That´s why I think Sonny Liston is overrated

[Luigi1985]

I quote this from my last post in the Marciano-thread, like I wrote, I have nothing against Liston (not that some say I´m a hater or so, I respect all fighters and hate no one), here´s my opinion why I think he´s overrated:


What is so special with Liston? I saw all of his available fights, and sure, in the late 50s he looked impressive, but think about it, it looked impressive because he fought only mediocre fighters or old, washed up ex-contenders. When he fought the elite, suddenly the "impressive Liston" changed. Beating Patterson twice viá 1st-round- KO is great, that´s why I rate him for example at 11th best HW ever. But not as high as some others of you here (Clay II for example have him as the 2nd best HW ever), let´s have a closer look at his opponents:


The first better fighter he faced was Summerlin, he won viá close UD, and in the rematch he only managed to win viá SD. But he was very young and green, OK. Next better opponent was Marshall, who he lost. In a rematch, he won viá TKO in the 6th round, but he was himself knocked down in the 4th round. And Marshall was a light-hitting fighter with only 179 lbs, he had only 11 KO´s in his 38 fights. But Sonny was still green (later, when Marshall was totally shot, Liston beat him again viá an UD, but that doesn´t count for me, Marty was a last minute substitute for Harold Johnson). Than, in his 19th pro-fight he TKO´d Bethea in the first round, a good win, because Bethea had a pretty good chin, and it showed that Sonny had good power, but some Liston-fans overact with this win, Bethea was only a journeyman. Than, some fights later, he TKO´d DeJohn in the 6th round. Than he had his fight against Cleveland Williams, a fighter, whose record looks good on paper, but in reality he only fought bums until Liston. Sonny TKO´d him in the 3rd or 4th round, his next fight against Valdes, who had at this time of his career 18 defeats yet, was a 3rd round KO for Liston, Valdes was totally shot and retired after a few months of this fight (he defeated London in his last fight). Than he rematched Williams and TKO´d him in the 2nd round. In his next fight, he beat Harris very early viá KO, but Harris is a fighter like Williams, who just looks on the paper good, he never beat someone beside 2 point-wins over Pastrano and Baker, and both were robberies in Roy´s hometown. Than he KO´d Folley in the 3rd round, a very good win because Folley wasn´t shot or anything like that and he was really good, IMO his 2nd best win after the Patterson-wins. Than he had a fight with Machen, a good fighter, but he went the distance and had some problems with him. The judges were ridiculous, Liston got 3 points penalized and he still won that fight pretty high, I remember this as a pretty close UD for Sonny without the point detuctions. Remember, Johansson KO´d the same Machen in one single round. Than he challenges Patterson, we all know he KO´d him twice in the 1st round, great wins, but look how Floyd was in shape, he was pysically in bad shape and also mentally, that fight shouldn´t have been made under this circumstances. Than after the Ali- defeats (it doesn´t interest me if he took a dive in the 2nd fight, fact is that he was twice KO´d by a mediocre-hitting fighter in Ali) he beat some mediocre fighters, and than against Martin, he lost viá brutal KO. Martin was also not a big man, and he had only 19 KO´s in his 36 fights. Of course he was shot there, but that´s no excuse to lose in such a way. My point is just, that his chin, power and in general his legacy is very overrated, and especially head-to-head. He often showed against at the best mediocre-hitting fighters that it is not too difficult to floor him, and he never faced a great puncher like let´s say Foreman or Marciano. All in all, I absolutely have nothing against him, it´s nothing personal, but I´m tired to read/ see how overrated he´s getting now...




I would know like to hear your honest personal opinion about him, I think the highest he can get ranked is the 8th place ca. in a ATG´S HW-list...

[C. M. Clay II]

I quote this from my last post in the Marciano-thread, like I wrote, I have nothing against Liston (not that some say I´m a hater or so, I respect all fighters and hate no one), here´s my opinion why I think he´s overrated:


What is so special with Liston? I saw all of his available fights, and sure, in the late 50s he looked impressive, but think about it, it looked impressive because he fought only mediocre fighters or old, washed up ex-contenders. When he fought the elite, suddenly the "impressive Liston" changed. Beating Patterson twice viá 1st-round- KO is great, that´s why I rate him for example at 11th best HW ever. But not as high as some others of you here (Clay II for example have him as the 2nd best HW ever), let´s have a closer look at his opponents:


The first better fighter he faced was Summerlin, he won viá close UD, and in the rematch he only managed to win viá SD. But he was very young and green, OK. Next better opponent was Marshall, who he lost. In a rematch, he won viá TKO in the 6th round, but he was himself knocked down in the 4th round. And Marshall was a light-hitting fighter with only 179 lbs, he had only 11 KO´s in his 38 fights. But Sonny was still green (later, when Marshall was totally shot, Liston beat him again viá an UD, but that doesn´t count for me, Marty was a last minute substitute for Harold Johnson). Than, in his 19th pro-fight he TKO´d Bethea in the first round, a good win, because Bethea had a pretty good chin, and it showed that Sonny had good power, but some Liston-fans overact with this win, Bethea was only a journeyman. Than, some fights later, he TKO´d DeJohn in the 6th round. Than he had his fight against Cleveland Williams, a fighter, whose record looks good on paper, but in reality he only fought bums until Liston. Sonny TKO´d him in the 3rd or 4th round, his next fight against Valdes, who had at this time of his career 18 defeats yet, was a 3rd round KO for Liston, Valdes was totally shot and retired after a few months of this fight (he defeated London in his last fight). Than he rematched Williams and TKO´d him in the 2nd round. In his next fight, he beat Harris very early viá KO, but Harris is a fighter like Williams, who just looks on the paper good, he never beat someone beside 2 point-wins over Pastrano and Baker, and both were robberies in Roy´s hometown. Than he KO´d Folley in the 3rd round, a very good win because Folley wasn´t shot or anything like that and he was really good, IMO his 2nd best win after the Patterson-wins. Than he had a fight with Machen, a good fighter, but he went the distance and had some problems with him. The judges were ridiculous, Liston got 3 points penalized and he still won that fight pretty high, I remember this as a pretty close UD for Sonny without the point detuctions. Remember, Johansson KO´d the same Machen in one single round. Than he challenges Patterson, we all know he KO´d him twice in the 1st round, great wins, but look how Floyd was in shape, he was pysically in bad shape and also mentally, that fight shouldn´t have been made under this circumstances. Than after the Ali- defeats (it doesn´t interest me if he took a dive in the 2nd fight, fact is that he was twice KO´d by a mediocre-hitting fighter in Ali) he beat some mediocre fighters, and than against Martin, he lost viá brutal KO. Martin was also not a big man, and he had only 19 KO´s in his 36 fights. Of course he was shot there, but that´s no excuse to lose in such a way. My point is just, that his chin, power and in general his legacy is very overrated, and especially head-to-head. He often showed against at the best mediocre-hitting fighters that it is not too difficult to floor him, and he never faced a great puncher like let´s say Foreman or Marciano. All in all, I absolutely have nothing against him, it´s nothing personal, but I´m tired to read/ see how overrated he´s getting now...




I would know like to hear your honest personal opinion about him, I think the highest he can get ranked is the 8th place ca. in a ATG´S HW-list...

Liston threw his shoulder out in the first round of the Clay fight, he was handicapped from the second round on. He knew with the injury, he couldn't have a chance, so he quit knowing there was a rematch clause in his contract.

Maybe in terms of accomplishments, he's not top 5, but head-to-head he is deadly. You cannot deny that he cleaned out the division before he won the title and mostly in devastating fashion. He also was very versatile. Of course he could punch, but he could box as well, seeing the Machen fight would tell you this. Even when penalyzed three points for low blows, he still won a lopsided decision. No I don't think Liston is overrated at all, at least not head-to-head.:good

[Luigi1985]

Liston KO2 Marciano


You´re very funny, but it would be good when a man with your boxing knowledge would post your honest opinion...

[Luigi1985]

Liston threw his shoulder out in the first round of the Clay fight, he was handicapped from the second round on. He knew with the injury, he couldn't have a chance, so he quit knowing there was a rematch clause in his contract.

Maybe in terms of accomplishments, he's not top 5, but head-to-head he is deadly. You cannot deny that he cleaned out the division before he won the title and mostly in devastating fashion. He also was very versatile. Of course he could punch, but he could box as well, seeing the Machen fight would tell you this. Even when penalyzed three points for low blows, he still won a lopsided decision. No I don't think Liston is overrated at all, at least not head-to-head.:good



When someone makes a ATG´s-list, it´s always ca. 70 % legacy, and at the most 30% head-to-head, because head-to-head it´s just speculation and "If, would, could, etc.". And in terms of legacy, like I wrote, you can´t Liston normally have higher than at 8th, and also head-to-head, some light-hitting and way under 200 lbs-men floored him, so it´s normal when someone ask you what a real puncher would do with Sonny, he´s unproven against a real good puncher...

[C. M. Clay II]

When someone makes a ATG´s-list, it´s always ca. 70 % legacy, and at the most 30% head-to-head, because head-to-head it´s just speculation and "If, would, could, etc.". And in terms of legacy, like I wrote, you can´t Liston normally have higher than at 8th, and also head-to-head, some light-hitting and way under 200 lbs-men floored him, so it´s normal when someone ask you what a real puncher would do with Sonny, he´s unproven against a real good puncher...

First of all, Marshall was not "light-hitting". He was a very rugged individual. He definetely hit harder than Billy Conn, who made Louis do the dance in the 12th. If Louis hadn't have held on to Conn he would have went down, and Louis is #1 on many of the HW lists here.

Second about the accomplishments vs. head-to-head thing. IMO, head-to-head is more fair to gauge because if a fighter is in a strong era and gets overshadowed by other greats, they might not look as good as a fighter in a weaker era that dominates that era, when in fact the fighter from the stronger era may very well cream the fighter from the weaker era. Do you get what I'm saying?

[Luigi1985]

Perhaps I have been overrating Liston. I used to have him at 4 (with Ali/Louis/Marciano as the top 3). But his resume is not all that impressive.



That´s what I meant. And my other point is, which we shouldn´t forget, that if you fight 2nd-raters, that´s it´s logical that you look better than when you face the real elite. It would be the same if Marciano would have fought during his title reign the likes of Hurricane Jackson, Valdes, Satterfield, etc. or Ali the likes of Nielsen, DeJohn, etc...

[Luigi1985]

First of all, Marshall was not "light-hitting". He was a very rugged individual. He definetely hit harder than Billy Conn, who made Louis do the dance in the 12th. If Louis hadn't have held on to Conn he would have went down, and Louis is #1 on many of the HW lists here.

Second about the accomplishments vs. head-to-head thing. IMO, head-to-head is more fair to gauge because if a fighter is in a strong era and gets overshadowed by other greats, they might not look as good as a fighter in a weaker era that dominates that era, when in fact the fighter from the stronger era may very well cream the fighter from the weaker era. Do you get what I'm saying?


