Who in the last ten years was stronger than Liston?

Yeah, he should send the big boys in. Or someone fat, modern and juiced to the gills. Like James Toney.

Liston-Golovkin would be a more suitable match.

 

That 83" reach of Listons wont do **** against the much bigger Vitali.

Only 73" inch reach of Derek Chisora can constantly rock Vitalis chin.

 

Modern nutrition. :deal

 

6'1, 77" reach Jack Dempsey would be too small to beat Klitscko.

Only modern day monsters like 6'2, 77" reach Lamont Brewster and 6'1, 74" reach Chris Byrd can do that.

 

Evolution. :deal

 

Evolution forgot Wladmir Klitsckos chin for some reason (and Amir Khans)

And Paulie Malignaggis fists.

 

Put them in a time machine and take them back to 1950.
Khan's chin would stand up to any middleweight, he'd be like LaMotta.
Malignaggi would have more KOs than Archie Moore, against heavyweights too !

 

No, boxing isn't a pure strength sport. No one has suggested as much.

But the thread is about strength. So if it's ridicolus to suggest that the ca 40 lbs that separates Liston and Wlad is indicative of a strength differential, is the same true of guys 40 lbs smaller than Sonny? Or does the the causality between strength and size conveniently stop at Listons size?

 

I'd say 33 pounds difference prime weights. Liston 212. Wlad 245.
But you can say 40. For argument's sake it doesn't matter much.

Let's say equivalent of a 175, 180 pound man and Sonny Liston.

Yes, a brute strong 180 pounder could certainly be as strong as Sonny Liston.

But then maybe Liston was strong for his size, making it less likely, and maybe Wlad was strong for his size, making Liston being as strong as him less likely.
Maybe Wlad is just average for his size. Or maybe he's strong for his size but Liston's freakish strong for his size.

These questions cannot be easily answered. We just don't know.
It's wrong to assume based on a size difference.

 

So then at the very least, we can agree that no rational person would assume that Sonny Liston was stronger than these bigger, muscular men?

If your point is just that there is no way to know with complete certainty, fine. But you seem to greatly exaggerate the lack of correlation between muscle mass and strength. There are certainly exceptions but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I think it is very safe to assume that a man with 30-40 pounds more muscle mass will be stronger than another man. Especially in this case, where Liston, who did not have a serious weight-training or modern nutrition/supplement regimens is being compared to bigger men who did.

 

Wladimir Klitschko looks to have more lean body mass than Tyson Fury (whose weight was a lot more fat) too, but from what I saw, I suspect in the ring Fury is just as strong.

It's not safe to assume anything without enough evidence.

I remember Emanuel Steward made a point about something that separated Wladimir and Lewis was that Lewis had that extra facet of freakish natural strength.
Also, Steward spoke about Sonny Liston and George Foreman in those same terms, phenomenally strong.

I think there's a real possibility that Wladimir Klitschko is strong but not unusually strong for his size. Whereas Sonny Liston might have been.
But, of course, I don't know and I don't know how we're supposed to know or measure it.

 

lmao!!!:rofl

 

the 100% of the people that says " does not matter the size" are people that never ever fought in a ring of boxing pro or amateur.

 

Size does matter. :good

 

your girlfriend last night agreed too.