That´s why I think Sonny Liston is overrated

:good WIlls goes under the radar, most boxing fans probably don't even know him, I can't even remember how many times he fought Langford - 23? And won 19? Thats a crazy thought. Imagine if we had 23 Ali-Fraziers or 23 Barrera-Morales.....I wonder if they boxed instead of going to war after understanding their styles or if allot were tear ups.

Marciano could be higher on my list but it is all very close between 4-10 in the way I see them. Marciano beat everyone of his era (you wont hear me complaining about Valdes), which takes some doing. Hes not a personal faveourate, I'm not a fan of his style, although his Suzie-Q is sight to behold.

Lists are very subjective with certain issues. Who were the better contenders the champ faced? Who was in their prime when the champ faced them? Who was the most dominant?

 

My list:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Frazier
6. Tyson
7. Marciano
8. Liston
9. Holyfield
10. Johnson

HM's: Dempsey, Foreman, Jeffries, Bowe and Patterson.

 

I would argue Wills was the number 1 HW in the world for around 15years and beat every contender he could fight.

Tyson at his peak was amazingly dominant over very good competition (Despite not being exciting there were some very good contenders completely wiped out by Tyson). It wasn't just his power - his defense was amazing, he rarely got hit. His sublime speed, defense, power, combinations, workrate, footwork - he had it all minus the odd thing - height/reach/inside fighting.

Spinks beat Holmes twice who was possibly 1 of the best HWs ever. Buster Douglas is in my top30 too and I was contemplating putting him ahead of Spinks, McCalls in my top30 too. I think Buster Douglas could have been something special if he was focused more, he has fantastic wins none the less. McCall although limited and beatable has 2 top10 HWs, 2 linear champs on his record in Lennox and Holmes, plus 2 other belt holders.

Buster Douglas is the 90s Schmelling/Tunney with his Tyson win

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

list of Listons major victories.....that first loss, 8 rounder with a broken jaw...in the forth...so that man could hit.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

I can do it for the 70's too, with forgotten men like Boone Kirkman, or fighters you liked watching, like Scrap Iron Johnson, or even short armed Leotis martin...a man who could well have been a cruiser had there been such.


Back in the old days you had a single line of the top ten contenders and they had to fight often, or someone lower would take thier rating...it was beat everyone up above you, or perish...
it is not like now, where you can pick which champion you want to fight because you think you can beat him....win a better fight and wait a year, some belt factory will rate you high enough to fight for a title....but it's only a title, not the World Championship.


How times change...I remember looking up lately the so called tale of the Tape and all it was was the belts won...not only for Championship fights but for major fights, both fighters were listed with a full tale of the tape...so you could be accurate in your bets...
Now News papers don't cover boxing at all....Major championship fights today don't get a tale of the tape, they have ice hocky, or curling instead. And a three by three story.

 

A lot is being made of Patterson, as if he is the best here, but I think a big ? hangs over Patterson and his career. Louis, Walcott, and Charles fought everyone. Louis was clearly the best of his time, Walcott probably beat Louis if given a fair decision in 1947, and later knocked out Charles, Charles beat Louis and Walcott.
Patterson, on the other hand, wins the title by knocking out Moore, who was after all badly beaten, despite an early knockdown, by Marciano. Walcott certainly, and Charles probably, were tougher opponents, as Marciano himself said.
Now so far I have no problem with Patterson, but coming to the title only with a victory over a badly defeated challenger, I think he needed to prove his right to the title by cleaning out the top contenders. He did not.
Only the weird Jackson, and Johansson, over the next six years, are actually top men. The highly rated Folley and Machen are given the go-by. When he does fight Johansson, he is badly beaten. He does get revenge and survives a scary third fight, but the problem is Johansson is champion by beating Patterson and Patterson is champion by beating Johansson.
Liston beats the guys Patterson is not fighting and thus becomes the first proven top heavyweight since Marciano. Patterson goes out twice in the first round against him. A later fight with Ali is also dismal, with Patterson hardly competitive.
His victories on his comeback are over a fading Machen, plus Chuvalo, who almost always lost to top men (both lost to Terrell) and old Henry Cooper. He fails to beat a young Quarry or Ellis.
A later comeback over tomato-cans surprisingly yields an upset of Bonavena, but I saw the fight and Bonavena was on his way to a victory until he broke his hand. Patterson came on late to win.

To sum up, the Liston fights were the ones in which Patterson should have proven himself, at least with a great effort in defeat. Instead he goes out twice in the first, and later flops also against Ali. I just can't see claiming Patterson as better than the old champions who defeated a great many more top heavies and also beat the man who was really the best of his era, or at least gave top efforts in defeat.

