That´s why I think Sonny Liston is overrated

1. Disagree, as mentioned when you've achieved everything in the sport, its hard to motivate yourself to go and take yoru body to the limit again. 'When you sleep in silk sheets its hard to get out of bed and run at 5 in the morning'.

Also Tysons mental problems in fights are over-emphasised. If he had limitless stamina, the mental would be a none issue.

2. Again Tyson isn't near his physical best post-1991. Would Tyson crack under pressure - he didn't crack against Holyfield in fight 1, he just got beat. He cracked in the rematch though no doubt.

3. I know its a controversal pick having Tyson top5 but I'm picking based on Tysons sheer dominance and excellence (the way he won) of performance on what I consider very good opposition. What he achieved from 1986-1990 is huge, his legacy thereafter is declined but has very good wins. The fact you also pick him over other ATGs shows you do agree peak Tyson achieved a level of excellence that few have ever matched.

Could prime Tyson be outboxed? Yes but by very few, nearly every fighter can be outboxed, his boxing ability over his pressure/power is underrated however.

 

I notice you leave off Marciano, but if he is considered (not unfair if you are considering Dempsey & Jeff, after all) he would be something like 6-0 (Louis, Charles, Walcott, Moore)

 

Yep forgot Marciano, indeed he is 6-0 or 5-0 though, because I don't know if Moore qualifies as elite. Where is Moore as an all time HW? I don't think he quite makes top50 tbh, but would be open to some

In raw win-loss stats marciano will always comes out on top ofcourse

 

I belive Moore was elite, He did become the top contender after all and was mostly chaseing Marciano for that title shot.

 

He was a top contender for his time but who did he beat at HW that made him an elite HW? Valdes? I think Moore would struggle to make the top60 HWs of all time on the back of his HW resume

Especially when Holmes conquerer Spinks isn't counted as an elite HW win for Tyson

 

Head to Head I consider him exceedingly dangerous.

 

Mendoza says: I think Liston's resume of wins is a bit behind Louis' and Marciano's. However, Liston did KO Patterson twice via 1st round KO! Patterson is on the level with the best fighters Louis and Marciano beat. I think Patterson is as nearly as good or slightly better than Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Charles, and Moore. Patterson defeated Moore.

In truth, Louis lost to Schemling, and had major league problems with Walcott. I do beleive Walcott won the first fight with Louis. Maricano had to fight tooth and nail to defeat Walcott and Charles.

I tend to doubt Liston would have any issues with Schemling, Walcott, Charles, or Moore. He was simply too much for them. Perhaps Baer has a chance, though his skills were rather average.

The thing to focus on with Liston is, he blew away a good, but not great collection of contenders with shocking ease.

Liston required only twenty rounds in ten fights to finish off the following contenders:: Billy Hunter, Julio Mederos, Wayne Bethea, Frankie Daniels, Nino Valdes, Roy Harris, Cleveland Williams 2x , Zora Folley, and Albert Westphal. This is an average of two rounds work for Liston.

Louis and Marciano had trouble with quick boxer types. See the Pastor, Conn, Walcott, LaSstarza, and Charles fights. Liston matched up extremely well vs smaller boxer types. His weight, reach, defense and skills complemented an awesome arsenal of powerful punches. The smaller man had to get past Liston 84” reach and jab, venture in to no man’s land, avoid Liston right on the way in and counter hook to score. Trading with Liston was not an option.

Eddie Machen was a very good boxer type. He had good movement, a slick defense, and a better chin than the boxer types who gave Marciano and Louis fits. Yet Machen was simply powerless vs Liston.

Can you see how dominate a prime Liston was? He matched up well with up punchers, swarmers and boxers. How many other all time greats can say that? Liston’s weakness was lack of speed vs a bigger and faster boxer type, and questionable intangibles that could be brought into play vs fighters who could survive the first few rounds and mark him up.

Mendoza: It seems to me that Liston was far more dominant in the ring than Marciano or Louis were, especially vs boxer types. I don't seem much room for debate here.

While Marciano and Louis had better " name " wins, Sharkey, and Carnera were on the decline when Louis beat them, just as Charles was on the decline when Marciano beat him.

Machen had a much better chin than the fighters who marked up, or stunned Louis and Marciano. And unlike Conn, Chalres, Lastarza, Pastor, and Walcott who were at one point up on points or even with Louis and Marciano, Liston owned Machen. I'm not sure if Charles or Walcott were really that much better as heavyweight in comparison to Machen and Folley. If you look at the ring records as heavyweights, perhaps I am right. However, Walcott and Charles were more famous heavyweights. Patterson in my opinion was near even or sight better than Walcott or Charles. It’s a toss up, yet Sonny bltized Patterson twice, while Walcott and Charles who were a bit past their best gave Marciano and Louis hell.

