What is ur HW top 10?

You're not great with the lists, eh?

 

Only in this case for his justifications. Liston over Foreman requires a lot of stretching of the truth/facts and a lot of bad math, as well as love for his ability as a fighter.

I had a discussion with McGrain were he gave such high praise to Liston for knocking out a ATG Patterson in 1 round twice. It's never been done, he says. The reality is that Foreman doing so to Frazier in two rounds is twice as impressive, regardless of the "historical bonus" that McGrain undeservingly tries justifying for. Lastly, Spinks while not historical speaking as a HW, but literally speaking was a bigger HW only being out-weighed by like 5 pounds and Tyson obliterated him in round 1. But Spinks is a blown up LHW... while Patterson is a more proven HW. Spinks is still a bigger stronger guy at the weight. And there's not this huge disparity in strength, size, weight, and some stylistic mismatch.

 

I'll tell you the real reasons. He's a big Frazier fan, and an even bigger Liston fan.

So more stock in Liston's greatness... hardly while ever factoring his disgraceful fall in the Ali fights. And more thought into Frazier's physical prime decline which is a new revisionist phenomenon. He was the favorite going in, and while questions were talked about how much the Ali fight took out of him he was still beating everyone up and looking pretty good.

 

Yeah, the discussion was from something but than all the Liston worshiping got me intrigued. And I wanted to talk about why Liston was better than Foreman in your eyes. This was a big point. This historical uniqueness... as if blowing out a great HW in 1 round is better than doing so to an awesome HW in 2 rounds. Makes no sense once you get past the trivia.

It's not out of context though. Unless you're trying to deny that this was important for you. I know you factor H2H and that's fine. But outside of that element Liston doesn't beat Foreman. The discussion was more about their placement and this is what you brought up. You are the one that put stock into this historical uniqueness. Nothing is being thrown out of air to misrepresent you. Everytime a past discussion is being brought up your just throw it out as if it's out of context. Try to be least bit accountable.

 

Maybe

 

Good post, and I agree with you. I also get the sense McGrain is being inconsistent on this. He was belittling the use of dominance to prop up fighters' achievements as the last stand of the die-hard Klitschko nuthugger, but when it comes to Liston...

And I agree that Foreman's wins over Frazier **** all over Liston's over Patterson. Frazier is simply the much, much superior fighter.

I do agree Liston looks very good on film, though. Better than Foreman, most likely.

Sorry McGrain, I'm being a bit nasty to you today

 

I do not factor in some speculative H2H, but I have Liston ahead of Foreman. For me, Liston's impressive wins over a wide variety of solid opposition trumps Foreman's high end wins and achievements.

 

Maybe some of your claims have been taken out of context. This one, though:

came from the thread: "Sonny Liston, why is he ranked so highly?" (http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=204479) where you produced, on the very first page and not in response to any other poster, the above as evidence for Liston's high rating as a fighter. That wasn't part of a specific discussion of unique achievements. You seem to view it there as an independent reason for Liston's greatness. Correct me if I'm wrong: Maybe that was just hyperbole, and you think that the Patterson wins are great wins regardless of whether they were KO1, KO1 or UD15, UD15.

 

What constitutes an "impressive win", and what constitutes "solid opposition", if not the ability of the men in the ring?