win ugly.

 

Hart's a diaper wearing slob with no physique. Seriously. How long would he last against Liston. Probably KO him, I suppose.

 

Liston would clobber Johnson. It's not really fair; Johnson never fought an opponent with any skill over 200lbs nor any opponent that knew how to threw a jab. Liston checks out positive on both of those, and then some. Jacky boy Johnson was ahead of his time and a pioneer, but we have to be realistic - his opponents were cavemen, in a time when gloved boxing was in its infancy and just developing. In the meanwhile, Johnson had already hit adolescence development-wise and was squashing the kindergarten-schooled opponents of his time.

 

Why don't you tell us some more about your power-lifting exploits
It would be marginally more entertaining than your responses to this thread.

 

What does the term "evolution " mean in a boxing context?
I have always thought evolution describes a continuous process, if I am correct then boxing must be perpetually changing.
Therefore one would assume that the boxers of today would be superior to the boxers of the last decade, or at least to the decade before that . Are they?
Are the present champions improved versions of those that came 20 years before them?
If not ,where is the cut off point when things began to perceptibly improve?
I don't see the depth of talent today that has been around in my lifetime . I don't see a fighter today superior in ring skills to Chavez,Holmes,Whitaker,Nelson Hearns,Hagler,Leonard,Duran,Ali.
I don't see fighters today that are superior to those of the 30's,and that is over 7 decades ago. I think Tunney would do very well today, Dempsey I think ,would beat the living **** out of the vast majority of heavies , never mind cruisers.

Are there better boxers around today than Benny Leonard, Tommy Loughran, Jack Delaney,Kid Chocolate,Midget Wolgast,Jimmy McLarnin,Barney Ross?
How about later?
Billy Conn,Holman Williams, Charley Burley,Len Harvey.



If skills have improved, how come we have ONE FLOYD M ?
Should we not have 10-15?

 

I don't agree with the evolution stuff. But I've read enough to know that Tunney doesn't qualify, because he doesn't implement the hallowed "high guard" !

 

McGrain, do you feel like "Modern" Tunney beats Johnson at a weight of 190? If a fight between Liston and Johnson took place with the following stipulations to even things out In Re: Modern Rules... Fight Scheduled for 25 rounds and clinching of Johnson's era is allowed. Do you still feel like Liston would win?

 

Burley : there's another guy who was actually something of a 'throwback' to the Joe Gans archetype.

 

In other words **** off .