Prime Liston vs. Prime Tyson

So you want to include evidence pertaining to Liston's heart that occured outside of his prime, but exclude evidence pertaining to Tyson's heart because it happened outside of prime?

Can anyone say "nuthugger"?

 

My opinion is that Liston dumped both Ali fights, but let's assume that he didn't.

First of all, Liston's peak ended before he fought Ali. This is because he came to the title. Stories of LIston's drinking/lack of training before the first fight abound (some take it to be evidence of Liston's plan to throw the fight - I do not. If he was given this instruction it was at the last minute. Anyway, assume it's because he thought Ali would be easy), the man was totally demotivated. He was also older than 30.

No, Tyson never quit on his stool. He quit on his ass. And he bit a man's ear to facilitate his quitting. These are worse, not better.

When you claim that Liston was "peaking when he lost", you're just proving you don't understand the subject. At all.

 

I think by putting "held" in with "elbowed and headbutted" you're showing me something here. Liston was an expert at holding and much more importantly (although it didn't make your list) leverage (Lewis employed this beautifully against Tyson). Why do you think this would be so ineffective? Liston was an expert infighter, leverage, holding, pivot, this is specifically what this means. You talk like Tyson is somehow made to beat Liston - I would suggest that with his inability to control distance, Tyson represents the opposite truth for Liston.

I've seen Tyson out manauvere opponents. I've never claimed otherwise, not at all. What I asked you was this - who did Tyson outmanuever to the inside , as you claimed, to score the KO? I'm asking because i've never seen Tyson dominate on the inside, and the only men i've seen him beat at this range were men who came to survive.

I've admitted this is a possibility. Your surity really confuses me though, because i've yet to see you provide one compelling reason.

What are you talking about? Where have I claimed this?

You're really going to have to do better than this. And for the record, although Tyson was a better composite puncher, Liston punched harder than Tyson.

The guys of his era?! What does this mean? There is progressively less holding in boxing as history progresses. Jack Johnson - the best ever. In Liston's era, hitting and holding was frowned upon but allowed. Now it is banned alltogether and will result in points being docked.

To be clear; Liston was a better inside fighter than anyone Tyson ever got in with, aside from Hollyfield (Lewis was better than him defencively, but not on offence).

 

Look - it gets a point where it's just not worth it any more. This idea that Tyson is "less responsible" for going to jail for **** because of circumstances than Liston is for getting pissed once he came to the title is about where I have to check out of any serious discussion.

Read through my debate with Ambition Def. There's a little bit of needle there and we disagree but I don't laugh at him. The reason? He hasn't said anything really ****ing laughable.

You have.

 

Liston did hit harder than Tyson. You disagree? I think it's pretty apparant. I do think that Tyson was probably the better puncher, composite at best range.

What seperates Tyson from the pack is speed, not power.

As for "you think Tyson didn't outmanuever opponents on the inside" - for the THIRD time now i'm trying to explain to you what it is i actually said. I said that I had never seen Tyson out-manuevere an opponent TO the inside before attacking, as you've claimed. Tyson remains clearly outside of that range in most circumstantces.

It means a fighter who concentrates almost entirely upon defence at the price of offencse. Smith is the best example.

Well show it then. I've backed everything i've said, i've explained my position pretty clearly I think.

He cleaned out the division as challenger. He dominated the division in a way that no fighter since Marciano, although he wasn't champion at the time. I understand why you think I view Liston through rose coloured glasses - you don't understand what it is he acheived and think that his major claim to fame is "beating a light heavyweight" (I think you mean Floyd Patterson who weiged either side of 190 for the Liston fights).

Also, when i've TWICE acknowledged that a KO win for Mike is a possibility, why do you say that I make Tyson out to be easy pickings? Surely if anything you are the one overstating your mans chances, i haven't seen you acknowledge a victory as possibly for Liston over the man who is invincible versus all but those who cheat.

All punching heavyweights are trained to knock out their opponents.

Most fighters, in fact.