Whitehurst was a very good journeyman. Liston was a few seconds of knocking him out. Indeed- Liston knocked Whitehurst out of the ring, and had him dazed in the final round. Extend the fight another few seconds, or give it another rounds and it’s a KO win for Liston. As for Summerlin, Liston unlike Marciano was not a protected fighter early. He fought tough guys out of the gate. MArciano didn't have many tough tests early. If Rocky fights Summerlin ealry, he might win, lose or draw.

In closing, while Louis and Marciano beat better fighters, I think Sonny looked better in many of his wins.

 

Yes, you seem to be listing champions, so Marciano should be 5-0.

 

How good actually are Folley and Machen?
Folley had 30 fights against heavies rated at one time or another. He went 16-11-3 with 2 knockouts. That is correct. His only two knockouts over a fighter who was ever rated were back to back KO's of Henry Cooper and Mike DeJohn in 1961. He clearly was not much of a punching threat. He defeated five men who were ever rated in the top six heavyweights--Valdes, Machen, Cooper, Jones, Chuvalo, Bonavena. Only Machen and Cooper were actually rated in the top five when he defeated him. His record is long winning streaks against mainly unrated fighters, followed normally by losses in big matches-Cooper in 1958, Liston in 1960, and Terrell in 1963-or disastrous ko defeats-Lavorante in 1961 and Jones in 1962.
Machen couldn't beat Folley, but in many ways seems to have been the better fighter. He went 21-11-2 with 8 knockouts against rated opponents and he beat 7 top five men, mainly fading veterans Valdes, Maxim, Jackson, Baker, and Holman in 1956 & 1957, and the green Quarry in 1966. In retrospect, his most impressive win might be over unbeaten lightheavy Doug Jones in 1962. In big matches against top men he came up short every time, failing twice against Folley, being blown away by Johansson, losing to Liston, Harold Johnson, and Patterson. The failures against Johansson, Folley twice, Liston, and Johnson came in his peak years of 25 to 28. Machen was talented, and had a good left, but an inferior right hand cost him at the highest echelon.

In contrast, Walcott and Charles won major bouts which moved them to the top. Between 1945 and 1947, Walcott earned the #1 contender spot by beating Sheppard, Baksi, Oma, Murray, Bivins, and Ray, all top five men in those years, plus #6 man Gomez and Joey Maxim. Bivins and Ray were the #1 contender when they entered the ring against Walcott. That is a better job of cleaning out the division than Liston did, let alone second-tier come up short types such as Machen and Folley.

Whitehurst might have been fairly tough to knock out, though Moore did it twice.

I don't think Marciano was all that protected. In his second year as a pro, he was in against the tough spoiler Lowry, as well as Muscato, slipping then, but a top ten man in 1948. He fought the rated and undefeated LaStarza in 1950, two years after turning pro. Liston didn't fight a rated heavyweight until 1958. And don't forget that Summerlin and Marshall were heavy underdogs to Liston who were not expected to perform as well as they did.

I want to add that Folley and Machen did do very well with second-tier contenders, which is why they stayed high in the ratings for a long time. Their biggest drawback is consistently failing against
elite opposition. They were the best of the second-tier fighters, not first tier fighters.

 

Come on I want someone to come out and call Lennox GOAT on Classic. I think good arguments can be made in H2H and Legacy. I think its obscene some don't have Lennox in the top10, and Bert 'I know more about cigars than boxing' Sugar has him around 18th :admin

 

Many people on this board are smarter and more knowledgeable than Bert Sugar. Even Zakman has Lewis in his top15.

 

Lennox as GOAT?

Head to Head is debatable, Legacy is a resounding 'No' for my money.

We've covered most of the ground a million times before. But just to take a slight change of tack what are his best 5 opponents (with opponents condition at the time of the Lewis fight taken into account)?

'99 Holyfield (8 years past prime), '92 Ruddock (solid but a perenial bridesmaid)?? Ive honestly got no idea, but I would be interested in other posters opinions? Ray Mercer, Klitchko, Lionel Butler, Noel Quarless (Noel Clueless?)??

I would love to see some debate on these issues, and then a brief comparison to Ali's legacy opponents/victories... 64 Liston (10 year winning streak), 74 Foreman (unbeaten) etc...

(Also, where do the McCall and Rahman debacles come into play Legacy wise, as they are more important here than in the 'best night of their lives' Head to Head rating).

 

You need professional help.