Liston or Foreman? Who was better? My breakdown on 11 categories

Listons technical superiority is very much key given both these guys are more or less equal in terms of chin, power, size, frame. When Foreman gets sloppy which he undoubtedly would Liston would pick him appart with jabs, hooks and that defense of George's would part like the Red sea. I think a ref stoppage is likely as George would want to continue but not have the wherewithal to do so.

 

i'm certain that a liston-foreman fight would be close too:good

 

I wasn't comparing like for like - I was just making a style comparison and a comparative of how they match up - i should've just said "Foreman would be to Liston what Max Baer was to Joe Louis" - yeah thats what I meant :good

 

So you decide to criticize Liston vigorously, then make exuses for foreman's "let down" performances?

 

Let me sum it up for you right here. Liston was a complete all around assassin. Foreman was just an assassin. Liston would have demolished foreman for these reasons.

I also believe if you look at their whole body of work, Liston gets the edge. Prior to the frazier fight in 73, foreman was perhaps the most protected fighter of all time. 37 wins, most of them creampuffs. Liston on the otherhand, was thrown to the wolves early and never held back. His cornerman even had the audacity to schedule a fight with a hall of famer in his 14th pro fight!

 

Head to head, Sonny would have the clear edge here. His jab was delivered at Foreman's preferred punching range. Liston's punches were straighter, and he was more controlled in maneuvering for the kill. When Foreman had Chuvalo and Young in trouble, he got wild, and threw away a lot of punches. Chuvalo's own Irving Ungerman prematurely rescued an about to be spent Foreman from sustaining his first defeat in 1970, but no such help ever came from Young's corner.

Sonny kept cool and in control when he had somebody in trouble, not wasting shots randomly. His late career stoppage of Scrap Iron Johnson showed that he had a reverse gear from which he could land long straight punches effectively. If Foreman did back him up, Liston could make him pay the price for that. George used up a lot more energy. Foreman would be missing, Sonny would be landing. George showed against Peralta that he had the footwork to outmaneuver Liston, but would he wear himself out in the process?

Who was better? For me it comes down to jab, punching technique and efficiency. Liston was the better boxer, straighter puncher, and less wasteful of energy. George had a huge edge when it came to cutting off the ring effectively, but that would not have helped him against Liston, and it could have blown up completely in his face against a counter puncher like Jerry Quarry who lived off the ropes and corners. (Liston wanted Jerry after Henry Clark. At no time did George ever express any interest in taking on the Belter when asked on camera about Quarry during this time period. It's one thing for Foreman to say today that he deliberately avoided Jerry then, quite another to have it confirmed by the obvious hesitance and reticence he displayed 40 years ago.)

 

Alright,I'll say Liston. If it went into the later rounds,George might gas out a bit.

 

Good post!

 

Did Chuck Wepner ever say who hit harder?

I seem to remember Bert Sugar asking him on ESPN, but I don't remember that he answered clearly, just that both men hit hard.

 

Good summation, Mendoza. If I'd change anything it would be to give the edge in power to Foreman, but emphasise the difference in offensive and defensive skill more. This is what separates them the most.

It should also be mentioned that Foreman was quite clearly better at cutting the ring off, even though Liston had the superior footwork overall.

 

Foreman would out-tough Liston and win around the 7th round. Foreman would just be more willing to go through it all... Liston's best chance is to frustrate Foreman and get him tired out.

 

If you had been hit by both Liston and Foreman ,I doubt your answers would be very clear ever again.

 

If that logic worked, then Frazier would've demolished Foreman too.

Liston never showed he had the capacity to beat (much less "demolish") a great HW in his career, and no one ever showed that Foreman could be beaten (much less "demolished") by a fighter who went at him or tried to hold his ground in mid ring. Picking Liston to do so is an entirely baseless claim.

That logic works both ways, as Liston was massively protected during his post-title years while Foreman challenged Holyfield at age 40-something and eventually became the world champ again after that. In the end though, Foreman is the only to to actually beat a great (and in fact ATG) HW in Frazier, which makes his resume clearly the superior.

 

You included Chin in your category but left out body resistance?

Why? is the face more valuable to a fighter than his body?

The ability of a fighter to absorb body punches is an overlooked criteria