Liston v Holyfield

Maybe, yeah. I think his superior jab would serve him well from the outside, and help negate the handspeed difference.

Folks may think I'm nuts to suggest Holy would be better off getting in close and making a fight of it, but he had a cement chin, ridiculous powers of recovery, punched in bunches and countered very well.
He doesn't have to be the harder puncher to get the better of Liston in a brawl.

But Holy could be made to look less than great if an opponent maintained his discipline and boxed him.

 

The logic here is just awful Big Ukranian, no offense. You said:

1) Where is there any evidence that EVERY, or even nearly every, or the vast majority, or the MAJORITY of athletes are cheaters & liars?

You & many folks know athletes from many sports. SOme are much more infested with cheaters than others. A sport that does not seriously test for them like non-natural bodybuilding is worst but hardly counts, they do not try to ban/catch folks, all are expected to use PEDs.

2) It is a rare & extreme opinion presented with no evidence that everyone uses! You have really never known a clean athlete in many sports, nor believed those who told you so, ever? :shock:

3) Sure many kids in High School & other levels use.
There are also many criminals & mental pathologies in lfe.
That does not remotely establish that MOST, let alone all do.
You have conflated a widespread problem to universal cheaters with no evidence whatsoever.

4) Your last statement makes no even internal logical sense.
Not being caught does not relate to "he cheated", it is the investigation of his supplement lab that transparently had him listed as a very thinly disguised client for PEDs & he picked up the phone when he was called.

Your saying he is innocent because otherwise "everyone is a cheater" is not even circular illogic. There is no evidence that everyoby cheats, or even that MOST cheat, certainly in boxing.

In certain extreme cases, Tour de France for years, certain strength sports-it is possible most cheat at least in certain times. But it is very hard to know HOW widespread the cheating is.

If everyone did it it would still be dishonorable stealing of money & glory & a career from the honest natural hardworking guys. And corruption of team & individual sports & their results.

But there is just no good reason to assume most all let alone ALL cheat, certainly in boxing. You cannot prove a negative, anyone COULD cheat or be a wife beater or other criminal. But it is deluded & deeply cynical to assume all do.

 

Holyfield ko's Liston in 8 or 9.

Holy had waaaaaaay to much of a skillset for Liston.

Listons jab is a myth.

 

It all comes down to heart in this one...no QUIT in Holyfield...he wins...he'll out- gut Sonny Liston...

 

Holyfield was much faster. Quicker hands, better footwork, more elusive more athletic.

Holyfield was also a couple of inches taller but Liston had a longer reach. Fighting guys with long reaches would be nothing new for Holyfield. He fought many guys with reaches over 80" like Douglas, Foreman, Holmes, Bowe x3, Lewis x2, Rahman, Savarese, Valuev and others. Oquendo has an 80" reach. Even Thomas, Dokes, Stewart, Cooper (yes, Bert Cooper), Moorer, Mercer, and others had reaches between 77" and 79".

Personally, I think Holyfield was stronger than Liston. Guys like Lewis, Bowe, Foreman, Tyson, and 8x Mr. Olympia Lee Haney (who Holyfield used to lift with) have talked positive about Holyfield's strength.

KO Power? Both could hurt people. Holyfield beat guys who were tougher to knockout, plain and simple. Had Holyfield fought Williams, Patterson, and Folley I'd bet he would have knocked them out as well... maybe not as early though. Who had more power? I'd lean toward Liston, but not by much, and he won't carry the advantage thru the entire fight.

Jab? Liston... but it's slower than Bowe's, Lewis', or even the over 40 version of Holmes Holyfield fought. It's about as fast as the over 40 Foreman who Holyfield fought. Holyfield can slip many of them and land counters. He can also beat Liston to the punch.

