What is ur HW top 10?

Cooney had not fought in 5 years. He was washed up drug addict.

 

Ring IQ? Hand-speed? Does footspeed matter? Obviously Liston is technical better, but he's foot-speed is much slower than Foreman's. I've always agreed Liston wins on paper. But reality is another thing than paper. On paper the New England Patriots were supposed to beat the Giants. They did in the regular season, and were going for the undefeated record all the way. But the Giants some how found a way to win. I find it hilarious you can't even give Foreman the Chin category frankly.

 

True, and maybe it's better of not being mentioned.

But how much is it really worse than a win against DeJohn who was a very solid fighter but could never really break through to reach that elite level. Cooney was younger and while inactive still has precedence of a very good fighter. And his inactivity was a little less than 3 years not 5 years. Had Tyson lost bouncing right out of prison would that not still mean something since he was inactive for so long?

It can reasoned that Cooney is more of a good name, rather than a good win. I agree...

 

Liston continues to improve with each passing year even though he's been dead for almost 40 years!

 

A lot worse. DeJohn was young, was rated # 7 in the world and was active. Cooney was old, had not fought in 3 years, was not even a top 50 heavyweight in the world, and was a depressed drug addict.

 

Cooney cannot even be considered a good name by 1990.

 

Pete,

Comparing a 1990 version of Gerry Cooney to any young top 10 rated puncher is absurd.

 

Foot-speed? Cutting off the ring is an act of controlling the ring. Certainly should could help to ring-generalship even if it's an act of physicality and strategy. I mean there are tons of functions of physicality that are interrelated to ring generalship. Maybe it's more apt to fitting a Ring IQ/Adaptability category (I know this will have you annoyingly mentioned Ali vs Foreman).

Okay, I understand, he took advantages of his freakish physical tools. Conventionally, just like your thoughts on the Roy Jones Jr thread he could have learned wonders by actually having at least practiced and tried implementing a ring-cutting strategy. At least against Ali in the second fight if it takes you that long to adapt.

His rush isn't as explosive or as fast to as you describe but it's definitely what he did. Ali was so fast on his feet and with his upper-body movement that he made it look like child's play to get around. He doesn't close distance as close as Tyson. It was risky, though. I like how he doubles that jab, but if he executes this in the center of the ring he is doomed. You can't actually believe that him not implementing this in his tool bag or using is an actually plan B wouldn't have helped. Having him find these opponents in vulnerable spots near the ropes would have them doomed. That's how Foreman crushed Norton. Liston has the reach to be able to try such a strategy. It's always a great way for a slugger to control the ring if he can't play boxer-puncher.

If you can rush in while following, you can do so while doing some horizontal movement to get your opponent nearer the ropes. I think this is silly to handicap on his physicality when many of historians/writers criticize Liston's lack of adaptability in this way. I see your point, but it largely reminds me of the Roy Jones Jr thread which I do think a jab would've helped more. But he had it so easy that it didn't matter when he was in his prime. The technical or more conventional approach is never more wrong.

I think the cutting the ring strategy as at least a Plan B would've helped insurmountably, at least for his chances. Do you think that he might have some trouble against Young then? Or was he more too cute rather than mobile, which Liston can handle.

That's ridiculous. Maybe the only person that ever discussed ring IQ between these two guys. Jim Lampley says Foreman has advanced ring IQ!

But you decided to choose Liston. As you decided not to give Foreman the edge in durability. Both say something.

I think Foreman's uppercut is better and possibly the most devastating punch in the HW division. I think Liston's jab, left hook, and overhand right are superior.

Well you decided to split hairs then. I don't know why, I gave him a slight edge. Hardly unreasonable. If I give him a slight edge and you make a point to disagree then you are splitting hairs.

It balances out. Foreman fought well into his 40's losing his speed and had twice as many fights and still has a higher KO percentage.

Yes Ring IQ and Hand-Speed are good sub-categories. If you can only harp on the disparity column which was least important aspect of the overall judgment then you're really hanging on a thin thread. My analysis didn't seem strange to Itrymariti.

It appears you're the one repeating yourself at this stage. I don't know if you done anything in the last page to convince anyone (That's not the point). But you hardly have explained our inquiries about how much you factor in H2H. All you say is that Liston has a better resume because of the more varying styles. Yes, we admit Liston has the more varying styles. But to think this enhances his resume enough to make his resume superior. The names, and depth don't support that. Nor do they on the achievements side of the argument. Even with the missing inclusion of Henry Clark.

Well I guess Itrymariti is insane too. It was only a page ago where we still were befuddled on your justification of this reason.

 

You're such a ****ing numbwit. You always try twisting words and making **** up. When the hell did I ever say I said Foreman is higher ring IQ BECAUSE Lampley said so. I just used Lampley's testimony to further prove my point that I'm not crazy or the only one who thinks Foreman has great ring IQ. I think Ring IQ and Generalship should have different categories. If you're generalship is failing you and can't adapt to a plan B I think this should be noted. Otherwise they're very comparable in the category.

What Foreman did at 45 against Moorer was great. And the strategy was too. It wasn't the only strategy. And it's not the strategy, as much as the implementation of it that makes it brilliant. It was a work of art to see what he was doing. Way more subtle than Ali's rope a dope in Zaire which we give him tons of credit for.

And Foreman ranked higher in a more thorough poll. I know I know... one's clearly an act of subjectivity versus objective film observation. Yadda yadda yadda. It's always subjective to think Dempsey is #1 but you've got little to support that unless you have a crazy criteria. There's some objectivity within these ratings too.

But what you realize is foot-speed was so insurmountable to Foreman's style. Maybe not as much so for Liston. And yes he had better balance. He was more technical, no arguments there. But the foot-work argument can become a little more finicky since they used their abilities in the best way. It's like comparing Ali's foot-work to Walcott's. Both very good in their own different doings. Make some sense?

Oh, so now it is a dive. How convenient when you were talking about how Chris film study said it was a punch and you were questioning my study on the fight. Either it's a dive which terribly hurts his legacy or his chin is much inferior.

Both men had 10 counted over them legitimately once.

Why is it so "hilarious"? :nut [/quote]



Because every-time besides the Lyle fight (Who was a awesome puncher) Foreman was on the ground because of stamina issues with heat and fighting in out-door arenas. You seriously think the knockdown in the Young fight says something about his chin. And you're wrong... Foreman got up at 9 in Zaire. Maybe you didn't do the required film study on that fight though. Either way, he was exhausted. He was never dropped in his comeback. He took huge punches from Morrison without flinching. Took shots from Cooney, Holyfield, Briggs, etc. His chin is much more proven. Chris argues that Marciano was more durable and Foreman was definitely more durable and more proven against punchers. Your insistent mis-use of the facts is show a lot of bias and hilarity at this point.

I love how you use the dumped by Ali in his prime when Liston record says KO loss 1 against the same man. That prime word changes it all I guess. The fact that Foreman has an admittedly inferior defense means he getting hit more. To actually have the gall to suggest Foreman was worse defense and his chin is debatably equal to Liston's is hilarious. It says to what stretch you'll go to defend Liston and knock Foreman.

Liston was legitimately KOed against Martin. He was dropped against Ali (Whether he could get up is one thing that can be argued). He was hurt against Ali and on the canvas a few other times. Foreman has never been knocked down to his chin failing him except for against Lyle. He probably was a puncher on Williams level (Who I believe stunned and dropped Liston).

 

Fine, I'll concede the point.

I listed Clark and Cooney either way. Cooney is still a name.