Sonny Liston Vs Mike Tyson

I picked both points to break down film at total random. This is because I know that

a - Holyfield fought Tyson aggressively

b - Liston fought Williams intelligently.

No need to stack this deck.

You really can't see the similarities in the two films I put up? I would say they were completely self evident. Both men make room for their man to come forward but will lead if they feel like they are waiting to long/are to stationary currently. Both consistantly fight their punchers within range.

"Kick the **** out of"? Another fine exaggeration. Williams certainly has his successes until Liston takes over. Holyfield has his successes until Tyson doesn't take over. Holyfield was certainly better than Willilams. Williams certainly got KO'd early.

No, it wasn't. It was a wide UD.

I haven't inferred anywhere that Tyson and Liston had comparable hand/foot speed. What I have said is that Tyson lost to men slower than him.

I've already written this in this thread, but here it is again: Liston had ponderous straight punches, especially in retracting his jabs, but his wider, shorter punches are much faster than he is given credit for.

Yes, thrashed, 112-119, 114-118, 116-118, so thrashed on two cards anyway. At the sport of boxing Liston thrashed Machen under the points system.

Bruno (I) spends most of his time on the inside against Tyson getting held, walked, and hit. It's a pitiful representation of in-fighting.

Why do you think "dancing on his toes" would be representitive of technical excellence?

I'm going to ignore them too, in favour of the statistics I posted, which you have ignored.

Williams stitched together 12 wins going into Williams I and won 13 in a row after Williams II, establishing himself in the Ring rankings. He was certainly much better than the version Ali beat.

The cards for Liston-Clay say draw at the time of the stoppage. What do the Lewis-Tyson cards say at the time of their stoppage?

 

I like the post and I agree with your observations about Liston's working the range. He was very good at that, staying in the killzone and it played to his strengths. I was reminded of him a bit when Chagaev fought Klitschko, although he couldn't get the slipping/countering part sorted out

 

Last time I spoke to you about this fight, you handn't seen it all, just the highlights. Regardless of what I think and what you think, the judges cards say wide UD.

Maybe?!

There is more than one type of thrashing in the sport. If you object to the word thrashing so much, I withdraw it and will instead refer to to it from here-on in as "a wide, unanimous decision".

You can see Liston holding and hitting as well as creating a break and hitting, bulling and generally controlling clinches throughout this footage:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYA4qt-LBmA[/ame]

I haven't timecoded it for you because I haven't watched it in ages and haven't rewatched it hear, but from memory the first couple of clinches will be instructive.

Yes, I quite agree, when someone mistakenly tells you a fighter is technically excellent, which was my perception, you provide the perfect example for counter-point, in this case a technical in-fighter. Liston and Tyson both come of badly in any comparison, Tyson comes off badly in a comparison with Liston, which is the pertinent point.

This boils down to "Tyson fought bigger men" again. That's agreed and very well known, rest assured i can remember it form here on in. I still don't see why it excuses Tyson's pitiful infighting or explains why you think he is a technically sounder fighter than Liston who can fight on the inside.

This isn't small, it's a weakness at a given distance to go with the enforced weakness at the long-range caused by his poor reach.

Or very smart of you to ignore Patterson's 16 years campaigning at the heights of the HW division suffering only 5 stoppages, a thoroughly decent record, and not one that would generally be held by a "chinless" fighter.

The point I am making is that you are very, very keen to undermine every achievment Liston ever managed in the ring. Ali is lauded for his quick KO of Williams and rightly so, excellent performance. Here we have Liston destroying a better version more quickly and you seem less than keen to acknolwledge Liston's excellence.

As a secondary point it undermines your obsession with the Ring rankings. Williams was ranked for his fight with Ali, but not for his fight with Liston. Any fool can see that the version Liston matched is superior.

No, the cards don't say that at all actually. Like I said, the cards say even at the point of the stoppage. My point is that your claim that Tyson gave every top fighter he faced (exclusively losing efforts) a better fight than Liston gave Ali is flat out wrong. Tyson just got spasticly thrashed against Lewis, hardly in it after the first round. Liston and Ali were equal at the cards at the time of Sonny's quitage.

 

Yes. I've been clear throughout that Lewis should be rated as one of the best defensive in-fighters in HW history. Controlling the action up close is what in-fighting is.

Again?

Ok, i've watched all of this. You've provided examples of Tyson scoring KO's at long and mid-range. In your second to last example you've shown Tyson standing on the inside with a stationary fighter and then making space for himself to throw punches at mid-range properly. No in-fighting.

Rewinding about twenty posts, from the very beggining I was clear that I wasn't attacking Tyson's actual technique in delivery but rather his lack of technique in specific areas. You're claim that Tyson is a better technical fighter than Liston is defendable based upon what he did, but not what was absent form his game. Liston is far, far more complete technically and therefore a better technician.

Actually, decent examples of Tyson's in-fighting do exists (though you haven't produced any), mainly against stationary opponents. But the bad technicque in in-fighting is undeniable. Sometimes it literally is non-existant.

But Liston IS bigger and IS stronger.

And for the third time, what does it tell you about Patterson's chin that he fought at the top of the HW tree for 15 years and was stopped by only 3 men, all elite/elite punchers?

You're determined to undermine Sonny's achievment v Patterson. Here it is spelled out for you. No fighter in any weight division ever has scored back to back first round KO's versus a champion and an ex-champion. No fighter in history has ever scored back to back first round KO's versus another fighter who belongs in the top 20 of that weight division's rankings. It's an absolutley unique achievment only recreated in part by two other men, Johannson, a confirmed puncher whom Patterson beat in a series, and Muhammad Ali, greatest HW of all time.

Whatever your little collection of statistics might tell you about Patterson's punch resistance, it does not trump that.

Two "struggles" in which Liston was never on the deck and took a total of 5 round to dispatc him twice. In short, if your surmisation of Williams is correct (and i'm not going to bother disputing it with you, because it doesn't matter),Liston did exactly what he should do against such a fighter - knocked him out very quickly twice. Wanting more is just a double-standard that you only seem to apply to the "zombie-like" Sonny Liston. Quick KO's aren't enough for you, lopsided UD's aren't enough for you.

My point is that your Ring rankings are NOT to be regarded as the be all and end all, which you often act like they are. Williams hadn't done enough to establish himself in the rankings at that point. So what? By the time Ali faced him Williams was a well established husk in the Ring rankings. Liston faced a live fighter who belonged there based upon ability but hadn't established himself yet. And yet according to you, Ring rankings are somehow the defining factor in interpreting the win.

But once again, even if you are right (you are wrong), Liston KO'd the fighter very quickly, twice, which is exactly what he should be doing.

Well, if taking a thrashing (?) is your benchmark of "giving a good fight", Tyson definitely takes the cake there. If, however, you've any interest in the opinions of the proffessional judges at ringside, Liston gave Ali a better fight for the duration of the contest than pitiful Tyson managed against Lewis.

 

I'm in the mood.

No problem, always a pleasure.