No, because first of all, you can´t really make head-to-head, because it´s unfair, when you put a fighter from the 20s in against a modern fighter from the 90s for example, in general the much older doesn´t have a chance, secondly, it´s like I said all speculation. Btw, the poster Mendoza is completely right, you always find new ridiculous excusses, that´s all I hear from you instead facts...

[mr. magoo]

Although I consider Charles " Sonny " Liston to be an all time great heavyweight, I have to agree with Luigi that he's often rated a bit high by fans and historians. I've seen Liston rated as high as #4 on a top 10 list, which is rather generous in my opinion for a guy who only had a single title defense. Of course he defeated a fair amount if decent contenders on his way up, but very few names that are of truly great status. Additionally, he cleaned house during a somewhat dormant period in the heavyweight division and nearly half of his opponents were under 199 Lbs.

That said, I have Liston as being deserving of a rating that sits somewhere between #9 and #12 on an all time list. My rating and admiration for him his inspired by what he did before he won the title, and not so much because of his reign as champion. Few fighters crippled their division during a quest for a title shot, as Liston did. For this, I think his career is noteworthy of a historical mention. It is not plausible to me however to have the man rated any higher than perhaps #8.

[Luigi1985]

Although I consider Charles " Sonny " Liston to be an all time great heavyweight, I have to agree with Luigi that he's often rated a bit high by fans and historians. I've seen Liston rated as high as #4 on a top 10 list, which is rather generous in my opinion for a guy who only had a single title defense. Of course he defeated a fair amount if decent contenders on his way up, but very few names that are of truly great status. Additionally, he cleaned house during a somewhat dormant period in the heavyweight division and nearly half of his opponents under 199 Lbs.

That said, I have Liston as being deserving of a rating that sits somewhere between #9 and #12 on an all time list. My rating and admiration for him his inspired by what he did before he won the title, and not so much because of his reign as champion. Few fighters crippled their division during a quest for a title shot, as Liston did. For this, I think his career is noteworthy of a historical mention. It is not plausible to me however to have the man rated any higher than perhaps #8.


Exactly. I also don´t say/ think that he´s not great or so, no, he´s surely an ATG and earns his high rankings, but like you also correctly wrote, not higher than at 8th ca...

[mr. magoo]

head-to-head is more fair to gauge because if a fighter is in a strong era and gets overshadowed by other greats, they might not look as good as a fighter in a weaker era that dominates that era, when in fact the fighter from the stronger era may very well cream the fighter from the weaker era. Do you get what I'm saying?
[/QUOTE]

To rate fighters on a hypothetical head to head basis is a horribly flaud and falacious way of analyzing boxing history, let alone assigning ratings from such a method. Sorry for being so blunt, but it needed to be said. You can't possibly draw accurate conclusions as to how a contest would turn out between two athletes from totally different periods and quite often with no common opponents. Not to mention, even head to head matchups which actually did occur don't always tell us that one fighter was better than another. For example, Thomas Hearns suffered two unavenged losses at the hands of Iran Barkley. Are you going to tell me that you rate Barkley higher than Hearns on an all time list?

Fighters need to be evaluated on the basis if things like stats, records, titles, defenses, name recognition of opponents, and the ways in which they impacted their perspective eras. Head to head fantasy fights are simply not a valid means of comparing the greatness of two champions. :bart

[Mendoza]

Liston threw his shoulder out in the first round of the Clay fight, he was handicapped from the second round on. He knew with the injury, he couldn't have a chance, so he quit knowing there was a rematch clause in his contract.

Maybe in terms of accomplishments, he's not top 5, but head-to-head he is deadly. You cannot deny that he cleaned out the division before he won the title and mostly in devastating fashion. He also was very versatile. Of course he could punch, but he could box as well, seeing the Machen fight would tell you this. Even when penalyzed three points for low blows, he still won a lopsided decision. No I don't think Liston is overrated at all, at least not head-to-head.:good

Sonny did not quit until the 6th round. And he probably won another round besides the 5th. If Liston hurt his shoulder in round one, he sure didn’t show it until the end. Many feel Liston took a dive in the re-match. Liston was rumored to be in great shape for the Ali re-match. Then Ali got hurt, and the fight was postponed. Rumors of mob fixes dogged the Ali vs Liston II fight. The fight was moved from Boston to a small high school gym in Maine. It is likely the 2nd fight was fixed. The first had Ali as a 6 to 1, or 10 to 1 underdog. Many feel the wise guys cleaned up twice on the same play.

[PowerPuncher]

I think your being biased against Liston as some pick him to KO your faveourite in Marciano but you have some valid points but some not so valid 1s too.

Patterson - top 15 of all time HW in his prime KO'd twice in 1round - legendry destructions

Machen - so Johansen ko'd Machen in 1 years earlier while Liston couldn't stop him. Liston must be a weak puncher then? Except Liston ko'd Patterson in 1 twice - better than Johansen. Maybe Machen was caught cold against Johansen? Maybe he was at his best against Liston and he was a great boxer/mover & top contender

Folley - excellent prime fighter with wins over Williams & Machen - destroyed

Williams - massive puncher and a big dangerman, was he avoided? Beat Terrell past his prime. Liston destroys him twice

Harris - went 13 with champ Patterson knocking him down and beat a LHW champ and a few decent contenders. Destroyed in 1

Valdes - past prime contender but no one destroyed him like Liston did

DeJon - good contender - Liston destroys him like no one else did before

Ali - first fight Liston is completely outboxed retires, second hes not really hurt - the circumstances are questionable and the refereeing is very poor.

Marty Marshall - completely green, but its an SD so a close fight, he would KO Satterfield the same year. Liston KOs him in the rematch

Leotis Martin - I cant believe you even brought this up, Liston is shot to pieces ancient, without hope of another big fight in his career. All the same Martin had to retire because of the retina damage Liston did to him

[PowerPuncher]

I would add Listons comp is better than Marcianos, Dempseys and maybe Joe Louis, its excellent comp

[Luigi1985]

I think your being biased against Liston as some pick him to KO your faveourite in Marciano but you have some valid points but some not so valid 1s too.



You´re like everytime just laughable. First of all Marciano isn´t even one of my favourite fighters, secondly, I´m not biased, whether in which case. Lame excusses like always when someone can´t back up some arguments/ facts...

[Luigi1985]

I would add Listons comp is better than Marcianos, Dempseys and maybe Joe Louis, its excellent comp

:lol:


Like I wrote yet, you´re just laughable!

[brownpimp88]

:lol:


Like I wrote yet, you´re just laughable!
I'd say its up there with dempsey's competition.

[DocDevil]

I suppose in all reality,we could make valid pionts and shoot holes in anyone's career.Sonny was thought to be a champion for several years,and failed miserably.Yet the guy was unbeaten for 10,years,with a pile of terror stricken victims in his wake.Yes Machen and a couple of others went the limit,but they didn't try to win,they just wanted to survive.I'll put it this way,in head to head matches with most of the champions,prime for prime,Liston wins.

[Bo Bo Olson]

All I know was Patterson's camp tried to dodge him to the max...
I was young and stupid...and bet on Patterson twice vs Liston. On Liston twice vis Clay and wouldnt' you know it... I had money on Liston vs. Leotus Martin....basicly because I knew Martin had short arms.......you can see that Lison was "shot" I say it was more he was a bit out of shape.
Martin was still top ten or better contender at the time....Liston was in the talk of getting a title shot....Leotius Martin was suddenly hot and oh, yes, he was title ready...so we spoke before we found out the old man had detacthed his retina...before they could repair them....
one must wonder why Liston didn't get a title shot before, except he was too dammed dangerouse even as an Old man.

[ChrisPontius]

I would add Listons comp is better than Marcianos, Dempseys and maybe Joe Louis, its excellent comp

Maybe, but the man who makes him compitition so good is Clay, who embarrassed him twice and made him quit in the first one. Outside of Clay (in other words, his wins), he may be ahead of Dempsey, but not Marciano and he's not even close to Louis.

Louis' record against top2 contenders or champions: 20-3 (16 KO).
Liston: 5-2 (4 KO).
Marciano: 9-0 (8 KO).

[PowerPuncher]

You´re like everytime just laughable. First of all Marciano isn´t even one of my favourite fighters, secondly, I´m not biased, whether in which case. Lame excusses like always when someone can´t back up some arguments/ facts...

Nice way to ignore a complete rebuttal of your worthless Marciano hugging post :smoke

You ask for the facts and ignore them - nice going retard :-(

[PowerPuncher]

Maybe, but the man who makes him compitition so good is Clay, who embarrassed him twice and made him quit in the first one. Outside of Clay (in other words, his wins), he may be ahead of Dempsey, but not Marciano and he's not even close to Louis.

Louis' record against top2 contenders or champions: 20-3 (16 KO).
Liston: 5-2 (4 KO).
Marciano: 9-0 (8 KO).

Lets look at quality over quantity

The following opponents could beat Dempseys/Marcianos best opponents. Lets see how they go against Marcianos comp:

Patterson (prime version Liston fought) beats Louis(shot version Marciano fought)

Williams (prime version Liston fought) KOs Walcott(old version Marciano fought)

Machen (prime version Liston fought) beats LeStarza (version Marciano fought)

Folley(version Liston fought)-Cockell

Valdes did beat the version of Charles that Marciano beat and Patterson did destroy the Moore Marciano beat

So Liston has poor comp? You might not agree with the head to heads but they are close head 2 heads, Listons having the edge because the fighters were in their prime at their best. Liston beat his comp far more emphatically than Marciano

[ChrisPontius]

Lets look at quality over quantity

The following opponents could beat Dempseys/Marcianos best opponents. Lets see how they go against Marcianos comp:

Patterson (prime version Liston fought) beats Louis(shot version Marciano fought)

Williams (prime version Liston fought) KOs Walcott(old version Marciano fought)

Machen (prime version Liston fought) beats LeStarza (version Marciano fought)

Folley(version Liston fought)-Cockell

Valdes did beat the version of Charles that Marciano beat and Patterson did destroy the Moore Marciano beat

So Liston has poor comp? You might not agree with the head to heads but they are close head 2 heads, Listons having the edge because the fighters were in their prime at their best. Liston beat his comp far more emphatically than Marciano

But that is just your opinion.

In my opinion, Walcott would outbox Williams to a decision. And why match Folley up with Cockell? Archie Moore was much better and he'd beat Folley in my opinion, who had a really weak jaw.

And why match Machen up with LaStarza? It seems you are picking the lesser opponents from Marciano's resume.
Ezzard Charles, who you also didn't select for these fantasy fights, would in my opinion beat Machen.



What matters is how they did against the best of their time. This is not subjective. And both Louis and Marciano's record far exceed Liston's in that sense.