Holyfield had a great chin, great stamina, great combinations... anything else? Holyfield

 

Liston did have a good jab, but was it as good as many say it was? I don't think so. Was his reach really 84"? Probably not. He wasn't even 6'1"

 

Why do you think Liston was stronger? Who cares about his fists? His reach was listed as much as 84"... probably wasn't, but he did have a long reach for a guy just under 6'1". Bigger? How do you figure? Holyfield is 2" taller, has a 20" neck, 47" chest, 17" arms... who really gives a **** about the rest? Holyfield was still ripped when he fought at 226 Lbs. in his last pro fight, age 48 1/2. Liston's highest weight for a fight was also 226 Lbs. but he looked a little chunky at 226.

Did you see Holyfield vs. Tyson? Tyson certainly didn't look bigger than Holyfield and neither would Liston. All the positive things people are saying about Liston were said about Tyson (except for the reach and the jab). Tyson got bullied vs. Holyfield. At times it was like a man vs. a child.

I'm not saying that Liston wouldn't give Holyfield problems, but I see Holyfield winning clearly and maybe even stopping Liston late.

 

1) Liston is overwhelmingly listed at preciely 6' 1", can find a 1/2 less or more. If you buy Holyfield at just over 6' 2", & many don't, then there is a 2" difference. But you cannot absent reason take the face value listing for "yourr" guy & not the other one.

2) There is no reason to believe that Liston's wing span was exxagerated. Look at photos of him standing & see how far his arms hand down, absent even considering his huge hands & looong fingers. WIth across chest would contribute to reach also. He had a freakish reach by all personal accounts, deal with it.

3) Bert Cooper is only listed as having a 74" reach. I think some folks rely on one or both things: vague memory & wishful thinking. Unless you have a very good memory look things up before quoting size!

4) Likewise for Holyfield. FF, WHERE did you get those numbers? I have seen his tale of the tape for years & looking now confirms: a 19 1/2" neck, 43" chest 45" expanded, 16" biceps & this is also AFTER 'roided to the gills, as vs. Tyson. Proof: [url]http://www.canoe.ca/BoxingTysonHolyfield/taleofthetape.html[/url]

5) Tyson & Liston were much bigger in the lower body, Holyfield even after juicing, 22" thigh & 13" calves. It is notr enlightened & rank cherry picking to value only the measurements you fancy, & 60% of your body mass is normally in the lower body, ass on down.

6) Yep trained & PED/dirty Holyfield seemed stronger than at least late '90's Tyson.

7) Liston had at least as much lean muscle mass per square inch as drugged & weigh trained Holyfield. Just a naturally much bigger bone structure, not just fists...Holyfield was not as ripped at 226, , & would be "a little chunky" if you added 10 lbs. to account for the height differential...

8) Tyson ALWAYS was more moveable in the clinches than his bulk & punching power suggested. He would "agree" to be clinched & often get pushed back. This was not true of Liston.

9) Still Holyfield, at least juiced (& he could fight dirty) might win due to speed & skills.
Though I pick Liston who had some significant skills, hit much harder, was very tough in his prime....And where do you see his punching power fading late?

10) Ask Chuck Wepner, who said he hit harder than Foreman!
Foreman said he was the only one who ever made him move back.
Prime Evander could not do that.
Prime Liston (or prime Foreman) would do much better than slow 257 lb. 42 year olf Foreman, don't you all think?

 

10 Lbs. for height differential? What??? The height difference is only 1" if Liston was 6'1" and Holyfield 6'2". Some say Holyfield is only 6'1" so no height differential at all. The biggest bodybuilders in the world aren't even 5 Lbs. per inch btw. A 6' person would have to weigh 360 Lbs to reach that point.

Dude, I don't really care who was "actually" bigger. My whole point is that Liston isn't going to look bigger when they are standing next to each other in the ring... just like Tyson didn't look bigger when he was in the ring with Holyfield.

Holyfield is beating his ass in my opinion. Liston stopped the overrated Williams x2, a very good but not so big or durable Folley, and the small but great Patterson x2 who was down 20 times as a pro (more than any other HW Champ). He won a decision over Eddie Machen (Machen was stopped inside of 1 round vs. Johansson, but it was surprising) who was pretty much on par with Folley career wise. Liston was very good, great actually, but overrated on this forum.

