What is ur HW top 10?

We don't even know if he was past his physical prime. We know he was a little over-confident, and probably living life a little too kid. But we don't want to over-blow it as some kind of understanding about how everyone thought Frazier was done or past it at that point. He was the undefeated HW champ! How close to your prime must you be. It wasn't like Hatton after fighting Lazarus with British papers thinking he should retire. That's how you're treating this and it's bull****.

It's hardly a fact that Frazier was way past it. Could have been in his physical prime.

Yes, because these are facts. Look, I admit Frazier wasn't at his best. But Frazier was well within the vicinity of his prime. Hell, might have STILL been in it. Was he at his peak? Now... was he washed up or majorly physically declined? No. Some great youtube uploaders talk about how the Daniels defense is Frazier in his best action. I would disagree with this, but this is like 2 fights before the Foreman fight and after the FOTC.

Duran might get a pass for this, but he did later things after this in his career. Liston quit on his stool once (With a legit injury), but in the next fight took the quitting job to an extreme by failing to get up. I and you don't think he was hurt or unable to get up. And when talking about this Liston just said he wanted no part of that crazy man Ali. After this, he was black-listed basically. Clearly not the same as the other fighters. Pep was legitimately injured because of Saddlers dirty tactics. And Duran had no legit excuse really.

Had Liston trained more like a champion defending his crown maybe that 1/10 scenario turns into a 3 or 4/10.

And how long did that take. With how much wiggling? You still haven't actually admitted that the Foreman victory is better than Liston's over Patterson. All you've said is that Frazier would probably beat Patterson.

Before this you said.

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

And this type of hanging on a thread is laughable.


This is as concrete an opinion as it is possible to provide. Your reaction, from memory, was to laugh and agree; but here you are, STILL banging on about it.

Yes, I was terrified. I'm sure if we were both around at that time we'd pick Liston knowing Ali's "chin" vulnerabilities. If Liston had trained like a champion, maybe the favorite people saw would have won.

So you think neither man could replicate what the original man did if they changed opponents. Foreman could have easily KOed Patterson in 1. Liston chopped him with that uppercut that changed the tides if I remember correctly. Foreman had possibly the best uppercut in HW history and that's a punch Patterson probably would have the same vulnerability against. However, Liston versus Frazier. Frazier could very well win. Liston would look way worse in comparison to Foreman's display. That I think most would believe too.

Here comes that unique word again. So I ask again... so what? Does that enhance it so much in your eyes?

To compare performances might not be irrelevant. Both great performances... but to compare victories. Yeah, it's very clear to me that Foreman's win and destruction over Frazier takes the quick in comparison to Liston's win over Patterson. And great posters on this site like itrymariti seem to agree with me.

I'll get to that in the next post.

This is true. And I still feel the same way. Obviously the differences are marginal, then. But this was a thorough poll which had around a hundred of our posters partaking in. If this was a scientific hypothesis or theory in a LAB my stat and example would prove much more credible. I'm sure you'll dismiss that as irrelevant for your own accord though.

Where do you rank Machen. Where do you rank Young? Ball-park. That's allI care to know.

Had Foreman fought this comp he would be too (Equal)

Considering his vulnerabilities up until the fight. He probably showed that he was lesser of what he was since Zaire than Frazier did since FOTC. They both, minimally put on weight (Although Foreman did drain). If this loss against a top 30-40 HW is embarrassing (When he fought tooth and nail with Norton and Ali) than Liston's quit job in the second Ali fight is truly an abomination. Just because it's against the GOAT doesn't make it any better.

Depends how conveniently we decide on when someone's physical prime is. I'm sure Liston not training and thinking he was a bad-ass showed his mental shortcomings more than physical ones. Besides, he never utilized his physical abilities enough. Although that not training shows up physically. Anyway, Liston is in your top 10. I think that Young could beat the Liston from 64-65. Don't worry I know he was way past it by then, having just KOed Patterson twice 2 years earlier.

You know what I find really amusing. We have always argued the same way. But when something rehashes you go 3-4 months you were okay with this and agreeing and now you're just arguing. No... the argument patterns have always turned out the same. I'm not changing my thoughts, then re-changing just to argue. Arguments just stop and end at some point cause we go no where. THis one will happen soon enough.

 

this is gay

 

No, sounds like you've got more reason to create double-standards. Explain to be in detail what makes Frazier so much more past it in 72-73 than Foreman in 78 compared to his peak of 73.