[Mendoza]

I would add Listons comp is better than Marcianos, Dempseys and maybe Joe Louis, its excellent comp

Not sure about this. If you add in Ali, ok. But IMO Marciano, Dempsey and Louis defeated better fighters than Liston. Of Course Liston ran though his guys with shokcing ease.

[PowerPuncher]

But that is just your opinion.

In my opinion, Walcott would outbox Williams to a decision. And why match Folley up with Cockell? Archie Moore was much better and he'd beat Folley in my opinion, who had a really weak jaw.

And why match Machen up with LaStarza? It seems you are picking the lesser opponents from Marciano's resume.
Ezzard Charles, who you also didn't select for these fantasy fights, would in my opinion beat Machen.

What matters is how they did against the best of their time. This is not subjective. And both Louis and Marciano's record far exceed Liston's in that sense.

Lets not pretend Marciano/Dempsey/Louis fought a fighter in the same stratesphere as Muhammed Ali because they didn't and if they did whos to say they would have fared any better than Liston?

Basically my objective was to pick 5 of the best fighters from Listons resume that could beat 5 of the best from Marcianos. In this thread the biased author has derided Listons achievements and abilities and if 5 of Listons best can beat 5 of Marcianos best then it shows this critiscism is unfounded. I think their level of wins are on par but Listons were prime, Marciano had bigger names that were way past their prime.

Patterson beat the same Moore that Marciano beat even more emphatically, thats why I didn't match him up. I'm not saying there aren't names on Marcianos that could beat names

As for Williams-Walcott - when Walcott fought punchers he tended to get knocked out and he was a bit chinny, with Williams being a BIG puncher I see Walcott eating something that he can't handle at some stage. Ofcourse its a fight that could go either way.

The Ezzard Charles that Marciano fought was pretty much shot and was losing left right and centre so probably would have lost to most of the prime contenders. As mentioned Charles lost to the Valdes Liston beat. Prime Charles is a different kettle of fish

The bottom line is Listons competition was very good, certainly on par with Marcianos for the main part. Dempseys competition was piss poor in comparison to both Marcianos and Listons.

[ChrisPontius]

Lets not pretend Marciano/Dempsey/Louis fought a fighter in the same stratesphere as Muhammed Ali because they didn't and if they did whos to say they would have fared any better than Liston?


I would bet my house that Marciano, Dempsey and Louis would go the distance with Ali instead of quitting like a schoolgirl. The former always gave their best and would rather be carried out on a stretcher than to quit like Liston did. Hell, Mildenberg gave Ali a harder fight than Liston did. It is forgiveable that he lost to Ali, but the way in which he lost was really disgraceful.



Basically my objective was to pick 5 of the best fighters from Listons resume that could beat 5 of the best from Marcianos. In this thread the biased author has derided Listons achievements and abilities and if 5 of Listons best can beat 5 of Marcianos best then it shows this critiscism is unfounded. I think their level of wins are on par but Listons were prime, Marciano had bigger names that were way past their prime.


So you think LaStarza and Cockell belong to the best 5 fighters on Marciano's resume? Because you choose them.


Patterson beat the same Moore that Marciano beat even more emphatically, thats why I didn't match him up. I'm not saying there aren't names on Marcianos that could beat names

As for Williams-Walcott - when Walcott fought punchers he tended to get knocked out and he was a bit chinny, with Williams being a BIG puncher I see Walcott eating something that he can't handle at some stage. Ofcourse its a fight that could go either way.

The Ezzard Charles that Marciano fought was pretty much shot and was losing left right and centre so probably would have lost to most of the prime contenders. As mentioned Charles lost to the Valdes Liston beat. Prime Charles is a different kettle of fish

The bottom line is Listons competition was very good, certainly on par with Marcianos for the main part. Dempseys competition was piss poor in comparison to both Marcianos and Listons.

Well, that is just your opinion. Most people here (including me) think Charles still was one hell of a fighter when he fought Marciano.


If you want to, make a poll on who beat better opposition: Liston or Marciano. This is not meant in a bitter or personal way, mind you. Just that it would be interesting to see what the rest of the board's opinion is on this matter.

[Luigi1985]

Nice way to ignore a complete rebuttal of your worthless Marciano hugging post :smoke

You ask for the facts and ignore them - nice going retard :-(


You moron don´t even know what you talk about. You don´t know how you can answer to my facts and logical arguments, so you respond with smilies and with false reproaches.


Louis best wins:

Carnera
Baer
Schmeling
Conn
Farr
Braddock
Walcott
Godoy
Uzcudun


Dempsey´s best wins:


Willard
Miske
Firpo
Sharkey
Gibbons
Carpentier
Fulton
Levinsky



Marciano´s best wins:


Charles
Walcott
LaStarza
Savold
Layne
Louis
Matthews
Cockell



Now Liston´s best wins:


Valdes
Machen
Patterson
Folley
Harris
DeJohn
Williams


Now compare their best wins, and you can clearly see who has the better competition



btw, nice try when you described Liston´s career, you saw/ wrote it through rose-colored glasses, I can do that with Brian Nielsen´s career for example also, and it would sound good when someone don´t have any intuitiveness (he beat excellent competion like LaRosa, Jackson, Holmes, McNeeley, Witherspoon, Jeremy Williams, Norris, etc, he only lost to Tyson when he was totally shot and to Ryan, who he beat in a rematch clearly)...

[Luigi1985]

Lets look at quality over quantity

The following opponents could beat Dempseys/Marcianos best opponents. Lets see how they go against Marcianos comp:

Patterson (prime version Liston fought) beats Louis(shot version Marciano fought)

Williams (prime version Liston fought) KOs Walcott(old version Marciano fought)

Machen (prime version Liston fought) beats LeStarza (version Marciano fought)

Folley(version Liston fought)-Cockell

Valdes did beat the version of Charles that Marciano beat and Patterson did destroy the Moore Marciano beat

So Liston has poor comp? You might not agree with the head to heads but they are close head 2 heads, Listons having the edge because the fighters were in their prime at their best. Liston beat his comp far more emphatically than Marciano


I can here only extract pure speculation and frustation, no facts and no good arguments, like always when you dumbass post...

[PowerPuncher]

1. I would bet my house that Marciano, Dempsey and Louis would go the distance with Ali instead of quitting like a schoolgirl. The former always gave their best and would rather be carried out on a stretcher than to quit like Liston did. Hell, Mildenberg gave Ali a harder fight than Liston did. It is forgiveable that he lost to Ali, but the way in which he lost was really disgraceful.

2. So you think LaStarza and Cockell belong to the best 5 fighters on Marciano's resume? Because you choose them.

3. Well, that is just your opinion. Most people here (including me) think Charles still was one hell of a fighter when he fought Marciano.

4. If you want to, make a poll on who beat better opposition: Liston or Marciano. This is not meant in a bitter or personal way, mind you. Just that it would be interesting to see what the rest of the board's opinion is on this matter.

1. Did Duran quit like a schoolgirl too? You can rip on any fighter for bad performances. How about Dempsey losing to journeymen and a LHW, Louis for losing to LHWs, Marciano for being knocked down by an ancient LHW and an old ex-journeyman champ or on many observers cards losing

2. Well Lastarza was the 1 fighter who has an argument to have a win over Marcaino so YES. Cockell is borderline

3. Charles was shot. He had lost 5 times in the 3 years prior to facing Marciano. In the same year he lost to Marciano he would lose a futher 5 times, including losses against sub-par journeymen

4. I may do something similar to that later today

[PowerPuncher]

You moron don´t even know what you talk about. You don´t know how you can answer to my facts and logical arguments, so you respond with smilies and with false reproaches.


Louis best wins:

Carnera
Baer
Schmeling
Conn
Farr
Braddock
Walcott
Godoy
Uzcudun


Dempsey´s best wins:


Willard
Miske
Firpo
Sharkey
Gibbons
Carpentier
Fulton
Levinsky



Marciano´s best wins:


Charles
Walcott
LaStarza
Savold
Layne
Louis
Matthews
Cockell



Now Liston´s best wins:


Valdes
Machen
Patterson
Folley
Harris
DeJohn
Williams


Now compare their best wins, and you can clearly see who has the better competition



btw, nice try when you described Liston´s career, you saw/ wrote it through rose-colored glasses, I can do that with Brian Nielsen´s career for example also, and it would sound good when someone don´t have any intuitiveness (he beat excellent competion like LaRosa, Jackson, Holmes, McNeeley, Witherspoon, Jeremy Williams, Norris, etc, he only lost to Tyson when he was totally shot and to Ryan, who he beat in a rematch clearly)...

Comparing Liston to Nielson of all people shows how biased and stupid you truly are.

Liston destroyed all the best contenders of the era from 1955-1963 - so you think hes as good as Nielson?

Patterson is arguably better than anyone Marciano/Louis/Dempsey beat.

Liston beat fighters in their prime while Marciano beat old past prime fighters and small men

Dempseys comp is piss poor for a Great HW, he has the worst comp of any 'Great' HW. He didn't fight the 3 of the best fighters of his Era.

Louis comp is good but he doesn't have any standout GREAT names. Schmelling is excellent but no better than Patterson. Williams was every bit as dangerous as Baer and Machen was tricky and more proven than Conn.

You never counter the facts presented you but I suppose denial is necessary for a nationalisic Italian who needs to hang on to the 1 HW fighter they could possibly claim (Marciano).

[Luigi1985]

I love the double standards idiots like Power Puncher come with. Fighters like Valdes are top fighters, but fighters like Charles were just shot former LHW´s. Cleveland Williams, a fighter, who has beaten nobody (best result is a draw against Machen) is a top-win, but a fighter like LaStarza, who beat good ranked fighters, isn´t a good win. And so on.

[PowerPuncher]

I love the double standards idiots like Power Puncher come with. Fighters like Valdes are top fighters, but fighters like Charles were just shot former LHW´s. Cleveland Williams, a fighter, who has beaten nobody (best result is a draw against Machen) is a top-win, but a fighter like LaStarza, who beat good ranked fighters, isn´t a good win. And so on.

Charles - 5 losses in 3 years prior to Marciano and 5 losses in 1955 the same year he lost to MArciano. Can't argue with the facts so just do what you normally do and ignore them

Valdes isnt Listons biggest win by far BUT Well Valdes beat Charles before Marciano got to him didnt he - bad example to choose :smoke

LaStarza is an excellent win (he beat Marciano after all and was a top contender), I don't deride Marcianos comp like you do to Listons. I put it in perspective and say its as good as Listons, both had good competition

[Luigi1985]

Comparing Liston to Nielson of all people shows how biased and stupid you truly are.

Liston destroyed all the best contenders of the era from 1955-1963 - so you think hes as good as Nielson?

Patterson is arguably better than anyone Marciano/Louis/Dempsey beat.

Liston beat fighters in their prime while Marciano beat old past prime fighters and small men

Dempseys comp is piss poor for a Great HW, he has the worst comp of any 'Great' HW. He didn't fight the 3 of the best fighters of his Era.

