You can search up top 20 heavyweights out by yourself. And yeah your right, Floyd had a mediocre one not the worst of chins, which was further capitalised on given he took on much bigger men.
You are correct you said he threw more punches than most, sorry about that. Fair enough on that evidence, thank you the sources. Yet the part of the argument you have not gotten is that critics would concede Liston was better than the few peers larger than him, bit that does not show how good he would be head to head against larger men. Also being bigger has helped many from his era & before knock people out or not get KOed-sometimes better results with lesser skills (to a point) just because of size.
Whereas I have no problem conceding that Johnson probably won handily, I will point out that this sort of thing--favoring the perceived aggressive fighter--still happens all the time to this day. Wilder-Fury 1, for example. Or Usyk-Chisora. Usyk landed more punches in 9 rounds, with one being dead even, and wobbled Chisora in the seventh. Yet two of the score cards were 115-113. Chisora with his bull rushes won over the judges to get him rounds he just does not deserve, and a LOT of fans bought into it. Aggression gets you points, effective or otherwise.
The fighters qualified by having knocked out or TKO a minimum of ten opponents who were in their prime at the time of the match. Attesting to the difficulty of stopping an opponent in the prime of his career who had at least limited skills is the fact that only 52 fighters out of the 160 analyzed stopped 10 or more opponents who were in their prime; that is only 32.5% of the fighters in boxing by the numbers the heavyweights. this is how it’s worded. To give an example of the top five it’s as follows 1 Liston 2 Louis 3 foreman 4 tyson 5 Frazier
It’s an interesting take on ranking fighters. Even the author states might not be the best for h2h matchup rankings but it gives you an idea of who the really successful fighters were. Definitely changed my opinion of a few fighters.