Sonny Liston had a great chin

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by tommygun711, Jun 25, 2010.


  1. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    I actually said that Williams never hit him with a clean, solid shot, which is a fact. The hard punches either missed, were blocked or didn't land flush. This fight would have been relevant if and only if he'd taken a bomb flush on the jaw and survived. There are countless fighters who've been in with big punchers and taken something. It doesn't mean they have great chins.
     
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,824
    51,914
    Mar 21, 2007

    Nope, not a fact, a total inaccuracy.

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWbpM99wD2M[/ame]


    1:55 A left hook lands above Liston's chin

    2:11 A left hook lands hard on Liston's belt-line

    2:16 A short left hook

    At some point one of these punches which hasn't landed has started Liston's nose bleeding.

    2:25 An uppercut inside

    Four hard punches in the thirty second clip I looked at.


    Liston himself said before the second Patterson defence that Williams hit him the harder than anyone else up until that point. That would include the punch that broke his jaw and the dual uppercuts Folley dipped him with.
     
  3. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    The only punch that might be considered testing to the chin of a championship quality fighter would be that at 1:55. The others are nothing special.

    You're digging way too deep to find evidence for Liston here. For example, at 3:48 and 8:00 in the following video, Pastor gets hit with hard right hands to the side of the head. Is this evidence that Pastor had a great chin? Of course not. To have proof of possessing a great chin you need to consistently take hard shots and survive them. One combination which may or may not have landed hard off a big puncher is not enough.
     
  4. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn0u-k9lpsw[/ame]
     
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,824
    51,914
    Mar 21, 2007
    Then you would agree that your original claim that Williams "never really hit him with a clean solid shot" is not a fact?

    I disagree. They are hard punches.

    :lol: I spent about 40 seconds looking at film and about 70 seconds typing out what I saw. No digging is neccessary.
     
  6. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    It is in my original sense of a really good, meaty blow to the jaw, it is a fact, though admittedly it was a hard punch. The whole point of my statement (and this thread) was looking at Liston's chin and how the Williams fight tested it; it wasn't a testing shot in that way.

    Hard punches, sure - but they didn't land cleanly.

    What I mean is this: We seem to be scouring over the footage in massive detail to see if we can spot Liston being hit by a guy with power once or twice. Nobody would do that to any other fighter and put it up as evidence of them having a great chin. I'm sure pretty much every fighter has taken shots like that at some point. (It's weird what affects you and what doesn't in the ring.) A great chin needs to be proven consistently in taking big shots from big punchers.

    I don't have anything aginst Liston. I rate him highly. But this whole "oh he cleaned out an era" "oh he had the most dominant wins ever" "oh he beat all styles" together with the sweeping-under-the-rug of any evidence against his heart and chin in favour of much more tenuous evidence for it - it's over-the-top. You could make these claims about most fighters.
     
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,824
    51,914
    Mar 21, 2007
    Well it is neccessary when someone makes a claim that this didn't hapen. I agree it was a total waste of time, but it was only neccessary because you seemed to think Williams didn't hit Liston properly, which he did.

    And for the second time, that is not what I did. I "put it up as evidence" contrary to your claim (which you are still making) that Liston didn't hit get hit hard and clean against Williams.
     
  8. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    Look, if you define the statement "It is snowing right now" as "It is not snowing right now", then it is snowing right now. You can define a clean shot or a hard shot however you want - with high standards requiring the punch to be an absolute bomb flush on the chin, or with low standards requiring the punch to generally connect and generally make some impact - and each definition will lead you to different conclusions concerning whether Liston was hit with a clean shot or a hard shot respectively. For the purposes of this thread, I intended a clean hard shot quite stringently - to constitute something that would demonstrate a great chin (the reason being that that is the whole ****ing point of the thread). That underlying point still stands, no matter how much you want to indulge in semantics because you can't find anything else to disagree with me on. I'm not interested in anything else.
     
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,824
    51,914
    Mar 21, 2007

    You've said this before; I don't understand it at all.

    If you say "Liston didn't get hit clean against Williams" or "Monzon didn't get hit hard in his entire career", you will be picked up on these points. Why on earth do you think these statements should be measured relatively when they are not relative statements in and off themselves? Of COURSE you are going to be challenged over these statments on the forum. What on earth would this place be if people only had discussions based upon an assumed level of relativity?? Very, very quiet.

    If you mean to say, "Liston didn't have a great chin", say that, not "Williams never hit Liston clean". This idea that there are degrees of clean in punches is fine. This idea that there are degrees of clean in punches and that they are described in relative terms depending upon the title of the thread is complex and absolutley not the norm. Expecting people to ignore extreme statements based upon a thread title is just crazy, it's never going to happen, ever.

    And nor should it. If you say these things, expect to be asked to explain yourself, it's not use explaining yourself incompletely and then complaining seven posts later when someone picks you up something.

    In the world you describe, people are going to do your explaining for, don't expect people to ask you the degree of relativity you are employing in a debate that is at a tangent to the original point anyway.
     
  10. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    279
    Jul 22, 2004
    Clay/Ali had Liston hurt in the first fight, watch from 2:00 onwards (beautiful)

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1igH5EFJfI4&feature=related[/ame]
     
  11. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    You've distorted my statements. My exact statements were:

    When you start using words like "really", that implies a degree of relativity about what you're talking about. (Maybe I should have said: Monzon NEVER got hit really hard; Williams never hit him with a really clean, solid shot.) Anyway, certainly, it draws attention to the fact that I was responding to something somebody else said, and questioning the degree of hardness or cleanness involved.

    And I don't know why you think this is so important. We disagree on many things, but you only seem to pick out posts for semantic dissection.
     
  12. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
  13. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,088
    3,779
    Sep 14, 2005
    Look at the flush pushes liston takes from clay in the first fight without coming close to going down. Proves the 2nd fight knockdown was a tank job(imo).
     
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,824
    51,914
    Mar 21, 2007
    Not intentionally. Because you are very sensitive about this, i'm in the habit of tracking back in a thread to be able to quote you exactly, but it does become tiresome.

    Regardless, I'd consider these statements extreme.





    Yes, that's fine, but it's the relativity you are presuming people will adopt because of the thread title that concerns me. I don't think it's reasonable, at all.

    "This"? If you mean by "this", the semantic discussion above, I don't thin it's important at all. I despise it. I hate, hate when people start bleeting about "semantics", especially when fights films and strong opinions have already been posted. I have done it myself, but only when someone starts to squirm over something I consider important.

    If by "this" you mean your claims on Williams-Liston, I think it's important because it's the fights and I think you are way off.


    Are you kidding? I made absolutley no mention of semantics at all until you did. I'd happily never speak about them again.



    I'm much more interested in the bottom line, which is that Williams was hit hard and clean by Liston and that this is shown on film - about 40 seconds of fim, no less.
     
  15. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    who was a notoriously underwhelming puncher

    Punches like the ones that had him visibly wobbled, as shown above?