Louis comp is good but he doesn't have any standout GREAT names. Schmelling is excellent but no better than Patterson. Williams was every bit as dangerous as Baer and Machen was tricky and more proven than Conn.

You never counter the facts presented you but I suppose denial is necessary for a nationalisic Italian who needs to hang on to the 1 HW fighter they could possibly claim (Marciano).


Are you such a dumbass or do you just play it? I didn´t compare Liston with Nielsen, I just wanted to show you how easy we can make a fighter greater than he actually was, when he just look at the paper for example. I have Liston at 12th in my AT´s - HW-list. Dempsey doesn´t have the worst resume, Johnson has the worst resume as a HW-champ. Your comparisons are just full of shit and totally wrong, you live in a world of illusions and lies. And the last sentences like in every posts of you, traditionally full of shit, aren´t true and you know that yourself, you just want to bother me, but it makes no sense, you can´t provokate me viá internet...

[Luigi1985]

Charles - 5 losses in 3 years prior to Marciano and 5 losses in 1955 the same year he lost to MArciano. Can't argue with the facts so just do what you normally do and ignore them

Valdes isnt Listons biggest win by far BUT Well Valdes beat Charles before Marciano got to him didnt he - bad example to choose :smoke

LaStarza is an excellent win (he beat Marciano after all and was a top contender), I don't deride Marcianos comp like you do to Listons. I put it in perspective and say its as good as Listons, both had good competition


LaStarza didn´t beat Marciano, that´s well-known by the insiders (you of course don´t know it), search for a fight report from a serious newspaper like the "New York Times" or search the VHS, it´s a rarity, but it´s available. You´re going on with the double standards, Valdes beat Charles? Yeah, right, but you don´t mention that Moore put a serious beating on him, the same Moore Marciano KO´d.

[PowerPuncher]

blablablabla:| (poor english):| blablablabla....Johnson has the worst resume as a HW-champ. ...blablablabla(poor english):| blablablabla

Langford, McVey, Jeanette,, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries......I think not theres 5 fighters in the top50 HWs of all time

[Luigi1985]

Langford, McVey, Jeanette,, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries......I think not theres 5 fighters in the top50 HWs of all time



McVey, Jeanette, etc., Johnson faced them when they just had 10 fights or so, that doesn´t count that much, when he defeated Burns for the title, why didn´t he give them once again a chance, when they reached their prime? And about my English, well, it´s not perfect, but IMO understandable, we can also discuss in Italian or German, I speak these 2 languages perfectly and error-free... you just come with such a shit, because you don´t know how you can counter me, you´re just sulky because I beat you in your own language, but don´t worry, almost everyone here would beat you verbally...

[PowerPuncher]

LaStarza didn´t beat Marciano, that´s well-known by the insiders (you of course don´t know it), search for a fight report from a serious newspaper like the "New York Times" or search the VHS, it´s a rarity, but it´s available. You´re going on with the double standards, Valdes beat Charles? Yeah, right, but you don´t mention that Moore put a serious beating on him, the same Moore Marciano KO´d.

Your ignoring that Charles was shot to pieces, yes Valdes lost to Moore, who was good but the same Moore was beaten more easily by Patterson than he was done by Marciano.

LaStarza-Marciano 1 is a very debateable decision and many had Marciano losing, Marciano proved to be the better man in the rematch

[Luigi1985]

Your ignoring that Charles was shot to pieces, yes Valdes lost to Moore, who was good but the same Moore was beaten more easily by Patterson than he was done by Marciano.

LaStarza-Marciano 1 is a very debateable decision and many had Marciano losing, Marciano proved to be the better man in the rematch


Fact is, that Charles showed in both fights against Marciano that he was in top-shape, I have fights from him against Bivins and Moore in the late 40s where he was IMO in his prime, and it wasn´t a big difference. But for you, without watchig fights that much (perhaps only sometimes a Tyson-best KO´s-vid at youtube), it is of course pretty difficult to discuss with here on this...

btw, it´s right Patterson KO´d Moore in the 5th round, but he was in his prime and very young, Marciano showed against Cockell yet that he isn´t the same like he was for example against Louis, Matthews, etc., once again bad comparison

[mr. magoo]

the same Moore was beaten more easily by Patterson than he was done by Marciano.


Not taking sides here, but Rocky Marciano pounded Moore rather decisively. Rocky sustained a brief knockdown in the first round, but was only on the canvas for like a few seconds. I never saw the Moore-Patterson fight.

[PowerPuncher]

McVey, Jeanette, etc., Johnson faced them when they just had 10 fights or so, that doesn´t count that much, when he defeated Burns for the title, why didn´t he give them once again a chance, when they reached their prime? blablablabla:neutral: (poor english):neutral: blablablabla.......

Langford had around 40-50fights when Johnson fought him and was possibly prime with great wins under his belt

He fought McVey/Jeannette plenty of times. Both may have had many more fights than there boxrec/official records let us know. Johnson beat all the other top black HWs of the era like Denver Ed Martin and Childs

He didn't fight black challengers after he became champ because he wasn't offered big money for it and he was descriminated against by the authorities and hounded out the country. Johnson had the hardest time of any champion

[Luigi1985]

Langford had around 40-50fights when Johnson fought him and was possibly prime with great wins under his belt

He fought McVey/Jeannette plenty of times. Both may have had many more fights than there boxrec/official records let us know. Johnson beat all the other top black HWs of the era like Denver Ed Martin and Childs

He didn't fight black challengers after he became champ because he wasn't offered big money for it and he was descriminated against by the authorities and hounded out the country. Johnson had the hardest time of any champion


The hardest time, well, that could be. But that doesn´t mean that we must fantasize now and look through the rose-colored glasses again. Ed Martin or Childs were both nothing special, and you know that. Why don´t you mention that he struggled with the likes of Battling Jim Johnson, Hart, Dunning, etc.?

[PowerPuncher]

Fact is, that Charles showed in both fights against Marciano that he was in top-shape, I have fights from him against Bivins and Moore in the late 40s where he was IMO in his prime, and it wasn´t a big difference. But for you, without watchig fights that much (perhaps only sometimes a Tyson-best KO´s-vid at youtube), it is of course pretty difficult to discuss with here on this...

btw, it´s right Patterson KO´d Moore in the 5th round, but he was in his prime and very young, Marciano showed against Cockell yet that he isn´t the same like he was for example against Louis, Matthews, etc., once again bad comparison

The fact you ignore Charles lost 5 fights in 3 years prior to Marciano and lost 5 times the same year Marciano beat him says all we need to know about whether he was still a top fighter. He wasn't he was losing to journeymen frequently

Looking in top shape for a few rounds and being in 15round championship shape are 2 different things. Tyson looked in top shape against Danny Williams but was clearly done just like Ezard Charles was. Leonard looked good before fighting Norris/Camacho but he was done too.

I actually have a huge collection, I too think Charles looked good at times against Marciano and for times had the same sparkle but he was making more mistakes and didnt have the same legs he once had that would have kept him out of trouble.

[Luigi1985]

The fact you ignore Charles lost 5 fights in 3 years prior to Marciano and lost 5 times the same year Marciano beat him says all we need to know about whether he was still a top fighter. He wasn't he was losing to journeymen frequently

Looking in top shape for a few rounds and being in 15round championship shape are 2 different things. Tyson looked in top shape against Danny Williams but was clearly done just like Ezard Charles was. Leonard looked good before fighting Norris/Camacho but he was done too.


C´mon now, why are you doing such stupid comparisons? Charles knew that against Marciano it was a big chance, and he trained very hard and very well. And we all knew how good he looked. Before Marciano, he lost a SD against one of the greatest LHW´s in Harald Johnson, no shame for that, and he lost an UD against Valdes. He beat fighters like Brion, Layne, Bivins, Reynold, etc., who were all good contenders. He was still a top fighter.

[PowerPuncher]

The hardest time, well, that could be. But that doesn´t mean that we must fantasize now and look through the rose-colored glasses again. Ed Martin or Childs were both nothing special, and you know that. Why don´t you mention that he struggled with the likes of Battling Jim Johnson, Hart, Dunning, etc.?

Theres no rose tinted glasses, he beat every top contender from his time and had not only 1 of the best defenses in the sport but was 1 of the best counter punchers.

Jim Johnson - under modern scoring Johnson probably would have got a decision but he had a broken arm in this fight

Hart - havent seen it have you, was it a robbery?

Dunning - would have been a win in modern scoring, fighters back then had 100s of draws if it wasn't completely clear. Marciano/Louis/Holmes/Ali/Lewis/Holyfield would all have a good few draws under this type of scoring

[Luigi1985]

Theres no rose tinted glasses, he beat every top contender from his time and had not only 1 of the best defenses in the sport but was 1 of the best counter punchers.

Jim Johnson - under modern scoring Johnson probably would have got a decision but he had a broken arm in this fight

Hart - havent seen it have you, was it a robbery?

Dunning - would have been a win in modern scoring, fighters back then had 100s of draws if it wasn't completely clear. Marciano/Louis/Holmes/Ali/Lewis/Holyfield would all have a good few draws under this type of scoring


That´s my problem with you for example. Lame excusses. "Would, should, that could...", I want facts. I didn´t see the Hart-fight, but from fight-reports I read Johnson should have won slightly, but it wasn´t so one-sided that it can be called "robbery", and it´s normal when he can´t even beat a limited fighter like Hart, that some people criticize him for that. Why would Dunning be a win for example? Did you read their fight report to judge this? Your excusses are mostly just speculations, simply advised...

[PowerPuncher]

C´mon now, why are you doing such stupid comparisons? Charles knew that against Marciano it was a big chance, and he trained very hard and very well. And we all knew how good he looked. Before Marciano, he lost a SD against one of the greatest LHW´s in Harald Johnson, no shame for that, and he lost an UD against Valdes. He beat fighters like Brion, Layne, Bivins, Reynold, etc., who were all good contenders. He was still a top fighter.

A fighter can't turn the clock back no matter how hungry they are and Charles probably tried his best to get in shape for Marciano but he wasn't as good. Just like Ali tried to get in shape against Holmes it wasn't happening for him. A prime Charles whoops all those fighters - Harrold Johnson/Valdes.

He was a top fighter of sorts, still managing to compete but he was clearly past his prime. He had a terrible year in 1955 after he lost to Marciano losing 5 times including losses to journeymen

[McGrain]

Sorry to interupt what is a pretty scientific debate, but -

When I watch him Listin, i'm quite happy that at his best, he would have a very good chance of beating Louis.

I rate Liston very highly.

[Luigi1985]

A fighter can't turn the clock back no matter how hungry they are and Charles probably tried his best to get in shape for Marciano but he wasn't as good. Just like Ali tried to get in shape against Holmes it wasn't happening for him. A prime Charles whoops all those fighters - Harrold Johnson/Valdes.