So you think Liston's 1st round quit job is the same as Pep's against Saddler?

No, you've done some wiggling to justify a stupid opinion. It doesn't take a boxing historian to admit that Foreman's destruction of Frazier does more for his legacy than Liston beating Patterson. Almost everyone knows this.

Like knock Frazier down 6 times and stop him in the 2nd round?

So you think a poll that adheres to 100 people's opinions rather than 20 is less legit?

In all time ranking.

As is that 64-65 Liston beats the Young that beat Foreman.

But a 1st round KO loss quit job to Ali is. And many historians would probably side with me as far as one fight damaging a fighter's legacy.

For some new stuff...


Resume, and achievements comparison.

Achievements: (Foreman) 2 HW Champion. HW Olympic Gold Medalist (Believe only Frazier has done this), Oldest Man To Win The HW Championship

Achievements: (Liston) HW Champion

Resume/Record: (Foreman) Peralta (2x), Chuvalo, Frazier (2x), Roman, Norton, Lyle, Qawi, Cooney Stewart, Moorer, Schulz, Savarese, Briggs (Realistically).

Resume/Record: (Liston) DeJohn, Williams (2x), Harris, Folley, Valdes, Westphal, Clark, Machen, Patterson (2x)

Skills/Abilities: (Foreman) Very powerful, slightly limited. Solid jab, ATG uppercut. Wide looping punching, ATG power. Alright handspeed, underrated foot-speed. Great at cutting off the ring. Decent combination punching. Very durable, proven heart, suspect stamina. Shown Ring Smarts, suspect defense

Skills/Abilities: (Liston) Very powerful, ATG power. Great punching technique, alright hand-speed, decent-good combination punching. Can fight off the back-foot, good boxer-puncher, well rounded. ATG jab, good right hand, left hook, and uppercut. Shown toughness, but shown mental deficiencies. Suspect heart, bad at cutting off the ring. Decent to good stamina, good defense.

Disparities:
- Power (Slightly Foreman)
- Accuracy (Liston)
- Versatility (Liston)
- Jab (Liston)
- Uppercut (Foreman)
- Offense Variety (Liston)
- Aggression (Foreman)
- Defense (Liston)
- Ring IQ (Foreman)
- Durability (Foreman)
- Heart (Foreman)
- Handspeed (Tie)
- Footwork (Slightly Liston)

Overall: Foreman has the greater legacy and the bigger names. Liston has decent depth, perhaps a more consistent depth with more styles. And while this is nice and says a lot about a fighter's skills/abilities against a certain style it should be credited to Liston and not taken from Foreman. This is not enough to overtake Foreman. Foreman has the better names, better wins, better achievements. Liston wins on paper in terms of his skills/ability. In an H2H fantasy, Liston might be the superior fighter. But this is on alternate fantasy world. In reality, he was expected to destroy Ali but lost twice. Foreman defied the odds and showed more redemption. Maybe he is the fighter that is more overlooked in terms of H2H while Liston's estimations are overrated. I haven't seen him show this greatness enough when he had to. In fact, he crumbled in an embarrassing fashion.

 

George has under-rated handspeed I feel, especially considering how big his shots are.

 

I agree with everything you said in the last post by the way Pete, barring a few issues with your "disparities" list. You hit the nail on the head.

 

Thank you, I'm going against the grain on that one but I feel strongly especially in combination shots. Liston looks a little more cumbersome to me. Foreman seems to just reel his looping uppercuts together nicely. He can jab at one shot pretty quickly too.

 

Thanks man. The real thing we are going to come away with this is understanding at least McGrain's estimation of how much he exactly factors H2H. And how he goes about doing so (What system does he line up ATG fighters against each other, out how many times do they fight, is it based on a percentage, etc). Scratch that... we'll also find how much he estimates skills, abilities, AND H2H for his criteria. I'm really curious to know. I know there's no exact science to it but a better comprehensive of each others system will give us a better understanding of our process and perspective. Because if it comes to just legacy, and what a fighter did and who/how he beats them then I think Foreman pales over Liston. Even if we vary the style diversity argument into play... just doesn't add up to me and I know I can be hard-headed.

Don't want to ramble too long and digress.