 

Yes but Wills fought the best around a trillion times each so hes bound to lose once or twice with those odds

And since when were Holmes/Spinks not world class and thats ignoring very good contenders like Bruno, Tucker, Golota, Rudduck, Smith, Berbick and so on.

As for Spinks 1st round KO loss, pretty much anyone can be ko'd by Tyson in the first if Tyson gets his shots off flush, especially a smaller man.

LHW I go back and forth on with the top guys. Its hard to wonder if Langford and other none official LHWs should be included on LHW lists. Or which divisions to rank Langford in as a whole

 

I don't think anyone here is rating Patterson over Marciano or Louis. In fact, I think most would agree with you that those guys were better ( I certainly do. )

Patterson However had a career that I feel is highly comparable to that of Walcott's and Charles. I'm not saying that he was better than those two, but certainly on par with them. Patterson has a sparkling resume in my eyes. He was an olympic gold medalist in 1952. His career stretched 20 years from the early 50's to the early 70's ( one of the most competitive periods in the division's history ). He was the youngest heavyweight champion of all time, a feat topped by only one man. He was the first to regain the heavyweight title upon Losing it. Patterson also had some decent career wins over Johanson, Moore, Chuvalo, Cooper, Bonavena, Machen, Mcneely, Harris and Jackson. I especially give him credit given that he was a relatively small heavyweight fighting during a period where the tide was turning and heavyweights were getting bigger and bigger. His back to back first round losses to Liston were less than flattering, but I'm not going sum up his whole career by them either.

Floyd Patterson is a bit underrated by a lot of fans and historians in my opinion. I have him very close to being a top ten great heavyweight. He falls a bit short, but not by much.

 

I agree that he's underrated certainly, but can't quite make a case for Paterson gaining a Top 10 slot. I have him solidly in the Top 20, though (#14-ish). :good

 

You make good points and Patterson was definately protected. But he later went on to fight more top contenders after his reign as champ. Johannson, Machen, Chuvalo, Archie Moore, Cooper, Bonavena and he arguably beat Quarrey not to mention his brief career at 175 beating the likes of Durrelle and being robbed against Maxim

Yes he lost twice to Liston in the first, theres no great shame in this, Liston may have done the same to Charles and Walcott (not saying he would). Walcott and Charles have equally embarassing defeats against less stellar opposition.

Saying Patterson flopped against Ali is laughable, how many in history would beat that version of Ali? Not many. And Patterson had a bad back for that 1

As for the validity of Johansen as a top contender other than Patteron he beat Machen, London, Cooper, Erskine

The thing I like about Patteron was the ability he showed on film was nothing short of spectacular

 

Since John L Sullivan, lineal heavyweight champions have suffered a total of 11 first round knockout defeats in their entire careers. To be clear, I am not talking about championship fights, but their entire careers.

1. Hart (ko'd by Hanrahan)
2. Dempsey (ko'd by Flynn)
3. Schmeling (ko'd by Daniels)
4. Schmeling (ko'd by Louis)
5. Walcott (ko'd by Marciano)
6. Patterson (ko'd by Liston)
7. Patterson (ko'd by Liston)
8. Liston (ko'd by Ali)
9. M Spinks (ko'd by Tyson)
10. Douglas (ko'd by Savarese)
11. Moorer (ko'd by Tua)

The performance of Patterson against Liston is pretty bad--yeah, Liston could punch, but he only scored 6 first round knockouts in his other 52 fights, probably a pretty good total, but still it is hard for me to simply write off two first round back to back stoppages.
Charles was never stopped inside of 6, even as a washed up veteran.

I certainly agree that Liston might defeat Charles and Walcott, but they could not do worse than Patterson did and I think both would do much better, and an upset is not really that long a shot, especially in the case of Walcott.

Johansson was certainly a legit contender. I'm only pointing out that he became champion by beating Patterson, and then Patterson earned his place in history as the first to regain the title by beating Johansson. Neither beat any other champion. Johansson's other biggest win was over Machen, who was beaten about that time by Liston, Folley, and Johnson. Patterson's was over Moore, who was beaten by Marciano and Charles. Neither gave a good performance against another champion, unlike Charles (who beat Louis) or Walcott (who should have gotten a nod again Louis and fought Marciano tough before a late KO).

The close decisions arguements can go all over the lot. Certainly Charles and Walcott were each victimized by strange judging in big fights.

I find Charles and Walcott more impressive than Patterson on film, myself, but that is pretty subjective.