He was a top fighter of sorts, still managing to compete but he was clearly past his prime. He had a terrible year in 1955 after he lost to Marciano losing 5 times including losses to journeymen


He didn´t lose against journeymen, that´s another lie. He lost to Layne, a ranked top contender, and beat him some months later. He lost to Walcott, the champ. Than to Johnson, also top-ranked, the same with Valdes, where´s the journeyman now? Btw, and please be honest, did you see a prime Charles in action and did you compare it with the Marciano-fights? And please be honest! :thumbsup

[Luigi1985]

Sorry to interupt what is a pretty scientific debate, but -

When I watch him Listin, i'm quite happy that at his best, he would have a very good chance of beating Louis.

I rate Liston very highly.



That´s no problem. The problem is, that he´s overrated because of his legacy. And Power Puncher for example doesn´t come with facts or arguments, he just comes with speculations, lies, etc...

[McGrain]

That´s no problem. The problem is, that he´s overrated because of his legacy...

I have seen Liston's legacy both over and underated on these boards. It was not a special legacy for a champion, IMO, but it is a good one, the two wins over Patterson are probably the most impressive pair in HW boxing history.

[Luigi1985]

I have seen Liston's legacy both over and underated on these boards. It was not a special legacy for a champion, IMO, but it is a good one, the two wins over Patterson are probably the most impressive pair in HW boxing history.


McGrain, you know me, I´m just honest. With someone like you, I can discuss meaningful. I like Liston, when I was a child, he was even at one time my favourite fighter (I was a little boy, he was the bad boy of his times, mean facial expression, etc., that impresses a child, that´s logical). People like Power Puncher, who are fortunately rare here on ESB, can´t hear/ read criticism, and they can´t discuss, can´t come with logical arguments, facts, etc, so they affront with very bad lies and things, but OK. I have absolutely nothing against Liston, I just saw in many ATG´s- HW-lists, that he´s actually ranked too high (C.M. Clay II for example ranks him as the 2nd best HW ever, and so on), and I just wanted to write my opinion. If you rate him highly head-to-head, well, that´s something different, because that´s pure speculation, and everyone can make his own opinion on here... :good

[McGrain]

McGrain, you know me, I´m just honest. With someone like you, I can discuss meaningful. I like Liston, when I was a child, he was even at one time my favourite fighter (I was a little boy, he was the bad boy of his times, mean facial expression, etc., that impresses a child, that´s logical).

Mean facial expressions is right! He was certainly feared, probably like no other heavyweight before or after until Tyson?

[Luigi1985]

Mean facial expressions is right! He was certainly feared, probably like no other heavyweight before or after until Tyson?


Exactly. And I still like him (but now of course not because of this), my little brother, who´s a teeny now, likes him a lot, and I always josh him with things like "Clay KTFO Liston" and stuff like that, just for fun, and he defends Liston like he´s his father or so... :lol:


Liston has really wowed a big impression as a bad cool guy, no one was more feared than him, and every child I know who likes boxing yet totally likes Sonny, it´s like magic, but on the other side it´s also logical, that they don´t have fighters like "Pink" Thomas or "Macho" Camacho as their role models... :lol:

[McGrain]

And I still like him (but now of course not because of this), my little brother, who´s a teeny now, likes him a lot, and I always josh him with things like "Clay KTFO Liston" and stuff like that, just for fun, and he defends Liston like he´s his father or so... :lol:




:lol: :lol:

[My dinner with Conteh]

Maybe, but the man who makes him compitition so good is Clay, who embarrassed him twice and made him quit in the first one. Outside of Clay (in other words, his wins), he may be ahead of Dempsey, but not Marciano and he's not even close to Louis.

Louis' record against top2 contenders or champions: 20-3 (16 KO).
Liston: 5-2 (4 KO).
Marciano: 9-0 (8 KO).



Just out of interest, why have you included 'top 2'? Why not Top 3 or Top '1' only?

[McGrain]

Just out of interest, why have you included 'top 2'? Why not Top 3 or Top '1' only?
He's using numbers from the thread OLD FOGEY opened this week, with stats for all HW champs since Schmeling and how they performed v anyone who had been ranked as a top 2 contender in their era. It's still on page one.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Not taking sides here, but Rocky Marciano pounded Moore rather decisively. Rocky sustained a brief knockdown in the first round, but was only on the canvas for like a few seconds. I never saw the Moore-Patterson fight.


Just one fabulous hook ended the contest. Moore beat the count but it had taken all the fight out of him and he had nothing left. Can't penalise Floyd because Moore couldn't go on like he did in the Marciano fight.

[PowerPuncher]

He didn´t lose against journeymen, that´s another lie. He lost to Layne, a ranked top contender, and beat him some months later. He lost to Walcott, the champ. Than to Johnson, also top-ranked, the same with Valdes, where´s the journeyman now? Btw, and please be honest, did you see a prime Charles in action and did you compare it with the Marciano-fights? And please be honest! :thumbsup

The Same year Charles fought Marciano he lost to the following journeymen: Holman, Hall, Jackson. The following year he lost a further 5 times.

Yes I've seen a prime Charles in action and for moments Charles shows his prime form but he can't do it for long just like for moments Roy Jones looks as good as prime Roy Jones right now.

[My dinner with Conteh]

He's using numbers from the thread OLD FOGEY opened this week, with stats for all HW champs since Schmeling and how they performed v anyone who had been ranked as a top 2 contender in their era. It's still on page one.


But having a Don Cockell at #2 isn't quite the same as having a, say, Larry Holmes at 2.

[Holmes' Jab]

I have seen Liston's legacy both over and underated on these boards. It was not a special legacy for a champion, IMO, but it is a good one, the two wins over Patterson are probably the most impressive pair in HW boxing history.


Yeah, that's about right. His championship reign and record against top contenders was good overall, perhaps bordering on the very good considering the manner of some of these wins. Patterson (X2), Valdes, Machen, Williams and Folley etc: that's an impressive resume you've got there, especially given the fact that he put some of these guys away early on in their fights.


I'd say all factors considered that #8 All-Time sounds about right for Liston. He'd be a freakish as a head-to-head force, though. Probably Top 4. :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

I have Liston around 8 too. He was almost certainly the best heavyweight in the world from 1959-1964. That's 5 years at the top. Not bad.

[Luigi1985]

Exactly, at 8th ca. is about right...

[McGrain]

But having a Don Cockell at #2 isn't quite the same as having a, say, Larry Holmes at 2.

Yeah, obviously that is true.

Still, as a broad guide it makes for interesting reading.

[PowerPuncher]

McGrain, you know me, I´m just honest. I like Liston, ......People like Power Puncher, who are fortunately rare here on ESB, can´t hear/ read criticism, and they can´t discuss, can´t come with logical arguments, facts, etc, so they affront with very bad lies and things, but OK. I have absolutely nothing against Liston,

Liston..looked impressive because he fought only mediocre fighters or old, washed up ex-contenders.
:good

Logical argument? Sorry to upset your homo-erotic worship of Marciano by daring to compare Listons competition to the immortal grandads Marciano struggled against :rofl

You don't like to look at the top contenders in detail that Liston dessimated that I listed because it proves your worthless arguments fruitless.

Lets be honest you only made this thread after everyone picked Liston to KO Marciano in a fantasy thread

[My dinner with Conteh]

I have three main criterion for my top 10.



Achievement (amount of years at top, amount of defences, general record, Louis scores biggest here).
Quality of Opposition (Speaks for itself, Ali scores biggest)
Head-to-head (conjecture of course, but your great big un generally beats your great little un and that's all there is to it, Demspey, Marciano would lose some points here).

[PowerPuncher]

I have three main criterion for my top 10.



Achievement (amount of years at top, amount of defences, general record, Louis scores biggest here).
Quality of Opposition (Speaks for itself, Ali scores biggest)
Head-to-head (conjecture of course, but your great big un generally beats your great little un and that's all there is to it, Demspey, Marciano would lose some points here).

Combined with 2&3 would have to be with how they beat there opponents.

[Luigi1985]

Logical argument? Sorry to upset your homo-erotic worship of Marciano by daring to compare Listons competition to the immortal grandads Marciano struggled against :rofl

You don't like to look at the top contenders in detail that Liston dessimated that I listed because it proves your worthless arguments fruitless.

Lets be honest you only made this thread after everyone picked Liston to KO Marciano in a fantasy thread

Yeah, you´re right, since I was born it was always my dream that people pick Marciano over Liston in fantasy matchups, you unmasked me. And when I remember right, you´re an adult, but you sound like a little cyber-bully with your childish swearwords. Why´re you coming up with that gay shit? Do you search connections or what? I heard the stations are the best places for young male prostitutes, give it a try, good luck! :thumbsup

[My dinner with Conteh]

Combined with 2&3 would have to be with how they beat there opponents.


Of course.

[DocDevil]

You moron don´t even know what you talk about. You don´t know how you can answer to my facts and logical arguments, so you respond with smilies and with false reproaches.


Louis best wins:

Carnera
Baer
Schmeling
Conn
Farr
Braddock
Walcott
Godoy
Uzcudun


Dempsey´s best wins:


Willard
Miske
Firpo
Sharkey
Gibbons
Carpentier
Fulton
Levinsky



Marciano´s best wins:


Charles
Walcott
LaStarza
Savold
Layne
Louis
Matthews
Cockell



Now Liston´s best wins:


Valdes
Machen
Patterson
Folley
Harris
DeJohn
Williams


Now compare their best wins, and you can clearly see who has the better competition



btw, nice try when you described Liston´s career, you saw/ wrote it through rose-colored glasses, I can do that with Brian Nielsen´s career for example also, and it would sound good when someone don´t have any intuitiveness (he beat excellent competion like LaRosa, Jackson, Holmes, McNeeley, Witherspoon, Jeremy Williams, Norris, etc, he only lost to Tyson when he was totally shot and to Ryan, who he beat in a rematch clearly)...

Looking at the lists,I don't think wins over Willard and Carnera are strong arguments.History more or less has shown them to be big strong men with courage but not fighters.Charles and Walcott,probably were beginning to lose something by the time Rocky got to them.

[Luigi1985]

Every serious boxing historian makes a ranking with ca. 75% legacy,
25 % head-to-head- evaluation (at the most), because otherwise you can´t make a good ranking, it would be all speculation, and btw, also a bit unfair, let´s say a HW from the 20s against one the 90s, that´s not fair, because everything increases...

[mr. magoo]

I have three main criterion for my top 10.



Achievement (amount of years at top, amount of defences, general record, Louis scores biggest here).
Quality of Opposition (Speaks for itself, Ali scores biggest)
Head-to-head (conjecture of course, but your great big un generally beats your great little un and that's all there is to it, Demspey, Marciano would lose some points here).

