What is ur HW top 10?

Damn, I couldn't even go a day. That's bad.

No, it's more like. Why didn't he work on his jab, maybe if he did it wouldn't be so terrible. You're insistence that this strategy or Plan B would've rendered useless against Ali is like Janitor arguing that maybe Dempsey didn't need to jab his way in against Tunney in those fights. It goes against all logic and conventional thinking.

Alternative plan? He fought that way his whole career. Following opposition. And he got away with it. His freaking reach and jab let him get away with bad habits. Cutting off the ring against Ali would have been way more successful than playing rush in the center of the ring against Ali. I don't have to accept your theory that cutting off the ring for Liston couldn't have done him good and that it wasn't employed due to his lack of some physicality.

Like I explained multiple times before. Versatility and Ring Generalship isn't neccessarily an act of Ring IQ. Liston had more tools, and was more well-rounded. He could fight off the back foot better... doesn't mean he was more intelligent. Ring Generalship isn't an act of Ring IQ, but Ring IQ can be an act of Ring Generalship.

Really, sounds like you just stating your own believe. Can I get an anecdote of some piece with his trainer saying this? TO believe Liston could rush in a straight line in the center of the ring against Ali. But actually ad******g to move more horizontally wouldn't have given him a better chance to set traps or at least rush Ali when he was closer to the ropes. Astonishing stuff.

Make a note that I agree Liston rushed in. Gotcha.

I want sources or documentation at this point. You've talked about a lack of physicality but you haven't mentioned anything specific about his physicality of why Liston couldn't. Why no he didn't have the fastest or lightest feet. But moving horizontally, and then rushing forward you give you greater odds and percentages for a more successful attack. This same principle can be applied because it takes real-estate away from him. It's like you're arguing against the rules of boxing here because of some physicality argument. IF Liston can rush in he can move horizontal a bit, no?

Yet you've failed to explain why. What is Liston some sort of shark that can only move in a straight line successful? He can't side-step and then rush in. He can only rush and in and follow?

I agree. I don't really think it's a huge embarrassment for Foreman to lose. Definitely a big let-down. Hell, it ended his first career.

I'm curious to see a poll on comparing Ring IQ between the two. I figure I'm due and can't go 0/2. Would you like to do that? I can or you can... just make sure to keep it simple at least others decipher Ring IQ for their own accord.

I'm sorry. They're synonyms but not synonymous. Still, even more strange to give Liston an edge in chin when he was KOed in 1 round to Ali by 1 punch. And Martin laid him out with one big right hand. No one punch has ever knocked out Foreman. I know the difference, but do you? Why would he be equal in chin but not durability? I think his equal in neither, but might think he has more of an argument for the durability side.

I made the close judgment call on distinguishing a category between the two. You had the gall to actually argue it, then say it was close, and then say it's splitting hairs.

You're the one arguing MY point, therefore you're the one splitting the hairs. To argue something as invalid, then say it's splitting hairs when I say that I think something balances is out is quite bizarre and strange as you would say.

Yes, to disagree with some of the categories is one thing. But to call the analysis bias and busy is another. He said I hit the nail on the head. I never claimed perfection, but at least I've laid something out other than rhetoric and subjective assertions.

In this case, what am I learning? That you disagree with me. Wouldn't be the first time someone disagreed with me. You're not enlightening nor splurging me with facts or sources. You're just being arrogant and acting like some kind of authority without proving anything.

You seem more key to get side-tracked with useless, stupid, petty arguments that have little to do with the main premise. I'm trying to ask questions and get answers... you say I repeat myself and make no points. Round and round we go. Yet I've seen little to no substance from you.

No, I'm just being an annoying douchebag like you but you're too stupid to realize it. Everytime we have some disagree your throw in some huge fan that doesn't even my way and he's a huge fan. Or sometimes you'll just throw in a poster that agrees with you or that's respected and has a certain believe that sides with you. Nothing like a report or study but some _insert poster opinion_ in our thread. Now, I'm doing it excessively, humorously, and satirically to make fun of you. Like what the **** is the point of talking about Mr. Magoo's being a huge Foreman fan and having him placed outside the top 5 or whatever. Those little tiny insertions into post do nothing except for you to try enhancing your credible without actually having to make a case and argue the point. It's like a minor cop-out or something. Further enhance the source, rather than prove whatever within the content of the source.

It's funny how it took you this long to mention it in your response. Because you're basically casting me as the lone nut but I'm not all alone in this position. And I've had the same inquiries and mindset of others that hardly understand how you factor your reasoning or justify this position.

 

Yes ranking Liston #3 and Foreman outside the top 10 while trying to defend that point without realizing how ridiculous it is fun. Typical McGrain owning. :nut

 

I rank Liston # 3 all time

 

Go after Moore. Try to find spots of his inactivity to rush him. It's the implementation of it that makes it special.

Not true, wrong again.

I explained it within the post. Do you even read?

Let's not let the facts get in the way of our bias. I love how the arguable Liston might've taken a dive so we can't say for sure this his chin is provenly worse. Love how you try having it both ways.

You honestly believe that their chins are equal. Chris believes Marciano is the better chinned/more durable fighter than Liston. Do you think Marciano has a better chin than Foreman? Yes, I know. You can disagree with Chris. Everyone's a respected poster... but when I disagree. Well that's something else. Typical, opinion is more credible because of the source it comes from.

Prove me wrong.

Well the Foreman that tried pacing himself via post Zaire wasn't as good. It's a concern, but I think the Foreman of the Chuvalo to Frazier days didn't just fall in love with his power and bang everyone out. He looked composed and steady against Frazier until he turned him into a pinball. Foreman fought a dumb fight in Zaire, nobody doesn't admit that.

Comparing being laid out cold to getting up at 9 while dead tired. Hilarious.

He stunned him. I was mistaken and unsure that's why I said believed. Honestly, you're not schooling anyone. And or too much of a mental midget to actually concede a point or admit something is ridiculous. Like ranking Foreman outside the top 10 and Liston at #3. REGARDLESS of whatever your reasoning is.

Lyle landed better shots in a 5 round fight. I see like to twist one thing and draw your own conclusions from it. Those were short and sweet Liston fights. Williams hurts, get up and can't take it so gets driven back.

You did the same thing by talking about Foreman getting mopped by Ali when Ali had Liston rolling all over the canvas for 15 or so seconds.

 

Yes, but you openly admit that you take a good portion of H2H into account. McGrain has yet to give any idea that how much of H2H he takes in. Knowing how his criteria works is like solving the Da Vinci Code. But he explains his reasoning though. You said earlier I believe that if we judge just on resume that Liston stands out. I would disagree with you on that, like I do McGrain. But when asked about your criteria you said H2H was almost half and half with achievements, accomplishments, and resume. McGrain has also been way more of an achievement type guy. At least that's what I and others have thought.

 

These are the heavyweights i like the best,doesnt mean they ARE the best
1.Ingemar Johansson
2.Joe Frazier
3.Jerry Quarry
4.Jack Dempsey
5.George Foreman
6.Ken Norton
7.Gene Tunney
8.Floyd Patterson
9.Larry Holmes
!0.Earnie Shavers

 

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Marciano
Lewis
Foreman
Frazier
Holyfield
Johnson
Dempsey

 

exactly