Ranking of Sonny Liston's opponents

Not really. I saw that fight, as well as their first one. Tim easily beat Smith in their first snore-bore and I expected the same in their second fight....until I saw 'Spoon enter the ring. Fat, doughy, lazy......he looked AWFUL; totally out of shape. He didn't look ready to go 3 hard rounds with his sparring partner, let alone a pumped-up Bonecrusher. He had no fire in his eye and even less in his belly (all that excess suet didn't allow for anything else). If I recall, he'd been having major legal problems with Don King at the time as well, so his lack of focus is explainable. Still, to show up for a major fight fat, unfocused and out of shape was disgraceful.

I pretty much picked the winner with ease. This was not by any stretch of the imagination an "impressive victory". I saw it as a microcosm. It pretty much defined the era of talented heavyweights that lacked discipline and motivation and ate themselves into oblivion. Witherspoon, Page, Tubbs, Broad, etc., etc.,

 

The people who saw them both in their primes disagree with your assessment.

 

Dr. Ferdie Pacheco, Ernie Terrell, Ron Lipton, Chuck Wepner and Dick Saddler all saw BOTH men in their primes(Wepner having fought and observed both). I spoke to Saddler myself, who trained both men and saw both in their primes. Same with Ron Lipton, who saw both men at their best, both in the gym and in the ring. So did Ferdie Pacheco (up close!). They cannot be dismissed as "watchers from Liston's era" since they went through BOTH Liston AND Foreman's eras.

All picked Liston to beat Foreman.

 

As is what you're doing.

All the people I just listed do not qualify as a "small child", "woman" or "someone who knows nothing at boxing". In fact, just the opposite, and they all SAW them both, MORE times and much CLOSER than you. And they all see it as Liston beating Foreman.

I don't qualify as any of those things you listed either, but I SEE Liston beating Foreman.

So am I and all of those who disagree with you on your assessment of Liston-Foreman in a category below "small child", "woman" and "someone who knows nothing at boxing" in the Tommo lexicon?

If so then I would say that your ego outstrips your common sense.

 

Good answer. lol. "Blinded by nostalgia", even though they are all looking into the past through the "blindness of nostalgia" at BOTH Sonny and George. And I wasn't even born when Liston was fighting. Brilliant.

Your argument is nonsensical on all fronts. I think you have shown your colors. A troll. You're the reason so many good posters have bailed off of this site. THere is no point wasting energy on debating with you in your mindless babblings and vacuous prattle.

You're obviously an employee. How much are the administrators paying you to be the token contrarian on these boards?

 

Spinks was the lineal champion when he fought Tyson.

He beat Holmes who was the lineal champion at that time.

When Tyson beat Spinks he became the next lineal champion.

 

Williams was ranked 10th by the NBA, so he was 'officially' ranked by an authority, whether he deserved this or not is debatable.

Again, the article will be referring to De John's official ranking.

 

Ah, you were just too quick for me!

This was an era when top 10 contenders were routinely facing each other in non-title bouts so it's not surprising that guys like DeJohn and Valdes were picking up losses along the way. In fact, during the period we're talking about, late 50s to early 60s, when Liston was working towards his title shot, the only heavyweight to remain unbeaten was Liston himself.

 

:good

 

Yes, although the Ring ratings are the easiest to get hold of, there are still loads of examples of favouritism and if a fighter was ranked top 10 by the NBA this should be addressed, like you did. You mention Valdes, who was given the top slot around late 53/early 54, perhaps undeservedly, then moved to #2 after Marciano signed to fight Charles- as if to jusify the fight with Ezzard in the face of criticism from some areas. Also, they dropped Monzon from their top 10 midway through 1970, while he was ranked 1 or 2 by the sanctioning bodies and Boxing Illustrated had him at #2 throughout the year. So more great foresight from Fleischer an co there. :yep

 

Maybe janitor considers Tyson the lineal champion going in. If you think Holmes won the second fight, didn't that make Tyson the man before the Spinks fight.

 

the lineal champion with the belt ibf? please man... don´t make me laugh... holmes never did beat the real guys in the end of his young era, he never did beat pinklon thomas, page, tubbs, he was not the best man of the planet at this time.. and tucker would have beaten spinks.

 

i would agree with him 100% foreman would destroy liston and he would make it easy, liston never was proved against anyone, he is a myth, foreman was bigger,heavier,stronger, harder puncher, tougher he was proved against great full sized hws and he had more heart. it was by far more credential than " THE PEOPLE SHO SAW THEM IN THEIR PRIMES" they would trade so foreman would kick his ass

 

Belts mean nothing. The titles they represent come from corrupt political bodies in the game for their own self interest. Holmes was the champion and he would be champion until he lost a fight in the ring....he did not Lose until he fought Spinks and as such Spinks became the new champion.

 

For the avoidance of any doubt, I do regard Spinks as being the lineal champion going into the Tyson fight.

A lot of people here do not however, and I have to at least acknowledge their opinion when discussing the matter.