"The bigger the trees the harder they are to cut down"- Sonny Liston

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by SuzieQ49, Jun 28, 2015.


  1. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,731
    29,080
    Jun 2, 2006
    Johnson did not quit against Klondike that is an established fact ,that leaves you with him retiring at age 49 in a fight , 20 years older than Vitali How about Larry Merchant was he a biased C**t with an antipathy towards Eastern European fighters? The only reason Byrd won was because Vitali quit simple.
     
  2. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,430
    9,414
    Jul 15, 2008
    I asked you a direct question. You're not answering.
     
  3. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009
    Doesn't matter. Liston and Wlad are exceptions, not the rule.
     
  4. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    My opinions have changed based on watching film. Most modern heavyweights would crush the smaller heavyweights pre 1970. The big men over the past 40 years are powerful and athletic...too much for the old time heavyweights in most cases.


    I do think marciano was so much of an animal he was one of those rare fighters who could beat any NON great fighter fighter sub 220lb. I still think any skilled superheavyweight would be out of his depth. Marciano wouldn't have a chance vs lewis Wlad Bowe. Neither would Dempsey. Fulton and old willard were a joke skill wise, any decent 185lber would beat them.

    Langford would get absolutely battered by skilled super heavyweights . Too short
     
  5. HerolGee

    HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

    41,974
    4,029
    Sep 22, 2010
    Jennings and pulev are not talents, they are stand-ins.
    povetkin so far has no delivered on his early promise.
    wilder, well, he has a title at least.




    People who write this, are usually trying to convince themselves. clearly you have a long way to go with that, good luck with it before you try to convince others.
     
  6. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,262
    Sep 5, 2011
    This does not address the question of why Liston actually did better on the average against bigger men than the smaller men with the singular exception of Ali--a bigger man with small man speed and skills.

    *the premise for this post is laid out in post #9 on this thread.
     
  7. klompton2

    klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    10,974
    5,432
    Feb 10, 2013
    Because the big men he was fighting simply werent that good. Wepner and Zech were nothing. Williams is ridiculously overrated. Clark was the Quick Tillis of his day, decent skills but a nut and completely unreliable. Valdez was overrated and DeJohn was nothing special either.

    As for the "smaller" "boxers" Patterson didnt use any of boxing ability against Liston. He stood right in front of him boxing out of a crouch and tried to trade. Ive never understood Patterson's strategy except that maybe he was trying to stay so close because he thought if he stayed inside of Liston's long reach Liston would be less effective. Folley didnt box Liston either. He went right after him and it turned into a shootout. Machen was the only one of those guys that boxed Liston and despite having an injured hand he did pretty good. Watch him fight Liston, Ali, Clark, and to a much lesser extent Rush, who tried to emulate Ali in the Liston fight. Liston was not comfortable at all with boxers who used lateral movement.
     
  8. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009
    Patterson was just being Patterson, getting under his jab and looking for the Bolo Punch. Same strategy he used against Ingo.

    Liston had it well scouted though, he would throw the jab, but instead of leaning or stepping back and falling into the trap like Ingo did he would just step forward and crowd Patterson before he could get the lunging left hook off, resulting in clinches that Liston was able to dominate with his power and ultimately score the knock out with.

    Patterson really didn't start using lateral movement and whatnot until the later stages of his career.
     
  9. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,262
    Sep 5, 2011
    "the big men he was fighting simply weren't that good"

    In fairness to Liston, for the most part they were the best big men available.

    But as they had no real choice but to match power for power, they played to Liston's strengths and to a man went out.

    The littler guys didn't try to match power for power, but used speed and mobility and generally did better.
     
  10. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,262
    Sep 5, 2011
    I recently watched the Maxim fight and the two Liston fights, and the thing that really stood out is how easy Patterson was to hit with what I would call an underhand right. Maxim couldn't miss with that punch. I noticed Maxim didn't necessarily land that well with straight or overhand rights, but that long underhand right went between Patterson's gloves time and again. Maxim did not have the power to hurt Floyd.

    Liston started Patterson on the way out in both fights with a long underhand right which went right between Floyd's gloves.

    I say an underhand right because neither Maxim nor Liston threw it on the inside like an uppercut but from the outside.
     
  11. klompton2

    klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    10,974
    5,432
    Feb 10, 2013
    This is, in my mind, the weakness to the peekaboo style. You have to bob AND WEAVE to make it 100% effective. That takes a lot of concentration and you can get lazy and either ONLY bob or ONLY weave. Both Tyson and Patterson when they got lazy or had lapses in concentration stopped weaving and thus left themselves open to the uppercut.
     
  12. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,579
    46,193
    Feb 11, 2005
    It burns a ton of energy which is why it is primarily successful with younger fighters.
     
  13. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    In YOUR opinion. Not everyone shares that opinion. You think Gerry ****ey looked good for a big man, which I disagree with.

    Valdes, Williams, DeJohn look dangerous on film, all very big punchers. Williams also had terrific handspeed, threw nice combinations and could slip jabs well. Valdes had a long talented left jab, and could really dig to the body. DeJohn was limited in the skill department, but he had a left hook that could knock over a wall.
     
  14. klompton2

    klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    10,974
    5,432
    Feb 10, 2013
    I didnt say ****ey looked GOOD I said he did well against a prime Holmes and I would favor him to beat Machen and Folley. The difference is that you have a very high opinion of Machen and Folley and so you equate that with me thinking ****ey looked good. I recognize Machen and Folley as good but flawed contenders, I see their flaws as giving ****ey a chance to shine. Its just like me saying that Liston had problems with movers and as such might have issues with Pastrano and since I didnt kiss Liston's ring and fawn all over him you equate that with me saying Liston would lose to Pastrano. Thats the difference between being blinded by hero worship and fanaticism for an era you dont even really understand that well and looking at the big picture objectively.

    Your right, not everyone shares my opinion that big men today and big men then sucked. But HW boxing is at one of its lowest points because nobody gives a **** about watching lumbering fat ass giants hug each other through a fight. Just like in the era you are talking about, outside of the championship level it was a very weak era for HWs. Why do you think Cassius Clay always called himself the savior of boxing and yelled loud and long about how he had revived interest in the division? It wasnt because everyone was flocking to see people like Cleveland Williams, Gerhardt Zech, Chuck Wepner, et al. You really want to argue how good Zech, Wepner, Clark and those other guys were? I know you love Williams and Valdez but Im still waiting (and will be waiting until Im an old man) to have you explain with any logic what made them so special.

    "Williams slipped a jab well" LOL. Its not easy to recall a more standup, straight up and down guy who used less head movement than Williams. His entire game was one dimensional built around using his height to walk people down. He was not fast. He did not have good defense. He did not have particularly good stamina. He was just big and could hit hard and even then he rarely produced KOs against top men.