Holyfield has a much better resume. Sure, after age 30 Holyfield started losing a few. He still had flashes of greatness after this point though. At age 30 he was 28-0 (22) overall, 10-0 (7) in World Title fights, and 5-0 (2) vs. Hall of Famers. He had been the CW World Champ and was the reigning HW World Champ. He still had a lot more good fights left in him though.

 

FF, let's be precise here.

It is ME who has been saying the height differential could well be one inch, repeatedly.
The 2" I am using is based on what another poster wrote, though Liston is overwhelmingly listed at 6' 1". None of us knows their exact heights anyway. It likely is ~ 1".

4-5 lbs. per inch is standard, & just a bit more seems appropriate for guys who have more lean mass than average. Oh NOW I know what you mean by lbs. per inch: you simply misunderstand me. No of course I did not mean that they should weigh that much per EVERY inch, there is a base weight, so a 6' guy with average bone structure & muscle mass will be roughly maximum 180 lbs. to be a least not at all overweight. Less to be at all lean.

But that ~ 5 lbs. more or less weight per inch is how much folks normally should vary. This is consistent with all charts.

It does not matter who looks bigger, but you DO care, to the point where you listed a bunch of stats about size: & ignored that you were wrong on a bunch of them, instead you should have said "whoops I was wrong" as I would.

But yes, if you looked just above the waist, Tyson did not look bigger than Holyfield.
The legs were a massive 5" difference for thighs & calves.

Your third paragraph sounds very fair. I just think that you are incorrct that he is overrated here. Though Holyfield did have the opportunity to fight better guys.
You also need to consider who he beat before 30, & much of that greatness was as a CW or against the weaker competition that all starting fighters have...

I just think that folks also slight Liston's boxing skills, & when they say things like he may have hit a little harder than Holyfield or his jab was not that great-that is silly.
He had absolutely top notch power & could box & move well, though yes, not so speedy.

And don''t you feel Holyfield should have SOME mark down due to using PEDs?

 

Very good post overall, and surely I can't say anyone is cheater.
But let's see the facts, that show us more than 95% elite athletes aren't clean.

1) You must know (that's the stats from bodybuilding experts which I use to know), that man who is lifetime drug-free and lifts weights regularly, can't be that big as most pro athletes. 100% natural bodybuilder with 5-8% bodyfat at 5'11'' weights 175-180 lbs. That's the stats from experts.

2) Testosterone and other PED's make muscles bigger, but the responce is different. Shannon Briggs and Roy Jones (who were caught) have great responce on PED's. Few others don't, like some boxer form Contender 1, he's even not that good. He was caught to use 7 different PED's I believe and still looked like average Joe:yep

3) Kevin Levrone is one of the best bodybuilders of all-time, at 5'11'' his contest weight is 240-245 lbs with very low bodyfat. Off cycle he looks like an averege man though and his weight drops to 180-185 lbs!

4) I use to know hundreds of competing bodybuilders, and don't know one who never used PED's. Competitive bodybuilding is 100% on PED's. No exceptions. And there are doping tests usually. The only exceptions are 100% natural championships which aren't popular at all as competitors aren't even close to other bodybilders and weigh 40-45 lbs less.

5) Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones to name a few stars. They weren't caught when they competed, never. However, they used PED's. This mean today's doping tests are ****.

6) To surpass doping tests you need to know few tricks, and most athletes do it.

7) PED's aren't bad for sports at all. And elite athletes aren't cheaters. Without PED's there would not be such great results in track and fields or weightlifting, for example.

8) You must know that to surpass USADA tests your testosterone ratio has to be lower than 5:1 (1:1 is normal for average man). This means boxers have room to cheat, officially If your ratio is 4,8 times higher than average, you are clean, according to USADA.

These are the facts, I'd like people to know more about them.

