Was Sonny Liston's jab really that powerfull or is it more of a myth?

Take a look at the boxrecs there has not been a great heavyweight that has been the lighter man more often then not. If you see one let me know.

 

All you gotta do to prove Liston's jab power is ask Wayne Bethea. He had his front teeth
imbedded in the roof of his mouth by a Liston jab according to reports

 

:huh

Marciano was outwieghed in 4 out of 7 title fights. The other 3 he held a grand total of 3lbs advantage in weight. Two of those who were lighter (Charles and LaStarza) were heavier the other time they fought. Marciano was a small heavyweight, even for the era.

Dempsey was mid-sized heavy for the day, and was regularly outweighed. He fought a fair share of LHWs, and actually had more success against the heavier guys. Speed, power and aggression were his trump cards, not size.

Frazier was outweighed in 7 out of 12 title fights.

Charles was outweighed in 10 out of 13 title fights.

Tyson was outweighed in 9 out of 16 title fights, and even in two others.

Holyfield was the heavier man in 1 title fight (Byrd), even in 2, and lighter in the other 15 or so.


(numbers may be slightly off as I haven't double checked them)

 

My point is that the great heavyweights of the past have been big men for their time. Maybe they have not always been the biggest for thier title fights but they have been close. And even the guy that is getting a shot at the title is one of the best of the era usually.

If you look at any great heavyweight entire resume of fights not just title fights it shows they are big men for their time. I looked at Marciano's opponents and he was bigger or at least very close to the same size as his opponents.

Wallcott, Moore, Charles, Lane and Louis were all a little bigger then Marciano though. Marciano must have been a little more skillfull then he is given credit for. A fighter has to be much more skilled to beat bigger men consitantly during his time and Marciano did it more than most.

 

You seem to be hallucinating.

Have a few cups of coffee, then check the stats yourself, pre-Klitchko era.

 

Wasn't sonny with the mob?

 

He just gave you numerous counterexamples. Your theory is flatly, provably, wrong.

 

British ref would have stopped the fight at 5.55

 

They uses 4 oz and 6 oz gloves. Today Heavyweight fights with 10 oz. That´s a difference.

 

Tyson was considered a smallish heavyweight champ, but he was substantially outweighed only 20 times, so more then half the time he was about the same size or bigger. by the way of the 20 guys that outweighed him he was 16w 4l. In total Tyson had 56 fights, so in 36 of his fights he was either about the same size or bigger.

I found those stats by looking at his box rec for 5 min. I could do this alll day and I would find out that the great heavyweights have been big guys for their time. This is not ground breaking stuff.

 

It's certainly not ground breaking stuff, mainly because it's not true.

Marciano wasn't a "big" man by any standards, never mind heavyweight champions. When he met Eisenhower, he specifically commented on how small Marciano was ("I didn't realise you were so small" or words to that effect). People were smaller back in the 50s, but they weren't pygmies. The division was unusual in the 50s in that many of the better fighters were naturally smaller - Moore and Charles obviously peaked at LHW, and both weighed roughly the same as Marciano. Valdes (6'3'' and around 210) was considered a big guy, and was much larger than Marciano.

Dempsey was a good sized heavyweight, but his career overlapped with the White Hope era, where the heavies were very big. Aside from Willard, who was considered a giant, "big" heavyweights were guys like Fulton, Morris, Wills and Firpo. Dempsey was the same size as Tunney, who spent the bulk of his career at LHW.

Frazier and Holyfield were not big fighters for the time. This should be obvious from watching their fights. Although Frazier was only slightly lighter than Foreman in their first fight, he was a much smaller man in terms of build.

Tyson is another one who is surprisingly small in person (no way is he his listed height). Discounting the first 15-20 creampuffs where he was building a record, he was invariably the smaller man in the ring.

 

Tyson may very well be a little shorter then listed, I don't really have a problem with that. I consider weight a more accurate messure of size then height anyhow. Although if one boxer is fat like Cockel was against Marciano I don't really think I should be counting Cockel bigger, but I did anyways.

 

give it up/ lennox had better jab...larry holmes easily had a better jab/ liston had a better jab/pinklon thomas had a better jab

 

Most people don't scroll down the page to see if you 'personally subscribe to' an opinion you give. You should say it in the same post.

 

your theory is flatly, provably wrong. And now you've gone through some completely pointless effort to gather statistics that tell us that Mike Tyson was only substantially (however you define that) outweighed in 20 of his fights.