Larry Holmes vs Sonny Liston

I completely agree with your post.
I hate it when people claim Liston was not far removed from his '59 best in '64 on the basis that he beat Patterson in '62 & '63; they were highly impressive wins, but Floyd was perfect for even a faded Liston.

 

How is it clear? He never even got a look-in in the fight, so how can we make that judgement?

Where is the evidence of this on film?

Again, there's no real evidence for this. It would also be a bit strange if a fighter went from being in his "prime" (pre-title) to being "far past his prime" in the space of 18 months, even if his activities outside the ring were what you say they were.

Do you really believe the outcome would have been any different?

This is bordering on "'88 Tyson was a totally diferrent animal" discussions.

I wouldn't call that "brawling his way out of trouble" (or whatever you said). That's a tired fighter unable to keep distance any longer against a comparatively fresh fighter, and responding to that pressure by having to engage. Holmes always kept the range and stuck with straight, long, fast shots. Liston is not a pressure fighter and doesn't have the game to force him out of that.

 

Something that has to be said is that Holmes is very vulnerable and often got knocked down by an overhand right, one of Sonny's best punches.

 

There are, to my knowledge, five fights' worth of footage available in the period in which, according to you, Liston transformed from being a primed-out monster to being a "far removed" shell of himself. Four of those five fights are blow-outs in which Liston looked as good as he ever did: KO2 Williams, KO1 Harris, KO1 Patterson and KO1 Patterson. The only other fight that might provide evidence for the decline you suggest was there is the 12-round Machen fight, which took place in 1960 (only a year after his supposed peak). Was it something in there that suggested to you that Liston's career was about to drop off the clip?

 

it was more than just speed. ali used his footwork to keep a safe distance from liston, let liston reach in while throwing his jab, then ali would throw his with good timing. so footwork & positioning + timing + speed is how ali was able to beat liston in a jabbing contest.

i pick liston to bully his way to a victory.

 

Does he? I didn't think so. If you're going to be so picky, he looked slower against Machen than he did against Whitehurst. Did he delapidate into rat**** then as well?

I didn't notice any difference. It's hardly the best fight to judge these things, considering McMurray spent the entire fight doing his best Usain Bolt impression.

That was four years after he fought Ali according to boxrec.

These things only seem to get brought up when excuses need to be made. I'd rather go on what I see happen in the ring.

 

Your in the minority.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZkFNdPkdI[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbFwYVakMC4[/ame]

Take a look at liston's feet, his movement, his upperbody reflexes...clearly faster and sharper

than this


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC3NMsxHDLM&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg-mvGAT80w[/ame]
Here even in 1966, watch how liston has slowed down so much by this point, he gets beat to the punch by gerhard zech.

 

Liston getrs a hugely distorted bad rap because in his mid-thirties after a long period of inactivity and in poor condition he was diced up by a young Ali ... just like Frazier is haunted in match ups by anyone with a decent punch there appears to be a concensus that any boxer could outbox Sonny Liston and this is false.

For starters , let's pick the prime Liston of 59 not the old man of 64. Now let's talk Larry Holmes ... I like Larry in this match up because of his speed and his heart but it is a very tough bout. It would have to be the Holmes of Shavers 1 who used his legs as well as his jab and speed. If the more stationary Holmes of most of his title defenses fought Sonny he'd have a much tougher fight ...

That being established I like Holmes by decision ...

 

I'm not getting into those bull**** as I know I'm not crazy based on actual PM discussions I've had about your weird circular connections to things that just weren't there.

This went way before the further discussions and explanations on the issue. I can show you my responses, but what was the point. You came to an absurdly hilarious conclusion based on me using "chin" and "durability" interchangeable once. And EVEN AFTER that I explained they weren't synonymous.

Ironic as hell consider the latest of what you've said.

 

Honestly think Holmes is overratedly underrated. And what I mean is that so many persistently claim he's underrated. I don't think he is, not in terms of his legacy. He's a middle of the road guy in a top 10 HW list. In H2H, he gets his dues, and maybe there's some room for him getting underrated. But Liston is just a total another animal. What historian thinks of him as highly as the ones on here do. Not just in H2H, but in all facets? I would love to witness a discussion between an ESB member and a historian on why Liston is some juggernaut that gets horrible underrated, and that he's clearly a legit top 5 HW. What can they say to that? The bully perceptions are far more accurate than the way some here reflect on his legacy.

 

So do you think that Liston is a top 5 HW?
Some people here dont even have him top 10. Me, I have him top 5 exactly.