Should Harry Wills rank over Sonny Liston ?

I actually think this is very reasonable. When you were telling me about it, at first I thought it was more of a niche - Dempsey da GOAT - opinion, but it really makes sense when I think about it.

The argument for Wills makes a lot of sense. He has a dozen wins over like other black contenders who were clearly near the top of their division/era in Langford and McVey, while also beating guys like Jennette, Thompson, Fulton, Clark, Norfolk & Firpo. There's also not much room for the size argument to lower Wills' wins as Liston's wins over Patterson wouldn't hold up to the same standards. He was basically the boogeyman of Dempsey's era. In terms of who they beat, regardless of what you think of their eras, it's a wash for Wills.

But Liston does obviously have a few things going for him. He destroyed a champion twice, and I'd wager Machen is the best contender either beat - but that's three wins against like 30+. I also don't think too highly of Folley or Williams - but that's not a knock on Liston coz he destroyed them and there was noone better to beat. He has the heavyweight title however, which is a big deal. It's not like a Wilder title either where he just defended against nobodies and never was the best in the world, this was THE heavyweight title. Unfortunately for Liston, he got to it later on, and shared an era with Ali so he didn't really hold onto it. I think argument for Liston poses a few interesting questions which I'll give my answers to.

- What is the heavyweight title worth in terms of greatness? Does it still mean more if you lose it by 'quitting' in your second defence?

My answer to this is basically: it's worth a helluva lot for a heavyweight list but not a P4P one. However, I'm not gonna rank a guy with one defence over a decade long contender with a way better resume.

- Does the manner of a win make it better than beating 'better' opponents?

I'd probably say yeah, but to a degree. I'm not rating Nunn's win over Kalambay over Basilio's over Robinson. However, destroying the #1 heavy in like 90s is awesome. I think this leads to Liston getting a prestige ranking, due to dominance. Id probably say the Patterson wins are by far better than any of Wills, but they're not enough to overcome the depth.

- Is dominance more important than the amount of contenders beaten?

The short answer for me is no. @White Bomber could beat the **** outta a bunch of 75 year olds with enough consistency, but that's not impressive than a somewhat spotty record against dozens of contenders.

 

Yes you can make a case.

But we do rate fighters on how good they look on film.

There is no film on prime Wills.

There is plenty of film on prime Liston and he looks like an unbeatable force. We can envision that Liston would look like fighting the modern heavies. Its hard to imagine Wills as a head to head great.

 

As much of a critic of Liston as I am, I have to give it to Sonny because of how he optimized his reach and jab, where Harry failed to do. Best for best, I just can't see the Tunney of 1928 losing the decision to any version of Wills. (Nor would the Marine have been somehow stopped by any version of Liston, not when peak Sonny twice failed to stop Whitehurst.)

Liston was extremely skilled technically, and well schooled.

 

Not unless you're going to legitimize the "colored titles" as equal to the "world" titles during the colorline.

Status should mean something. Resume is nothing but a reflection of bias. Acknowledging status while feeling another has a better record or resume simply means you have the ability to recognize you may be wrong.

Liston is a world champion in a post colorline era when most of the world's citizens were capable of becoming fighters.

Wills is the ducked black contender that haunted a time period blown out of proportion by the advent of Ring.

It should matter. Liston got to be who Wills was denied being. It should matter to Wills, Dempsey, Tunney, and Liston. Only one name there is a real world champion proven best in his time over all living men.

 

You could make the argument because you could make the argument hes the best H2H of one of the most respected eras. While that argument might be the true the problem is much of Wills greatness is hypothetical based on Dempsey avoiding him, his size etc.

Wills is 5-2 against relevant white HWs and old or not lost his status as pseudo champ to Sharkey and Uzcudin. Against elite black HWs(Langford,Jeanette, McVea, Jim Johnson, Bill Tate and Jack Thompson) Wills is 30-6-6 with 6 knockouts and got stopped 3 times by Langford and Jim Johnson.

Wills never stopped John Lester Johnson either in 3 wins though he is 7-0-1 with 6 knockouts against Jeff Clark thats more knockouts than every top black HW Wills fought combined. Wills also has a KO against the best black LHW in Kid Norfolk as well as a few KOs over very old fighters in Gunboat Smith, Everett and Denver Ed Martin. Thats a fine record but Wills record against top competition paints a very different picture to his resume as a whole which has 56 KOs and a 80% KO rate.

Focusing on the knockouts not the record because losses are going to happen with the best black HWs fighting each other over and over like they did during this era. 6 knockouts in 42, 13 in 55 or 16 in 62 is a different matter.

