What is ur HW top 10?

So Liston is mentally tougher? How about cutting the ring. That was one thing Liston couldn't do for jack **** that definitely cost him (Along with his quitting). How much do you factor Liston's disgraceful quit jobs?

Here it comes again. I guess it can't be out of context now. The 2 round destruction of Frazier is far more impressive. In fact, Liston was a favorite... while Foreman was the underdog. For comparison sake, the Patterson victories are closer to being equal to the Norton win than being equal to the Frazier win. Regardless of how much spin you play. And this doesn't factor in the stylistic, as well as strength and weight disparities. We shouldn't though, but we can't act like it's not a positive factor for Liston.

A lot of them were older, never that great or on the tail-end of their careers. Valdes for example... while his wins over Williams are good though.

Not it doesn't. Talk about spin or taking things out of context. Hell... talk about actually making things up. This was in relation to his H2H prime in pitting him against other slick boxer types.



...as spectacular a version of "revisionist boosting" as i've ever seen on this forum, which is saying something.[/quote]

For Liston or Dempsey? Liston's stock has risen big time since the 70's. Dempsey is falling. That's not revisionism... that's the opposite.

 

Some of the worst logic and reasoning I've heard in a long time. Not evaluating H2H as a criteria doesn't nullify the greatness of the opposition you fought, or achievements. It's quite obvious that Louis and Ali triumph Marciano in a huge way in this manner. Relativity is used... as we examine the opposition. You don't need H2H to do this, unless you're confused about what H2H is. We can examine how their greatness was, their dominance, opposition, resume, achievements, etc. If not, then Joe Mesi would be one of the GOATs... clearly not.

Yes, but boosting someone's greatness based on speculative match-making is giving the individual far too much stock in their opinion on his greatness in some H2H fantasy. Using the facts in my view is the best way at evaluating greatness. There's nothing wrong with factoring it in but things do get tricky, especially if you see how Liston is so much better in this tangent universe, while in reality Foreman is the more proven, accomplished-oriented HW. That should matter more.

For those that rank Liston in the 3-5 area they're dealing a lot of that. Some consider him to be an elite H2H fighter. What's really proven is his great short prime, but faltering in the face of adversity. That's not greatness.

Well said. Foreman also is one of the few HW gold-medal winners. He came back to win the title 10 years+ after retiring. Beat some fairly good fighters, has impressive performance in losses and wins the HW crown at 45. He was a champion in arguably the two greatest eras in HW History.

 

Class

 

The man that was dropped by Banks, and won a very contested decision against him. The man that was dropped by Cooper as well within a year of the fight. Ali was unbelievable in that fight, though. But it was so much about how Godly Liston was that he was a favorite going in BOTH bouts.

I'm not crying, and this is civil.

It finally comes out. And this is a big thing in your thinking, obviously. And this is where me and imarity disagree strongly with, I guess. Foreman had two runs, so it's a bit harder to compare runs.

Well, Foreman had a pretty solid jab. The last part while not true doesn't deal with the entire tone of the conversation. Either way, at least I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.

 

There's nothing revisionism about Ali being dropped by Cooper and barely getting by Banks. Some wanted a rematch before the Liston fight happened. Ali grew into a man over-night in that match. We know in retrospect Liston was over-confident. Revisionism tells us he had no pray in chance of winning. That's the difference.

Because you were so persistent about being taken out of context. When me and imarity where talking about how Foreman's win is far better, yet you somehow think this unique achievement about it being a 1 round KO of Patterson makes it a better victory. Had it been a 2nd round KO would that have made it still better? Yes, I'll here the chime about Patterson being in the prime of his life (Questionable) and how Frazier was so past, so unmotivated that he was the favorite going in. Liston was expected to beat Patterson and Frazier was the favorite and a much better, more accomplished HW. Add the fact that Patterson was arguably terrified of Liston. So how is this a better win again?

Smug McGrain comes here. You don't admit being wrong very much. You'll admit that it's "reasonable" to think otherwise. What historian ranks Liston above Foreman? How many do? Yes, I'm sure you'll render this useless or meaningless. Because the top ESB posters are clearly more objective and knowledgeable than the experts.

 

I wasn't alive in 1964.

It was an agree to disagree. I can't change your mind, but you explained. And I asked you about Liston and his resume and you pointed toward his domination of Patterson in KO1 as having not been done in the history. The topic wasn't about historical uniqueness, you pointed to a Liston achievement as part of a reason as to why you rank him highly. That is what happened. There was no mis-interpretation or taking out of context.

