Who beat better opposition Sonny Liston or Jack Dempsey

You just keep repeating that lie. It must be a comfort to you
wa*ker!
"Zora Folley's left jabs and left hooks had Henry Cooper bleeding from cuts above and below his left eye in the 1st round. And he dropped Cooper to the canvas for a count of eight with a barrage in the 3rd. The tide turned in the 4th when Cooper stepped up his slugging attack and hammered Folley to the ropes. The Briton's attack threw Folley off stride and Cooper continued his terrific pace during the rest of the bout. Folley rallied in the 10th but it wasn't enough. Referee Tommy Little's decision shocked Folley, who gazed at the arbiter in amazement."


Christ I wouldn't want you taking any statement from me!


Here , watch the f*cking fight!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzCbcW0i2Uo

 

Zora Folley had the worst chin ever in 1967 when he fought Ali. The finishing punches hardly touched him.
In his prime, I'm assuming he was quite chinny too. Apparently he backed Liston up when they fought, but soon got blasted out (3 rounds).

Dempsey probably beats Folley just as easily, or easier.

 

No way does the footage show Cooper clearly getting the better of it. It's a close contest after the KD

 

It looks close from the highlights but there is a lot of info within reports that Henry was he better man on that night. For a short time Henry was the deserving outstanding contender.

 

Folley KO'd him in a rematch.

Fair point.

But exactly what does it mean? Robinson KO'd Fullmer in their 1957 rematch, so he also won their first fight? Louis KO'd Schmeling in their 1938 rematch, so he was the better man in their first fight? This point might prove Folley was a better overall fighter than Cooper, but it doesn't prove anything about him winning the first fight.

The film of the first fight shows a close fight. Folley scored a knockdown, but Cooper didn't seem badly hurt and off all reports came back strong over the latter rounds. The film shows Cooper scoring very well with his left hand, and being the taller and quicker man with the better jab.

It is a stretch to label this one an unfair decision.

"Pastrano"

What is the Liston era?

Pastrano was rated a top five heavyweight from 1955 to 1958.

He lost that high rating via losses to Joe Erskine and Brian London.

 

Without ratings, what does the term leading contender mean?

Brennan was not beating the best out there with the arguable exception of Levinsky, nor, I think, the best he was fighting.

Here are the records of his top opponents going into the Dempsey fight-

George Rodel----35-18-5
Tony Ross--------35-20-13
Soldier Kearns----27-14-3
Bob Devere-------25-11-1
Bartley Madden---15-4-3
Tom McMahon-----44-27-11
Homer Smith------18-3-1
Battling Levinsky--140-32-28

He defeated that group.

Tom Cowler---------34-8-1, 35-8-1, 39-9-1 (Brennan lost three straight times to this man)

Jim Coffey-----------44-12-2 (drew with Brennan)

I would draw the conclusion that Brennan reached his level with Cowler and Coffey, both of whom were KO'd by Frank Moran around this time. Moran also KO'd Homer Smith.

Bottom line--Brennan doesn't seem to have been at the level of Moran or Cowler, let alone Fulton, and what about all the black contenders--Wills, Langford, and Norfolk. He would later lose time and again to Greb and Miske.

Question stands--What kind of leading contender was he?

 

"had fought just one name and lost to that one name by crushing KO"

"His record was 0-1 against name fighters."

Actually he was 3-1

Omelio Agramonte had a top ten contender who fought Joe Louis and Joe Walcott. He was slipping when Williams fought him, but Williams was only a 20 year old prospect.

John Holman--was the #4 contender in the yearly rankings by Ring Magazine in 1955,

Holman was erratic, but few non-champions have as impressive a list of KO victims, and not that many as impressive overall list of victims.

Holman KO'd---------Elmer Ray, Willie Bean, Cesar Brion, Ezzard Charles, Boardwalk Billy Smith, and Bob Satterfield.

Holman defeated-----Sid Peaks, Johnny Haynes, Dale Hall, Turkey Thompson, Gene Jones, and Julio Mederos.

Yes, Holman started going downhill in 1956, but his losses were only to Bob Baker, Eddie Machen, Willie Pastrano, Nino Valdes, and Alex Miteff, the first four top five contenders of the era, and the last an undefeated prospect who would soon break into the ratings.

Williams KO'd Holman in 7 in 1957, a very reasonable, and I would say even impressive performance.

He also beat **** Richardson, who had fought for the British title.

The big loss you focus on came five years earlier when Williams was only about 21 and to a fighter who knocked out a lot of top men. After two years in the service, he fought mainly winning trial horse types up to the fight with Liston.

When he moved up in class, Williams proved he could hold his own with the big boys (with the singular exception of Liston, but Liston's performances shouldn't be used against himself as a method of writing off his opponents)

 

The most interesting bit from these articles is that Dempsey was credited with KO'ing Battling Johnson, who had a win years earlier over Wills.

Johnson had died in the flu epidemic, so he wasn't around to confirm or deny.

I think modern historians don't think this fight ever happened, so it seems a rather sleazy stunt on the part of Kearns to denigrate Wills' contender qualifications versus Dempsey.

Did Dempsey ever correct the record?

I am not surprised that all sorts of folks hopped on Wills draw with Tate as an excuse to eliminate him as a contender,

but it doesn't seem to have really had the impact they expected.

 

Suzie Q

I was not maintaining that the Euro heavies were better than the Americans--they clearly were not--only that trashing them seems an odd way of defending Liston,

as Johansson KO'd Patterson and Machen,

and Cooper had wins over Folley, Harris, and Bethea

 

Some talented prospects have an overall talent that allows them to progress the natural way. They get stepped up through a progressive group of veteran journey men and feisty no hoppers.

Then you get guys that punch too hard for their own good from day one. Their punching actually hinders progress in the natural sense. Harmless Fighters they could learn from can't pass anything on.

This was Williams. It took him being bounced around by Sylvester Jones, Bob Satterfeild and Sonny Liston to make him a complete fighter because everything else was too much of a cakewalk to be of any benefit to him.

Frank Bruno was the same. He got all the way to championship level with two competative fights and he lost one of them! Lucky for Tyson he got Tillis, Ribalta and green to give him rounds otherwise he was the same. The Tillis fight was worth a million dollars to him. It got him through the Bruno fight and past round 6 with Douglas.

So getting back to Williams. I say Cleveland was a better fighter drawing with Machen than he ever was losing to Liston. Different guy. Same with Bruno. He was better losing to Lennox Lewis than the guy who lost to Smith. And Smith was better against Witherspoon when he beat him compared to when he lost to him. A fighters worth is a current thing not a career thing.

 

Yes I don't necessarily buy that, Folley was picking off allot of what Cooper was throwing. It was in Cooper's home town that gave him the crowd advantage, to the judges and journalists as it affects perception.

I'd say it at least could have gone either way on that basis. But who knows?

 

He wasn't necessarily better when he was ranked more highly, but we have to assume that he was to a certain extent.

Otherwise we are going against one of the few tangible measures we have.

 

"in 1962 when he lost to Machen"

He didnt lose to Machen.