These are pretty much the same criterion that I use as well, minus of course the head to head. I'm not big on rating fighters based on fantasy matchups. I fully agree that accomplishments, longevity, title defenses, records, competition, and also, how a champion impacted his era are huge factors when rating champions.

I think that most people agree that Ali and Louis were the biggest in most of these categories. Both men had a profound effect on the sport, that defined boxing in a way that no other champion had ever done. Louis's dominance over nearly 12 years, was phenomenal. Ali's wins over some of the greatest talent ever and his ability to rebound from losses or a long layoff was tremendous. I have always had Ali at #1 on my all time list, with Louis at #2.

[Luigi1985]

Looking at the lists,I don't think wins over Willard and Carnera are strong arguments.History more or less has shown them to be big strong men with courage but not fighters.Charles and Walcott,probably were beginning to lose something by the time Rocky got to them.



I know, but on the other side Valdes is a great win for Sonny. I understand...

[My dinner with Conteh]

These are pretty much the same criterion that I use as well, minus of course the head to head. I'm not big on rating fighters based on fantasy matchups. I fully agree that accomplishments, longevity, title defenses, records, competition, and also, how a champion impacted his era are huge factors when rating champions.



Yeah, I agree. the head-to-head comes into play usually when I can't separate two fighters, e.g last time I did one Lewis and Marciano were ranked about the same: Rock unbeaten but not at the top that long; but Lewis many successful title defences but lost a couple. On their best night Lewis wins pretty convincingly. So, he'd come higher.

[mr. magoo]

Yeah, I agree. the head-to-head comes into play usually when I can't separate two fighters, e.g last time I did one Lewis and Marciano were ranked about the same: Rock unbeaten but not at the top that long; but Lewis many successful title defences but lost a couple. On their best night Lewis wins pretty convincingly. So, he'd come higher.

Agreed,

however I don't think that we necessarily even have to create a fantasy matchup between Lewis and Marciano to deem Lennox as the better fighter. It's well documented that Lewis clearly fought the longer list of rated opponents, plus a lot more good fighters in the prime phases of their careers.


This is the way I would judge that one.

[OLD FOGEY]

Your ignoring that Charles was shot to pieces, yes Valdes lost to Moore, who was good but the same Moore was beaten more easily by Patterson than he was done by Marciano.

LaStarza-Marciano 1 is a very debateable decision and many had Marciano losing, Marciano proved to be the better man in the rematch

Charles was coming off an impressive knockout of Satterfield, who would knockout Williams and beat Valdes over the next year of so. I don't know if he was exactly "shot".
Also, many feel his loss to Harold Johnson was a poor decision.

[OLD FOGEY]

The fact you ignore Charles lost 5 fights in 3 years prior to Marciano and lost 5 times the same year Marciano beat him says all we need to know about whether he was still a top fighter. He wasn't he was losing to journeymen frequently

Looking in top shape for a few rounds and being in 15round championship shape are 2 different things. Tyson looked in top shape against Danny Williams but was clearly done just like Ezard Charles was. Leonard looked good before fighting Norris/Camacho but he was done too.

I actually have a huge collection, I too think Charles looked good at times against Marciano and for times had the same sparkle but he was making more mistakes and didnt have the same legs he once had that would have kept him out of trouble.

Charles was going back, but of those five defeats, the majority of the press thought he won three (4th Walcott, Layne, Johnson) and Valdes walked away from a rematch, the winner to get Marciano. If Charles was "shot", why didn't Valdes jump at this match?

[McGrain]

I have three main criterion for my top 10.





So you've got one!

Let's see it.

[Luigi1985]

OLD FOGEY, you as an old, experienced fox, can surely endorse that Charles and Walcott were in top shape against Marciano, I have seen for example Charles against Bivins, Moore, etc. in the late 40s (where he was at his best IMO) and it wasn´t that much of a difference...

[ChrisPontius]

But having a Don Cockell at #2 isn't quite the same as having a, say, Larry Holmes at 2.

True, but Cockell is 1 poor top2 challenger out of the 9 he had.

You can be sure that every fighter faced a Cockell sooner or later that for some reason climbed up the rankings. It all evens out more or less. Without Cockell, Marciano would be 8-0 (7 KO), still a lot better than Liston's 5-2 (4 KO).



1. Did Duran quit like a schoolgirl too? You can rip on any fighter for bad performances. How about Dempsey losing to journeymen and a LHW, Louis for losing to LHWs, Marciano for being knocked down by an ancient LHW and an old ex-journeyman champ or on many observers cards losing

2. Well Lastarza was the 1 fighter who has an argument to have a win over Marcaino so YES. Cockell is borderline

3. Charles was shot. He had lost 5 times in the 3 years prior to facing Marciano. In the same year he lost to Marciano he would lose a futher 5 times, including losses against sub-par journeymen

4. I may do something similar to that later today


1. Yes he did. I can't imagine anyone not having been completely disappointed in the "bad" guy in either cases.

2. But Charles simply was the better fighter, i think there is no argument here. LaStarza fought a still learning-on-the-job Marciano and lost a close decision. When he fought a peak Marciano, he was pretty much destroyed. Charles gave a much better fight to the same, prime Marciano.

3. As others have pointed out, the Johnson decision was a bad one. There are also a lot of people who thought he won his 4th fight with Walcott. The Layne fight he avenged later and basically he was fighting a tremendous amount of ranked fighters. In fact, he fought more top2 challengers or better than everyone, including Ali and Louis (and about 5 times more than Liston, if that impresses you).

[My dinner with Conteh]

So you've got one!

Let's see it.


It's still incomplete. The rating of Johnson's bugging me. I do rate him quite high though. :D

[McGrain]

It's still incomplete. The rating of Johnson's bugging me. I do rate him quite high though. :D

It is a nightmare.

I dont' have Dempsey, Marciano or Foreman in my ten.

[My dinner with Conteh]

It is a nightmare.

I dont' have Dempsey, Marciano or Foreman in my ten.


Foreman and Marciano are in my mine. Dempsey's vying for a place around 9 or 10. I can do 12 pretty easily. :good

[Luigi1985]

Btw, if someone wants to combat with me, here´s my Top 15-HW-list: :lol:



1: Joe Louis
2: Muhammad Ali
3: Rocky Marciano
4: James J. Jeffries
5: Lennox Lewis
6: Joe Frazier
7: Jack Dempsey
8: Jack Johnson
9: Larry Holmes
10: George Foreman
11: Harry Wills
12: Sonny Liston
13: Ezzard Charles
14: Evander Holyfield
15: Gene Tunney

[McGrain]

1: Joe Louis
2: Muhammad Ali
3: Rocky Marciano
4: James J. Jeffries
5: Lennox Lewis
6: Joe Frazier
7: Jack Dempsey
8: Jack Johnson
9: Larry Holmes
10: George Foreman
11: Harry Wills
12: Sonny Liston
13: Ezzard Charles
14: Evander Holyfield
15: Gene Tunney

A very good list Luigi.

I feel you have Wills higher than can be justified, other than that I feel that every pick is reasonable.

[C. M. Clay II]

Btw, if someone wants to combat with me, here´s my Top 15-HW-list: :lol:



1: Joe Louis
2: Muhammad Ali
3: Rocky Marciano
4: James J. Jeffries
5: Lennox Lewis
6: Joe Frazier
7: Jack Dempsey
8: Jack Johnson
9: Larry Holmes
10: George Foreman
11: Harry Wills
12: Sonny Liston
13: Ezzard Charles
14: Evander Holyfield
15: Gene Tunney

No Tyson?:-(

[Luigi1985]

A very good list Luigi.

I feel you have Wills higher than can be justified, other than that I feel that every pick is reasonable.


Thank you, McGrain! :good


I have Wills pretty high, because he beat great/ very good fighters like Langford, McVea, Jeanette, Clark, Weinert, Firpo, Jackson, Ed Martin, Fulton, etc., he retired with a great 79-10-4-record, and don´t forget, he fought almost everyone in their prime...

[Luigi1985]

No Tyson?:-(


Shit, I forgot Tyson, Thank you.


Here´s my new list:



1: Joe Louis
2: Muhammad Ali
3: Rocky Marciano
4: James J. Jeffries
5: Lennox Lewis
6: Joe Frazier
7: Jack Dempsey
8: Jack Johnson
9: Larry Holmes
10: George Foreman
11: Harry Wills
12: Mike Tyson
13: Sonny Liston
14: Ezzard Charles
15: Evander Holyfield
16: Gene Tunney

[McGrain]

I've had Tyson as low as 12 too, although I have him at 9 just now, and i'm happier with that.

Thing is, if you place Wills at 11, where to put Langford? There is a reasonable case for placing Langford above Wills at HW, no?

[Luigi1985]

I've had Tyson as low as 12 too, although I have him at 9 just now, and i'm happier with that.

Thing is, if you place Wills at 11, where to put Langford? There is a reasonable case for placing Langford above Wills at HW, no?


I have Langford at 18th or 19th ca., IMO Wills was the better HW, Sam was p4p of course much better...

[C. M. Clay II]

Well, here's my top 20. It's head-to-head, so don't expect to see the typical lists that come up.

1. Muhammad Ali 1967
2. Sonny Liston 1960
3. George Foreman 1974
4. Mike Tyson 1988
5. Joe Louis 1942
6. Larry Holmes 1982
7. Jack Johnson 1910
8. Joe Frazier 1971
9. Jack Dempsey 1923
10. Lennox Lewis 1998
11. Rocky Marciano 1953
12. Riddick Bowe 1992
13. Evander Holyfield 1993
14. Floyd Patterson 1963
15. Ezzard Charles 1950
16. Jersey Joe Walcott 1948
17. Gene Tunney 1927
18. Jim Jeffries 1904
19. Ken Norton 1976
20. Sam Langford 1913

[PowerPuncher]

Yeah, you´re right, since I was born it was always my dream that people pick Marciano over Liston in fantasy matchups, you unmasked me. And when I remember right, you´re an adult, but you sound like a little cyber-bully with your childish swearwords. Why´re you coming up with that gay shit? Do you search connections or what? I heard the stations are the best places for young male prostitutes, give it a try, good luck! :thumbsup

No I don't think you started jacking off to Marciano until you were a teenager.

I'm not of the homosexual persuasion such as yourself so only have interest in female prostitues :thumbsup

I never insulted you until you started insulting me simply for saying your post was biased. So don't cry when the heat gets turned back on you

[Luigi1985]

No I don't think you started jacking off to Marciano until you were a teenager.

I'm not of the homosexual persuasion such as yourself so only have interest in female prostitues :thumbsup

I never insulted you until you started insulting me simply for saying your post was biased. So don't cry when the heat gets turned back on you


But, with all respect, I only wrote that your posts were ridiculous and laughable. And it´s true. Than you countered with gay- attacks and all that shit. That´s too much. It would be the same when you call me an asshole and I call you a son of a bitch, get what I mean? Btw, when I write things, who aren´t true, and who are full of lame excusses, I don´t have to be surprised when someone laughs about me...






