Liston over Marciano - Can Anyone Sanely...

I rate him higher. He has two devastating wins over a top 25 heavyweight in his prime. Plus Folley, Machen and Williams, all great fighters, and all in their prime. In my opinion his resume is on the same level as Marciano's. I also rate Liston much higher head to head.

 

All-time ratings should take into consideration fighting ability as well as career achievements. Even though Marciano's career achievements may have been superior to Liston's, the case can be made that Liston would have been too big, powerful, and strong for Marciano to contend with in the ring. Thus, it is conceivable that Sonny could be rated above Marciano.

 

listons opposition may have been tougher but i see rock winning by late ko if the ref dont stop it on rocks cuts from listons powerfull jabs and hooks

 

I give Marciano less flack than most and probably more than most where Liston is concerned, but yes, I do think Liston can be sanely ranked ahead of Rocky. Ranking of historical champions' "greatness" is a very subjective business, and I think a case can be made for putting, say, the fighters I would have in the #3-13 spots in almost any order, although I obviously feel the order I've put them in is the best one. I rate Marciano #3-4 amongst the heavyweight champions of history, and Liston #10-11, but even that disparity is filled with vagaries and very much debatable, I would say.
To make a Devil's advocate case for Liston here:
It is true that Liston suffered four losses, while Marciano finished his professional career without a blemish, but when we look a little more deeply into the context, it can be pointed out that Liston's loss to Marshall was very early in his career against a much more experienced opponent who was a respectable gatekeeper-level fighter, and was a split decision in a fight in which Liston suffered a broken jaw. I think it's reasonable to believe Marciano, too, could have lost to a Marty Marshall-level opponent in his first 10 professional fights.
After the Marshall match, Liston went undefeated for close to a decade, during which he defeated most of the top fighters in his division, before, of course, losing twice to a young Muhammad Ali. Let us consider that Liston was a bit past his best at the time of these fights, and Ali is regarded by much of the boxing public as the greatest heavyweight of all time. I think it is a reasonable belief that Marciano- especially a past-peak Marciano- would also have lost to Ali.
Liston's final professional loss, as you know, was against Leotis Martin in 1969. Liston was around 40 years old at the time of this match (Marciano was long since retired at this age), facing a legitimate prime contender, and he was, in fact, dominating the fight (he even inflicted a career-ending detached retina on Martin) before Martin came up with the Hail Mary knockout punch of his life to pull out the win. I think it is reasonable to believe that, had Marciano fought on into his late 30's to early '40s, he could have lost to a Martin-level fighter.
With these things considered, I think Liston's lesser win-loss record could be seen as a product of tougher circumstance (was put in with more dangerous competition early in his career, had to deal with the greatest of all time while probably past his own peak, faced a prime contender while at least in his late 30s) and not necessarily of inferior performance level.

It could further be argued that Liston was generally more dominant in his major wins (Patterson, Machen, Folley, Williams) than Marciano was in his own, and I think one could make a case that Patterson was on the level of a Walcott or Charles, in which case, Liston's relatively more dominant results against Patterson (two short massacres) than Marciano's against Walcott and Charles (two wars, one dominant win, but with a cut scare, and one blow-out) could be used as a point of contrast in Liston's favor. I also think that it is reasonable to believe Liston could/would beat Marciano in a hypothetical head-to-head-at-best meeting, which is a major criterion for many people.

All of that said, here are some reasons why I disagree with the case I've just mounted above:
1. It is true that Liston's losses are all of an "understandable" nature when taken in context, but Marciano, too, had a number of fights in which, had he lost, it could have been seen as "understandable" (for example, the matches against far-more-experienced undefeated prospects Ross and Quinn in Marciano's third and fourth pro fights), but he never did lose, and thus he still contrasts favorably with Liston.
2. Although his losses to Ali are, as I have said, reasonably excusable in the sense that they are losses to The Greatest while Liston was past his own peak, I believe that they still detract greatly from Liston's legacy on the basis of their content, which could reasonably be termed disgraceful (first fight) and embarrassing (second fight). Liston sat down on his stool and quit after six rounds in which he had not taken a great deal of punishment (and had possibly cheated) in the first fight, which is not conduct befitting a great champion, and speaks very poorly of Liston's fighting heart- and the fact that he quit so easily in a fight which was for the championship makes it all the more damaging. In the second fight, either Liston quit again, or, if he didn't, he unintentionally became one of only two first-round stoppage victims in Ali's entire career, the other being an obscure fighter with a losing record. Nearly everyone Ali fought, including fringe contenders, journeymen and club fighters, offered up a better performance than Liston did. I consider these fights a major strike against Liston's legacy.
3. Along with those things, I believe Marciano has a better winning resume than Liston, a better title reign, did a little better job of cleaning out the top of his division, and, whether he would beat Liston or not (which I consider a tough call), would do better against some other champions than Liston would. For one, I'm extremely confident Marciano would not cheat, then quit on his stool or go out in the first round were he to fight Ali, at any stage in his career; in fact, he probably could've come out of retirement in the '60s and still offered a better showing than Liston did against Ali.

On the whole, then, I consider Marciano a considerably greater fighter than Liston, but "greatness" and the crir side even when things may seem cut and dried to one on a teria which constitute it are extremely subjective things, and as a result, I can see how a "sane" case can often be made for a given position on an issue even when I myself am well on the other side of the fence with regards to it.

 

There's always an argument when you are talking of all-time greats but then what does one mean by "rating", what are the criteria...

Head to Head.... I'd pick Marciano but only 60/40. This one could go either way. Liston certainly never defeated a fighter in Marciano's class and perhaps that argument can be made in reverse, but only perhaps.

Pound for Pound... Marciano was a more devastating fighter- pound for pound- at 188 than Liston was at 210. Case closed.

 

Marciano would never quit.
That alone put's him above Liston in my book.

 

Remember...Marciano NEVER quit.....Nuff' said!!!

 

I'm not sure i can quite agree here. Greatness is a fair way above those guys IMO. Maybe you didn't mean it that strongly?

 

Two first round wins over Patterson is a good argument for Liston being rated highly. Patterson was a good fighter.

But Liston quit pathetically against Clay.
Liston didn't do quite enough in his career to cancel out that, IMO.
I know Clay was good but lots of lesser fights put up far better arguments than Liston managed.
Those showings somewhat undermine what Liston did with Patterson and a few other contenders.

Liston might make my top 10, but not necessarily. I'd probably rate Marciano above him. Marciano never lost, and certainly never QUIT, and he was a mean mother****er in his own right.

 

you made a strong post above MF but i disagree here. I dont see how marciano did a better job, i dont see how anyone did a better job cleaning out the division than liston. Liston not only beat but he dominated the best of his era machen, williams 2x, patterson 2x, valdez, bethea, dejohn, harris.


While marciano cleaned out the division, he did not face everyone like liston did nor dominate as much as liston, and the rock failed to fight one of the younger bigger contenders of his day(practiclly rockys only viable critisism which shows u how good his resume is)


both liston and rock accomplished alot in there eras

 

Wonder what happens when Rock's right hand bomb lands squarely on Liston's jaw (ala Leotis Martin's big punch did to Liston)?

 

I have Liston just behind overall (6th to Marcianos 5th), an argument can certainly be put foward to rank him above due to impressivness on film and head-to-head abilty (Liston takes both IMO).

Overall career record goes to Marciano, to have gone through his career undefeated against some top fighters (whilst being behind on the scorecards on more than a few occasions) speaks volumes. Certainly the same can't be said regarding Dempsey.

Head to head: Liston KO5 Marciano.