Wills being rated above Langford H2H as the best black HW of that era is really based on Wills destroying Fulton and Fulton destroying Langford which is something that makes clear Wills could beat ATG guys Langford would have no chance with. Wills status as the number one contender Dempsey had to fight was also dependent on this win. Wills reputation depends more on that win than any other ATG HW depends on any one win. Liston doesn't have the quantity of big wins but he was much more consistantly dominant and his 85 reach on a CW frame makes him a nightmare for anyone to deal with while Wills is just someone who "could" beat just about anyone in HW history with there not a lot suggesting he "would" beat any one of the greats.

 

My answer is no, though I do rank Wills 1 spot higher than Dempsey.

I agree Wills has absurd depth and his win resume is generally underrated.

Whilst no one literally clears out a divison, i.e. beats every contender, Liston came as close to cleaning out the HW division prior to winning the HW title as just about anyone in history.

At #9, I perhaps rank Liston a slot or two higher than average.

At #13, I rank Wills a fair bit higher than most.

 

I noticed Liston being bumped up in all time rankings. I know boxing historians tended to have him very highly.

 

Semantics bro, word choice. We don't really disagree, I don't think.

Let me dial it in so you get what I meant instead of arguing with how the words can be taken. Maybe i'm wrong but I think you actually agree with me.




Your first paragraph deals in eras. I would encourage you to reread when I chose "era" and "time". Because those were not without consideration. The only instance when I spoke to any era in relation to Sonny Liston was to say Liston is Post Colorline Era.

I'm not sure Sonny was champion long enough to have a "Liston Era" but what can't be argued is he got his time. He got his title fight, won that, and got to live the life of a man who is HW champ of the world.




Your second paragraph I think is perfectly acceptable and would direct you to the first line I wrote.




No "world" champion before the end of the colorline should be given the honor of being considered a legitimate world champion any more or less than that honor is given to the "colored" champions. This, of course is opinion. It can't be wrong, it can only be outside of consensus.

What I am saying is I am cool with seeing Dempsey as the "world" champion equal to Wills "colored" champion in anyway you want to take that. If Dempsey is legit, so is Wills, if Wills is not legit, then neither is Dempsey.

Since the "colored" titles are considered lesser all I am actually refusing is seeing the colorline era champions as equal to the post colorline champions. On both sides. Get me?


I don't really mind if you disagree, just seems to me you don't.

 

Tbf, I said Liston "came as close to cleaning out the HW division prior to winning the title as just about anyone in history".

Based an annual Ring Magazine rankings, Liston beat the following number of top 11-ranked HWs at some point before & up to his victory over Patterson:

1957 = 7 (including each of the top 4)
1958 = 6 (including the champion)
1959 = 7 (including the #1 contender)
1960 = 5 (including the champion and the #1 contender aside from Liston himself)
1961 = 5 (including the champion and the #1 contender aside from Liston himself)

Given Liston couldn't beat himself (sexual double entendre not intended), the top 11 x HWs consisted of a minimum of 50% of fighters Liston beat up to & including his title winning effort for the 5 x consecutive years immediately prior to the year he won the title, each year including either the champion, the number 1 contender aside from himself or both.

Admittedly, excluding Patterson, that's 8 ranked contenders he beat prior to winning the title, compared to the 12 of Louis and Johnson, but - 1) I've not done the same comparison for Louis & Johnson so I don't know if their wins up to & including winning the title included the top 2 x HWs as often as Liston's did, in the 5-years prior to them winning the title, or if the contenders they beat had the same longevity in the rankings that those that Liston beat did, during those 5-years. There's no question, aside from Johansson, Liston beat all of the very, very best HWs in the world for the 5-years up to & including him winning the title ; and 2) Unlike Louis and Johnson, Liston was unbeaten from the point he first beat a contender until the point he won the title.

Even* if we were to agree Liston had the third or fourth best (I'm unsure how many ranked contenders Frazier beat prior to Ali) best record prior to winning the HW title, of all time, that still speaks massively for him.

*I'd need to complete research on where the contenders Louis & Johnson beat were ranked in the years immediately prior to them winning the title & on their longevity in the rankings during those years, before I definitively concede either did a better job of clearing out the division than Liston, prior to their respective title wins.

All that said, I was pleased to see a thread highlighting how underrated &/or unnoticed the incredible depth of Harry Wills win resume is.

 

Liston certainly had a good ring up until his destruction of one of the worst HW champs of all time, then quit vs Ali twice.
I think that pales against Wills record of opponents as has been described in this thread. Even just one win over Langford surpasses Listons best wins.

Note we're not discussing head to head but record.