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

My first thought is that Tyson would have plowed right through those guys without any real problems. Would Liston have been as dominant against Tyson's victims? Hard to say. He would of course not have had the same advantage in strength, size and power as he had against his own opponents, but he rarely had much problems when his opponents stood right in front of him. Rather it was the moving slicksters that bothered him.

But personally I feel there were some advances made from Liston's time to Tyson's. Not necissarily in terms of technique, but certainly in training, nutrition etc. That's why I always look at how well fighters did in their own time, rather than hypothize about how well they would have done in another time. But impressive as Liston's run was, I don't see how you realistically can improve on Tyson's run in 1986-1988. The way he did away with guys like Berbick, Thomas, Holmes, Tubbs and Spinks... It is perhaps unparallelled. If you take his young age and short time as a pro into the equation it certainly seems so.

 

You're right that we probably won't agree here, but I just have to address some of these points

It all depends on which time period you choose. Right before he lost to Smith he had every reason to be seen as the top guy behind Tyson. Sure that changes after being KO'd by Smith, but Ingo also looks less impressive after being KO'd decisively by Patterson in the rematch.

From the eyes of the promoters and public I can see certainly why Witherspoon wasn't an interesting contender, but we know that he would stay near top for another couple of years and beat Williams among others. So there's good reason to believe that he would have presented Tyson with as big (or small) a challenge as Ingo would have presented Liston. Thomas was also a coke head, but pulled himself together and showed gameness against Tyson.

As for styles, I'd say that Witherspoon stylewise probably would pose a bigger problem for Tyson than Ingo would for Liston. Movers and jabbers were the only ones who presented Tyson with any difficulties at all at that stage, while Ingo hardly can be seen as a slickster like Machen or Ali.

During 1985 and 1986 (up until the rematch with Smith in late 1986) Witherspoon had a good run. And that the run was cemented on good perfomances before that makes it better IMO. It shows it was no flash in the pan, that he was solid contender.

Sure, it's speculation. But he was 3-2 against the world class opponents he did meet, so there's not much reason to believe that an extended record against world class opposition would come without losses.

Yes, Johnson was old when Willard got to him, but most would consider Johnson a greater champion than Floyd on the other hand. And Johnson didn't avenge the defeat twice. Willard did also defend the title two times. something that Ingo didn't.

But the point was that having one or two really good perfomances and becoming champion, isn't the be all or end all - even it's of course something to take into consideration.

Not quite true. See above.

This is only valid if you take Witherspoon after he lost to Smith, and Ingo before he lost the rematch to Patterson. But how is that fair?

If anything it's more fair to compare them just before Witherspoon lost to Smith with Ingo before he lost the rematch to Patterson.

At that time Ingo had been European champ for some years and had great victories over Machen and Patterson, but hadn't met any world class opposition outside those two (well, Cooper may have been one).

Witherspoon had a string of victories (including wins over Smith, Tubbs and Bruno) since losing to Thomas in 1984. And before that he had victories over Page, Tillis and Snipes and only one loss - a close one to Holmes which actually helps his record rather than hurts it IMO. He was young and inexperienced and almost beat the best in the world, an ATG no less.

If you think this comparison reflects favourably on Ingo, I've no real problems with that. I'm just saying that it's fairly close.

Well, Clay did embarass Ingo in sparring in 1960... Anyhow, I don't think Ingo was ranked anytime after 1960, was he? Witherspoon was ranked for the remainder of Tyson's reign and didn't lose again until 1992. Ingo retired before Ali won the title.

But if Ali/Clay had beaten Ingo sometime 1960-1962 it would make his record better. Not much, but somewhat.

To be clear, I don't see Tyson not fighting Witherspoon as a mark against him in anyway, anymore than I see Liston not fighting Ingo as a mark against him. If they had victories over Ingo/Witherspoon it would make both their records look even a little bit better though.

Frazier looks quite good against ranked opposition. And his best win is quite a way better than Ingo's best. As for Foreman, I have him quite a bit lower than many on this board do, just because of his poor record against ranked opposition. I have him outside my top 10 and without his comeback he might not even have made my top 15.