 

Yeah, I agree. I've always thought of him as someone who takes more account of achievements (though perhaps not as much as someone like bodhi who sees it as pretty much the be-all-and-end-all). Here he seems to think that Foreman's H2H flaws are a major sticking point - major enough to have Liston at #3 and Foreman outside the Top 10 at some point.

I just think (like you do) that Foreman's best wins are so vastly better that Liston's facing more styles or beating more contenders just becomes a red herring. I'm still not sure McGrain has convincingly explained why it isn't.

 

Fine.

I guess listing your top ten champions may differ somewhat from pinning down your top ten fighters, champions or not, which personally fascinates me.

It seems the former implies pitting basically record vs. record whereas the latter tries to put abilities head-to-head.

Even when simply evaluating based on facts, as you say, I'd say H2H can serve as a tool in separating two closely qualified fighters.

I'm big on H2H because I feel therein lies the greatest excitement! Imagine drawing up your list of top ten accomplishment-based champions, then seeing them duke it out in a fantasy tournament. Wouldn't you say the final results would see several changes in the ranks?

This is one of the things I love about boxing. How an individual reacts to adversity, credentials be damned! How accolades mean nothing once you step in through the ropes. Remember how Frazier and his marvelous record were so disrespectfully bounced around by awesome George Foreman. Or how Braddock upset Baer. Again picture Michael Spinks, crapping his pants in front of the whole world before meeting Tyson, while all his accomplishments were being read out by Buffer: "the only light heavyweight king to conquer the heavyweight crown!", "still the heavyweight champion according to authorities such as Boxing Illustrated!", "the undefeated man who brings the Jinx!" It all felt like last rites, the glory of Michael Spinks millions of worlds away, as crunch time came nigh.

In the end, many of the same names still appear, I normally find -just not in the same old places a mere statistical ranking would have you follow. The best fighters still tend to prevail, though. For instance:

If Foreman is the more proven, accomplished heavyweight in the real world, this must prove the same in the tangent world. Thus, I, as you, place Foreman above Liston.

 

Yeah, I'm hard-pressed about understanding Liston as ever being #3 while having Foreman outside your top 10. But we all have our irrational placings (For lack of a better word). I know I've had Dempsey way too high as the mystique of a legend distorted my thinking of fairly looking at his inactivity and opposition. That happens... but basically your last paragraph sums up my thought process better than I could ever put it.

 

You could say that, although I wouldn't word it champions. Potentially, though; yes.

Yes, I do personally believe in a separate H2H list. I haven't configured how I'll go about that but it will be somewhat similar to dezbeast system.

I have no problem with that. When things get tricky is to what extent H2H becomes a minor tool to a major kicking point as to evaluating greatness. The question is when doing this... is how do you go about doing this (What system) and what percent of your criteria factors this in. It certainly makes things more complicated, but I think it should be a minor criteria as the subjective nature can get overbearing. Fist of Fury seemed to agree with me on this. There's definitely two different camps in viewing greatness.

Yes, it's quite an interesting way of going about things. This description sounds almost like a primarily H2H HW Champion list. Not just using H2H as a part of it, but almost device for determining the order between all champions. This type of list would probably never see the face of Marciano, Dempsey, and Jeffries. Which reminds me of the troubles with the different rule variations, how long fights were, the glove sizes, etc. Things can certainly get intricate. It's all in great fun... I really should take a stab at my H2H list but it's really intimidating it takes tons of thought process.

But how can credentials be damned completely? They are what shape our knowledge of a fighter. His heart, his will, his being. These accolades and history define him. It can't just be random. How do we have an understanding without this? It's not like Liston is all of a sudden going to grow the heart of a Joe Frazier. Not like we can determine Holmes beats Frazier because he out-toughs him.

Ah, well this is a great point. At the same time, the fact that Tyson got busted up by Douglas/Holyfield without digging back after getting dropped tells us something. This alternative universe can't have us have Tyson get up 7 times to stop a lion like Foreman, though. There have to be some borders.

A lot of sports writers picked Spinks. Seems so crazy thinking about that now doesn't it?

Yes, they're both inter-related. I'm glad you mentioned this as it proves your system has structure. Some would argue Liston has better skills, is better on paper and dealt with more diverse styles... therefore he would be more successful in this tangent world.

... But first, I say we must send the jet-engine through the wormhole and back to the tangent reality.

 

Enlightening stuff. So what should we do with these sub 200lb HWs? Throw them in some CW list?