But let´s be serious now, we´re too old to make little verbal battles to detect who´s cooler and meaner out of us, it´s the Oktoberfest, especially now I don´t wanna lose my good fancy... ;-)

[PowerPuncher]

Charles was coming off an impressive knockout of Satterfield, who would knockout Williams and beat Valdes over the next year of so. I don't know if he was exactly "shot".
Also, many feel his loss to Harold Johnson was a poor decision.

Shot is probably the wrong term, way past prime would be better but beating Satterfield isn't a massive acheivement. Satterfield was an excellent journeyman level fighter with a massive punch. Maybe his win over Williams is comparable to McCall against Lennox Lewis on a lower level

[PowerPuncher]

A very good list Luigi.

I feel you have Wills higher than can be justified, other than that I feel that every pick is reasonable.

Wills has a greater legacy than Dempsey

[DocDevil]

I know, but on the other side Valdes is a great win for Sonny. I understand...

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic,just think Liston could whip anyone on that Louis,Dempsey and Marciano beat,and vice versa.

[PowerPuncher]

But, with all respect, I only wrote that your posts were ridiculous and laughable. And it´s true. Than you countered with gay- attacks and all that shit. That´s too much. It would be the same when you call me an asshole and I call you a son of a bitch, get what I mean? Btw, when I write things, who aren´t true, and who are full of lame excusses, I don´t have to be surprised when someone laughs about me...

But let´s be serious now, we´re too old to make little verbal battles to detect who´s cooler and meaner out of us, it´s the Oktoberfest, especially now I don´t wanna lose my good fancy... ;-)

Well, I took offense to your reply, if you read my post its not 'ridiculous' its my assessment of Listons comp, which I think is very good, although I'd agree not good enough to be number 2 HW. But if you wish we can have a Ceasefire?

[OLD FOGEY]

These are pretty much the same criterion that I use as well, minus of course the head to head. I'm not big on rating fighters based on fantasy matchups. I fully agree that accomplishments, longevity, title defenses, records, competition, and also, how a champion impacted his era are huge factors when rating champions.

I think that most people agree that Ali and Louis were the biggest in most of these categories. Both men had a profound effect on the sport, that defined boxing in a way that no other champion had ever done. Louis's dominance over nearly 12 years, was phenomenal. Ali's wins over some of the greatest talent ever and his ability to rebound from losses or a long layoff was tremendous. I have always had Ali at #1 on my all time list, with Louis at #2.

I agree with you. The problem with head to head is you get this sort of arguement--Louis has more achievement, a better record, more longevity, etc, than Dempsey or Liston. Head to head, though, Dempsey and Liston take Louis and therefore should be rated higher.

The problem is no one really knows if Dempsey or Liston could take Louis while we can at least somewhat fairly evaluate records.

[McGrain]

Wills has a greater legacy than Dempsey

As in he beat better fighters? I would agree with that.

[Luigi1985]

Well, I took offense to your reply, if you read my post its not 'ridiculous' its my assessment of Listons comp, which I think is very good, although I'd agree not good enough to be number 2 HW. But if you wish we can have a Ceasefire?


Look, I really ain´t no hater, I hate NO fighters, simply because nobody did something to me or my family. For me, it´s childish to say "I hate this fighter, because he´s such a big mouth" or so, it doesn´t interest me, the main thing for me is, that they fight, than I respect them automatically. I didn´t write that Liston isn´t great or that I have him at 25th in my HW-ATG´s-list or anything ridiculous like that, I just wrote that I feel he´s a bit overrated, and I wrote exactly why I feel so and gave arguments/ facts, so I felt that your posts were a bit overacted, that´s why I responded a bit harsh. Ceasefire? OK! :good

[Luigi1985]

Btw, I live here in Munich, where´s right now the Oktoberfest/ Wiesn, why doesn´t anyone come here? I promise you some hot girlies/milfs, depending on what you prefer... :D

[OLD FOGEY]

OLD FOGEY, you as an old, experienced fox, can surely endorse that Charles and Walcott were in top shape against Marciano, I have seen for example Charles against Bivins, Moore, etc. in the late 40s (where he was at his best IMO) and it wasn´t that much of a difference...

I am old, anyway.

I think Walcott was as good as he ever was--I see no evidence he had gone back.

Charles had gone back some, but Ali showed plenty of signs of going back going into the Foreman fight and still came up with a great performance. The Ali of the Foreman fight and the Charles of the first Marciano fight were almost exactly the same age to the month. I think Charles performed well against Marciano.

I also think Marciano was probably going back some by 1954 and 1955.

[Luigi1985]

I am old, anyway.

I think Walcott was as good as he ever was--I see no evidence he had gone back.

Charles had gone back some, but Ali showed plenty of signs of going back going into the Foreman fight and still came up with a great performance. The Ali of the Foreman fight and the Charles of the first Marciano fight were almost exactly the same age to the month. I think Charles performed well against Marciano.

I also think Marciano was probably going back some by 1954 and 1955.


:thumbsup


Btw, you know what I meant with old fox, not from the age old, just from your experiences, you´re gold or even platin for this forum! :good

[PowerPuncher]

Here´s my new list:

1: Joe Louis
2: Muhammad Ali
3: Rocky Marciano
4: James J. Jeffries
5: Lennox Lewis
6: Joe Frazier
7: Jack Dempsey
8: Jack Johnson
9: Larry Holmes
10: George Foreman
11: Harry Wills
12: Mike Tyson
13: Sonny Liston
14: Ezzard Charles
15: Evander Holyfield
16: Gene Tunney

My list based on accomplishments (over how I rate their competition) and dominance:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Tyson
5. Jack Johnson
6. Harry Wills
7. Larry Holmes
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Liston
10. Marciano
11. Joe Frazier
12. Jack Dempsey
13. George Foreman
14. Ezzard Charles
15. James J. Jeffries
16. Langford
17. Bowe
18. Norton
19. Patterson
20. Walcott
21. Schmelling
22. Gene Tunney
23. Sharkey
24. M Spinks
25. Johanssen

(Jeffries Era Onwards)

Expecting flack from having Tyson/Lewis/Wills so high

[Luigi1985]

My list based on accomplishments (over how I rate their competition) and dominance:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Tyson
5. Jack Johnson
6. Harry Wills
7. Larry Holmes
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Liston
10. Marciano
11. Joe Frazier
12. Jack Dempsey
13. George Foreman
14. Ezzard Charles
15. James J. Jeffries
16. Langford
17. Bowe
18. Norton
19. Patterson
20. Walcott
21. Schmelling
22. Gene Tunney
23. Sharkey
24. M Spinks
25. Johanssen

(Jeffries Era Onwards)

Expecting flack from having Tyson/Lewis/Wills so high


Solid list, you probably saw also my list, but I can´t really criticize you for that one (it´s always hard to make such a list, and it´s very close), it´s cool to see that Wills finally gets the respect that he deserves. I have Lewis also very high, he totally dominated his era and fought anyone (beside Bowe, who didn´t want to fight him, but that´s not his fault) and revenged his 2 L´s and beat both fighters in the rematches. The only 2 things I would change: I personally would rate Jeffries, Frazier and Marciano a bit higher, Tyson and Holyfield a bit lower, but that´s it. All in all, a good list! :thumbsup






Like you see, I can also be very friendly and charming! :gayfight

[McGrain]

Expecting flack from having Tyson//Wills so high

Count me in where these two are concerned.

And given your criteria, let's hear a little bit about why Spinks is on your list.

[Luigi1985]

IMO Wills should be in every Top 15-list, look at who he has beaten, and mostly also in dominant fashion, he has great names in his resume, and almost every of them were in their prime, was would be also very good head-to-head, he was a big HW, at that time, 6´3 big and over 210 lbs. He has a good chin, very good skills, very good power, good stamina, and no real weaknesses. One of the most underrated fighters for sure.

[PowerPuncher]

Solid list, you probably saw also my list, but I can´t really criticize you for that one (it´s always hard to make such a list, and it´s very close), it´s cool to see that Wills finally gets the respect that he deserves. I have Lewis also very high, he totally dominated his era and fought anyone (beside Bowe, who didn´t want to fight him, but that´s not his fault) and revenged his 2 L´s and beat both fighters in the rematches. The only 2 things I would change: I personally would rate Jeffries, Frazier and Marciano a bit higher, Tyson and Holyfield a bit lower, but that´s it. All in all, a good list! :thumbsup

Like you see, I can also be very friendly and charming! :gayfight

:good WIlls goes under the radar, most boxing fans probably don't even know him, I can't even remember how many times he fought Langford - 23? And won 19? Thats a crazy thought. Imagine if we had 23 Ali-Fraziers or 23 Barrera-Morales.....I wonder if they boxed instead of going to war after understanding their styles or if allot were tear ups.

Marciano could be higher on my list but it is all very close between 4-10 in the way I see them. Marciano beat everyone of his era (you wont hear me complaining about Valdes), which takes some doing. Hes not a personal faveourate, I'm not a fan of his style, although his Suzie-Q is sight to behold.

Lists are very subjective with certain issues. Who were the better contenders the champ faced? Who was in their prime when the champ faced them? Who was the most dominant?

[Luigi1985]

:good WIlls goes under the radar, most boxing fans probably don't even know him, I can't even remember how many times he fought Langford - 23? And won 19? Thats a crazy thought. Imagine if we had 23 Ali-Fraziers or 23 Barrera-Morales.....I wonder if they boxed instead of going to war after understanding their styles or if allot were tear ups.

Marciano could be higher on my list but it is all very close between 4-10 in the way I see them. Marciano beat everyone of his era (you wont hear me complaining about Valdes), which takes some doing. Hes not a personal faveourate, I'm not a fan of his style, although his Suzie-Q is sight to behold.

Lists are very subjective with certain issues. Who were the better contenders the champ faced? Who was in their prime when the champ faced them? Who was the most dominant?


Exactly, I agree, making such lists aren´t easy, but like I wrote, IMO you have a solid list! Let´s make some promotion about Wills, OK? :D

[Holmes' Jab]

My list:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Frazier
6. Tyson
7. Marciano
8. Liston
9. Holyfield
10. Johnson

HM's: Dempsey, Foreman, Jeffries, Bowe and Patterson.

[PowerPuncher]

Count me in where these two are concerned.

And given your criteria, let's hear a little bit about why Spinks is on your list.

I would argue Wills was the number 1 HW in the world for around 15years and beat every contender he could fight.

Tyson at his peak was amazingly dominant over very good competition (Despite not being exciting there were some very good contenders completely wiped out by Tyson). It wasn't just his power - his defense was amazing, he rarely got hit. His sublime speed, defense, power, combinations, workrate, footwork - he had it all minus the odd thing - height/reach/inside fighting.