 

OK there is much truth to what you say. But it does not support your original point.

There is tremendous drug use in pro bodybuilding, different from natural competitions, you get much bigger on PEDs...None of this was in dispute. It is LEGAL or not tested for as a pro BB, widely known.

This is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from claiming that all, or even MOST athletes in all sports are cheaters & liars! Both statements are not supported by facts, even the much much more moderate 2nd one.

Your numbers of ultimate potential for natural lifters are a bit low.
Here is a decent system: [url]http://www.weightrainer.net/maximum_bodypred.html[/url] This web site also has many excellent articles, particularly by Casey Butts, & he takes into account many different methods & systems of calculation.

But again it is a MASSIVE asummption to extrapolate from one sport that does not test to numerous other sports & say that 95% are clean, down from your 100% claim. Cricket, baseball, basketball, rugby, soccor, badminton, distance running, ping pong, jai alai...:nono There is a giant disonnect between showing abuses in one sport or isolated cases in another & claiming most everyboby cheats!

It is like taking the worst crime area in the world & claiming all other cities consist of mostly criminals, & showing numerous examples of crime. I can also prove many men are over 6' 4", but just as illogical to then suggest all adult humans or men or the vast majority are this tall.

That there is a bell curve & big variation in how well folks respond to PEDs is absolutely true. Though again not at all in contention.

Showing 2 or many more examples of athletes not caught as evidence that ALL tests are **** is not tenable. BUT it is true that there are tons of problems with many tests, how often, how random, what is tested for, some things cannot be now....They should also ave samples to punish folks who test dirty later to deter those who may escape currently.

You meant to type the 10:1 ratio. Yes, trouble is that a few folks naturally are over 5:1, so the cheaters take advantage of outliar variation to cheat.

I STRONGLY object to you saying it is not bad for sports. The reputation of sports, integrity, fairness for non-criminals & cheats, rewarding ability & potential not the drug results....Massive damage to sports & cynicism created has been done, & innocent athletes suffer.

To say they are *not*cheats is just wrong by definition.
If you consciously break the rules for an advantage you are a cheat-& liar.
Many do not WANT the inflated, fake, usually pretending to be legitimate records. We want fair play & human decency, not unfair & random advantages.

I ask you to RECONSIDER your acceptance of these betrayals of decency & honesty. Think about how it hurts the innocents, the example for kids, do we really want to celebrate the performances of drugged up fakes....

Do rules & laws mean anything?

 

Entaowed, I would have supported your point, if I hadn't knew how many "honest" and "clean" athletes are using PED's and fool everybody that they are 100% natural. Those are the biggest cheaters of all.

Muscle and strenghth depend on testosterone levels, and it's obvious the higher ratio you have, the better results you'll show.

But what is the worst that many PED users claim they are all natural and people believe them. It would be better for everybody to know the truth.

Or to make doping tests far more strict that they are now.

 

Sorry to interject...hope nobody minds.

I don't think PEDs are bad for sports per se. What is bad is the effect condoning such activities (PED use that is) on young, impressionable minds. Condoning it would be like saying 'it's okay to use drugs' which by extension means it's okay to use recreational drugs as well and break the law, screw your life up etc.

In sports, I don't see it so much as a bad thing provided the PEDs are administered by professional people.

Unfortunately little in life is as it seems.
You ask if rules and laws mean nothing. I don't think they mean much when ten of millions or hundreds of millions are on the line; where taking PEDs means the difference between being successful or being unsuccessful at your chosen sport.

We as fans tend to look at the ethical and moral implications of it all, but athletes are looking at it from the entirely pragmatic viewpoint of money and success. Only a fool would spend his/her entire life training to be a successful athlete, only to get nowhere because of moral or ethical considerations.
People will justify almost any behaviour if they need to...so no, in big league sports, morality flies out the window I'm afraid.

Not condoning PEDs, please understand. But the cat is well and truly out of the bag and nothing will change that. I'm just being pragmatic.