Which was the more impressive run: Liston 1958-1963 or Tyson 1986-1988?

I don't see not fighting Ingo as a big thing. I doubt his team would have touched Liston with a barge poll, just like Cooper's wouldn't.

 

The only time I was aware of Ingo mouthing off about wanting the fight (during the years mentioned) was when Liston's #1 ranking had been withdrawn by the NBA and there was some doubt over his future. By the time he came back the Patterson fight was as good as sealed. I think there were one or two whispers later on (late 65ish) when an Ingo comback was mooted but thankfully they never came to fruition.


ps. By the way, my mate 'Coxy' has the middle name of Johannsson and his brother's christian named is Ingemar. Bit of useless trivia for you there.

 

...and to think 'Our 'Enery was the #1 contender for a few months in 1961. :good


My mate Coxy: Eric Johansson Cox. :yep

 

Coxy's a happy chappy really, wouldn't hurt a fly. He moved to Ohio and now lives in Manilla. He's starting to look a bit like Gary Glitter though, glasses and fully bald- and is shithot at Texas Hold 'Em.

 

What are you talking about? I've stated multiple times that Ingo was THE champion, undefeated and had beaten Machen much easier than Liston did, whereas Witherspoon did **** all during Tyson's time. What part of this cannot enter your brain?!

You can try to downplay him Johansson's achievements to protect your hero, but fact is that he beat all of the best Europeans, than absolutely destroyed the guy who Liston could not catch over 12 rounds, and then knocked out the champion, Patterson, as well. He lost the rematch but came very close to winning the rubber match. Clearly their first fight was not a fluke, like Leon Spinks' win for instance (not to mention how pathetic a boxer Ali was at that stage).

What the HELL!?! Wins over Patterson (the champ, by brutal KO), over the best contender out there (Liston aside), by even more brutal first round KO, something Liston couldn't do over 12, and all European opponents as well as never having fought an opponent with a less than 50% win ratio yet never losing (again, something Liston couldn't do), BUT HADN'T BEAT ANY OTHER OPPONENT OF NOTE?! Are you ****ing kidding me? What do you want him to do, dig Johnson out of his grave and beat him so he had beat an opponent of note? atsch The fact that you're seriously questioning his status as top player just to protect your hero makes you look rather stupid here.

Yeah, i guess annihilating the #1 contender and then the champion, as well as never having lost against good opposition before stepping up (remember that light heavyweight journeyman Marshall?) does not make you a top fighter, but when you lose by first round knockout to a semi-journeyman in Smith and then beat the almighty, umm, Mark Wills, Mike Williams, Mauricio Villegas and Larry Alexander DOES make you a viable top contender. And a fighter who beat those legends surely is at least equal to what Ingo did and an ommision from anyone's resume fighting between '86 and '88. atsch Please give up this argument before embarassing yourself even more.

No, he basically got banned for twice giving up. And that's for good reason, what promoter is going to put someone in the main event who can lay down at any moment?

 

Well, being a top contender for years before Tyson came along would count for something when ranking Witherspoon after he retired, but not when talking about the current scene. Like it or not, but in boxing, you're only as good as your last fight. Sorry, i forgot about the win over Tubbs that he had in '86. Still, i think we can agree that after being knocked out in one round by Smith, he did nothing to put himself forward as a viable opponent, and for just that reason, was he was never talked about as a possible Tyson opponent.

Why is that? Witherspoon just got knocked out in one round by a semi-journeyman, looked unmotivated and was out of shape, as well as sporting a nice coke addiction.

Johansson on the other hand, only lost the the champion in competitive fights and won one, almost two. He'd be the second-best Liston had fought up to then and certainly has a better, even if slim, chance against Liston than Patterson did because of styles.

Exactly. Keypoint here being 1983-1986, i.e. before Tyson was coming up. When Tyson was challenging for his world title, Witherspoon got knocked out of the top heavyweight picture and never came back into it. He may have been ranked in ring magazine, but he did nothing to maintain that position and frankly, no one considered him a top heavyweight at that time.... like i said, he was never mentioned as a possible Tyson opponent.

Speculation. Maybe he would've beaten them just as easy as the men better than those, Patterson and Machen.

This is comparing apples with oranges. The only reason Willard was champion is because boxing resembled a marathon run back then, and because he was younger he could take advantage of an old, out of shape champion. He then did nothing for three years, became old and fat himself, and got knocked out by Dempsey, when Langford, Mcvey and Wills were still mixing it up and posting good wins.

Ingo, however, was not 37 years old, fat and lucky to win the title from an old unmotivated guy. He was undefeated after facing tough opposition and scored big wins. He deserved everything he got. It's not just about Ingo being champion, it's about him being the best fighter in the world (outside of Liston perhaps) and being this when Liston was coming up. Witherspoon may have been the second-best fighter for a while, but this happened years before Tyson was coming up.

Well, first of all, let's make that analogy a realistic one: is beating Braddock right after he beat the contenders and the champion more impressive than beating Wills, Quarry or Young after they lost to someone inferior to them because they were old, and would never beat a good opponent again? Yes, then beating Braddock at the peak of his powers certainly is more impressive than beating a shopworn version of a former outstanding contender who may have been champion with luck on his side.

How impressive is beating Quarry in '76, Young in '80 or Wills in '27? Because that's as impressive as beating Witherspoon between 86-88.

Okay, sorry for the rant, but i just can't see how you can look over the fact that Ingo steamrolled the division during Liston's time, yet you consider Witherspoon, who was done during Tyson's reign, an equal ommision to his resume. And Ingo didn't just rule Europe, he also ruled the USA when he knocked out Machen and Patterson in a combined 4 rounds. He lost the rematch but almost won the 3rd fight.


Let me ask you: how much of an ommision to Ali's resume is it that he never beat Johansson? According to your reasoning it is quite a big one, yet i've never heard anyone talk about it. Why is that?

Sure, but at the same time, that's just picking one statistic; you gotta look at the entire picture. Frazier is 4-1 against champions, yet just about everyone ranks him in the top10, and rightfully so. Foreman's record against ranked opposition during his prime is rather similar to Johansson's. And the Swede never fought an opponent less than 50% win ratio. A few exceptions aside, with Foreman it's almost the other way around.

 

Okay, i think we're never going to agree here.

What do you think of the fact that during Liston's run, almost all his opponents were cruiserweights (Williams aside, who by the way, was ranked going into neither of their fights), whereas Tyson was dealing with guys bigger than himself?