I'm sorry, Foreman's victory "might not be more impressive." You think they're equals then. I can go resume for resume, and we both know Liston doesn't stack up. It comes down to H2H... that's fine we been there done that. I seem to get responsive when it comes down to Liston. He's just so grossly overrated, while Foreman is underrated. I mean... you never thought he was a top 10 HW at one point. Says a lot about your idea of him as a fighter and his "potential" H2H because his resume and achievements blow Liston's out of the water.

I would say his absolute "prime" was in the 2nd Ingo fight. But that's splitting hairs. But you might it like Patterson was at his all time high prime, with all-time high confidence and Frazier was under-trained, unmotivated, and very clearly past it.

It's not a better win. Why don't you admit that?

Yes, and I don't know boxing and I don't study film. Stop being an idiot.

Neither.

 

I said revisionism says he had no pray of a chance. He had a chance with his power. No, I think Ali wins at least 9/10 times. Liston didn't really show the mental fortitude at that time.

I don't know that beating an under-prepared, under-motivated, past-prime Frazier is more impressive

Words in my mouth, too!

Shall we can name for name with resume, and achievements?

Are you more of a Liston apologist than I am a Foreman apologist?

Lastly, the cuties he faced were better than Liston's (Young, Ali) and Liston lost to one of those shared individuals twice. And furthermore, Liston beat these lesser cuties when he was nearer his prime.

It's necessary with your slanted hyperbole.

Of course he would've. He could've very likely have beaten that Liston.

Because you write discussion that can be interpreted in that way.

 

Ali was a 7-1 underdog vs Liston though, and that is a pretty large gap imo.

Liston was a CLEAR vote to win in the first fight. After destorying Patterson in the manner he did, not once, but 2 times, he was pretty much expected to win in the same fashion over Ali(Clay as he was called than)

Cockell was a 7-1 underdog to Marciano, which is the same for Ali vs Liston I.

And pretty much no one gave Cockell a chance in hell(Outside of the nose) in beating Marciano.

 

Good and bad, as long you don't go too far with it. Historical content is important. You seem keen on putting more words in my mouth, though.

For example, it's bad when you try to sell Frazier as being so much past it against Foreman. He could have very well been in his physical prime. Some people actually think he was in title defense against Daniels (I don't but I don't over-blow it). We can talk over-confidence as much as we want, but Frazier doesn't make these excuses. He says the mistake he made was signing the contract.

Of course, Liston had a chance. I think his lack of fortitude takes a huge hit to his legacy, you seem not to (Hey, I'm putting words in your moth now). Maybe Liston couldn't deal with getting beat on (Not adversity, but an actual whooping which was happening towards the end).

Liston still lost to a man that showed serious vulnerability at the time. Had he been in the frame that most thought he was he could have had a serious chance, yes.

The only thing that's bizarre is how you're vague and non-descript. And whenever I try to point to something you try claiming some misinterpretation. Almost impossible to have a discussion with someone when they do that. Obviously, you're unsure which victory is more impressive so it's close in your mind. As crazy as that actual is. I mean, considering the style matchup, size, and strength disparity the Norton victory for Foreman is probably more comparable.

Shall we name the names in terms of resume. Yes or no?

Well you'd be very hard-stretch to find a historian that would agree with your placement of Liston. You would find some that I think have Foreman with my ball-park. Foreman ranked #7 on our ESB HW survey. I rank him #4... you rank Liston #3-5 depending on the day or how much you want to avoid looking bad about it. Liston ranked #11 in our survey. 17 people that voted had Foreman in their top 5. Liston got 11 votes within the top 5. As Floyd fans say. Humans lie, but facts and numbers don't lie.

Yes, Eddie Machen is better than Jimmy Young. Liston had to blind this one of these 'cuties' and lost in a more embarrassing quit action while having Ali blinded (Whether that was inadvertent or a corner mistake). In the rematch, he got knocked out in a round. I'd love to hear a case for Machen and those fighters being better than Young... or how Foreman wasn't more past it when he lost to Young in comparison to Liston beating his in the late 50's. Some respectable posters on this site think that Young is a top 25-30 HW.

I'd give Frazier maybe a 30-40% chance. It's very reasonable. More reason why these victories aren't equal.

 

No, he isn't. Louis and Ali both beat about three times as many ranked opponents as he did. Rocky Marciano's record would be comparable to Ali's, had Ali never made the comeback.