Spinks beat Holmes twice who was possibly 1 of the best HWs ever. Buster Douglas is in my top30 too and I was contemplating putting him ahead of Spinks, McCalls in my top30 too. I think Buster Douglas could have been something special if he was focused more, he has fantastic wins none the less. McCall although limited and beatable has 2 top10 HWs, 2 linear champs on his record in Lennox and Holmes, plus 2 other belt holders.

Buster Douglas is the 90s Schmelling/Tunney with his Tyson win

[Bo Bo Olson]

Dempsey had to put weights in his drawers so He said in an Autobiography I read way back in the when....he had much problems making the heavy weight limit of 175 pounds when he won the Title. (He fought at heavy becasue that is where the money was) He grew bigger. So did Tunney......Tunney states he allowed himself to grow naturally in weight...so he was as much a Heavy weight as Dempsey was when Dempsey won his title. More actually...he'd been campaiging at heavy for a good while...it was not a Bob Foster or RRJ go from Lt. Heavy to take on a Heavyweight champ.



Patterson's camp didn't think much of him, because they dodged everyone.
list of Listons major victories.....that first loss, 8 rounder with a broken jaw...in the forth...so that man could hit.

Valdes Don't know why he didn't get to fight Patterson. But he lost to Harold Johnson and then Moore and a sort of on and off sort....
Machen Dodged by Patterson untill after the championship time.
Patterson
Folley Dodged by Patterson
Harris, lost to Patterson then Liston and Cooper plus 2 losess to 21-1, 22-1Clarox at the end, so the first Clarox fight was good, a good fighter.
DeJohn not that bad of a fighter, SD losses vs Valdes, and even if you don't recoginse a couple of others they were good at the time, then Machen and Foli after liston.....good solid fighter.
Williams big cat, dodged by Patterson



I can not understand how someone can call Harold Johnson a jorneyman...in that for a long while he was rated as the number three Lt. Heavy of all times. He had improved enough that my man, Archi Moore allowed himself to be stripped of both titles...rather than fight him......


So of course Liston was big in the time....he was eating what Patterson's camp wouldn't let him touch.
Patterson himself, I'm sure would have fought them, but his camp, wouldn't let him.....and he did not insist...and there was no way to dodge Liston......In fact I think Ingo was taken as an easy fight. Easier than Machen, Foli or Liston....



Too many take a quick look at a man's record and say well he lost a couple four or five fights....but back then you had to fight regularly to eat and no one would buy a exhibition type of fight...they were paying by the seat of thier pants......TV money at the time for name fighters was 8, 10 and a max of 12,5000 except for Dick Tiger who always got more than the max.
It was said that a number of young fighters were ruined by fighting for TV too early vs names.....


I must say sometimes it's fun to go look up some one and see names that I'd not seen in a long time.....
I can do it for the 70's too, with forgotten men like Boone Kirkman, or fighters you liked watching, like Scrap Iron Johnson, or even short armed Leotis martin...a man who could well have been a cruiser had there been such.


Back in the old days you had a single line of the top ten contenders and they had to fight often, or someone lower would take thier rating...it was beat everyone up above you, or perish...
it is not like now, where you can pick which champion you want to fight because you think you can beat him....win a better fight and wait a year, some belt factory will rate you high enough to fight for a title....but it's only a title, not the World Championship.


How times change...I remember looking up lately the so called tale of the Tape and all it was was the belts won...not only for Championship fights but for major fights, both fighters were listed with a full tale of the tape...so you could be accurate in your bets...
Now News papers don't cover boxing at all....Major championship fights today don't get a tale of the tape, they have ice hocky, or curling instead. And a three by three story.

[McGrain]

But Wills and Tyson also lost to every single world class fighter they ever fought - although it's unfair to treat them equally given how differently things were for Wills, as you've pointed out.

As for Spinks, he has those two impressive wins, but he absoultley shat himself against Tyson, and could hardly be considered a dominant HW champ.

Where do you have Spinks at LHW, by the way?

[OLD FOGEY]

Your ignoring that Charles was shot to pieces, yes Valdes lost to Moore, who was good but the same Moore was beaten more easily by Patterson than he was done by Marciano.

LaStarza-Marciano 1 is a very debateable decision and many had Marciano losing, Marciano proved to be the better man in the rematch

A lot is being made of Patterson, as if he is the best here, but I think a big ? hangs over Patterson and his career. Louis, Walcott, and Charles fought everyone. Louis was clearly the best of his time, Walcott probably beat Louis if given a fair decision in 1947, and later knocked out Charles, Charles beat Louis and Walcott.
Patterson, on the other hand, wins the title by knocking out Moore, who was after all badly beaten, despite an early knockdown, by Marciano. Walcott certainly, and Charles probably, were tougher opponents, as Marciano himself said.
Now so far I have no problem with Patterson, but coming to the title only with a victory over a badly defeated challenger, I think he needed to prove his right to the title by cleaning out the top contenders. He did not.
Only the weird Jackson, and Johansson, over the next six years, are actually top men. The highly rated Folley and Machen are given the go-by. When he does fight Johansson, he is badly beaten. He does get revenge and survives a scary third fight, but the problem is Johansson is champion by beating Patterson and Patterson is champion by beating Johansson.
Liston beats the guys Patterson is not fighting and thus becomes the first proven top heavyweight since Marciano. Patterson goes out twice in the first round against him. A later fight with Ali is also dismal, with Patterson hardly competitive.
His victories on his comeback are over a fading Machen, plus Chuvalo, who almost always lost to top men (both lost to Terrell) and old Henry Cooper. He fails to beat a young Quarry or Ellis.
A later comeback over tomato-cans surprisingly yields an upset of Bonavena, but I saw the fight and Bonavena was on his way to a victory until he broke his hand. Patterson came on late to win.

To sum up, the Liston fights were the ones in which Patterson should have proven himself, at least with a great effort in defeat. Instead he goes out twice in the first, and later flops also against Ali. I just can't see claiming Patterson as better than the old champions who defeated a great many more top heavies and also beat the man who was really the best of his era, or at least gave top efforts in defeat.

[Luigi1985]

But Wills and Tyson also lost to every single world class fighter they ever fought - although it's unfair to treat them equally given how differently things were for Wills, as you've pointed out.

As for Spinks, he has those two impressive wins, but he absoultley shat himself against Tyson, and could hardly be considered a dominant HW champ.

Where do you have Spinks at LHW, by the way?



:think


So Joe Jeanette, Sam Langford, Sam McVea, Denver Ed Martin, Jeff Clark, Fred Fulton, Charley Weinert, and Luis Angel Firpo weren´t world-class fighters?

[McGrain]

:think


So Joe Jeanette, Sam Langford, Sam McVea, Denver Ed Martin, Jeff Clark, Fred Fulton, Charley Weinert, and Luis Angel Firpo weren´t world-class fighters?

He beat all of these guys - but he also lost to McVea and Langford (did he lose to Jaennete? Or was that the draw?) as I said. He also lost to Sharkey, though he may have been pretty old by that time?

I actually forgot he had beaten Firpo and he, and these other men you mention, are very good fighters. But they're not ATG fighters, perhaps.

But fuck it, I will retract. It's ridiculous to hold it against Wills for losing a handful of times to Langford when they fought as many times as they did, and no matter how much smaller Langford was, he be a handful for most fighters.

But let me ask you - would you expect Lewis, Tyson, Louis, Liston, Marciano to lose to Langford? I mean, if they were boxing to Wills schedule?

[Luigi1985]

He beat all of these guys - but he also lost to McVea and Langford (did he lose to Jaennete? Or was that the draw?) as I said. He also lost to Sharkey, though he may have been pretty old by that time?

I actually forgot he had beaten Firpo and he, and these other men you mention, are very good fighters. But they're not ATG fighters, perhaps.

But fuck it, I will retract. It's ridiculous to hold it against Wills for losing a handful of times to Langford when they fought as many times as they did, and no matter how much smaller Langford was, he be a handful for most fighters.

But let me ask you - would you expect Lewis, Tyson, Louis, Liston, Marciano to lose to Langford? I mean, if they were boxing to Wills schedule?


Some "intelligent" posters would probably say that they all would KO the small Langford in the 1st round, but that wouldn´t be the case, a prime Langford would everyone a tough fight. Wills fought Langford over 20 times, and Langford is one of the hardest punchers ever, he also proved that at HW, Wills only lost 2 or 3 fights viá KO, but that´s not much. Can you immagine, when for example a tough puncher with a good chin like Marciano would fight someone like Holmes so many times, he would score more KO´s IMO, you know what I mean? Wills lost to Uzcudun and Sharkey, but that was very late in his career when he as already totally shot, so these 2 defeats don´t count.

[PowerPuncher]

But Wills and Tyson also lost to every single world class fighter they ever fought - although it's unfair to treat them equally given how differently things were for Wills, as you've pointed out.

As for Spinks, he has those two impressive wins, but he absoultley shat himself against Tyson, and could hardly be considered a dominant HW champ.

Where do you have Spinks at LHW, by the way?

Yes but Wills fought the best around a trillion times each so hes bound to lose once or twice with those odds

And since when were Holmes/Spinks not world class and thats ignoring very good contenders like Bruno, Tucker, Golota, Rudduck, Smith, Berbick and so on.

As for Spinks 1st round KO loss, pretty much anyone can be ko'd by Tyson in the first if Tyson gets his shots off flush, especially a smaller man.

LHW I go back and forth on with the top guys. Its hard to wonder if Langford and other none official LHWs should be included on LHW lists. Or which divisions to rank Langford in as a whole

[mr. magoo]

A lot is being made of Patterson, as if he is the best here, but I think a big ? hangs over Patterson and his career. Louis, Walcott, and Charles fought everyone. Louis was clearly the best of his time, Walcott probably beat Louis if given a fair decision in 1947, and later knocked out Charles, Charles beat Louis and Walcott.
Patterson, on the other hand, wins the title by knocking out Moore, who was after all badly beaten, despite an early knockdown, by Marciano. Walcott certainly, and Charles probably, were tougher opponents, as Marciano himself said.
Now so far I have no problem with Patterson, but coming to the title only with a victory over a badly defeated challenger, I think he needed to prove his right to the title by cleaning out the top contenders. He did not.
Only the weird Jackson, and Johansson, over the next six years, are actually top men. The highly rated Folley and Machen are given the go-by. When he does fight Johansson, he is badly beaten. He does get revenge and survives a scary third fight, but the problem is Johansson is champion by beating Patterson and Patterson is champion by beating Johansson.
Liston beats the guys Patterson is not fighting and thus becomes the first proven top heavyweight since Marciano. Patterson goes out twice in the first round against him. A later fight with Ali is also dismal, with Patterson hardly competitive.
His victories on his comeback are over a fading Machen, plus Chuvalo, who almost always lost to top men (both lost to Terrell) and old Henry Cooper. He fails to beat a young Quarry or Ellis.
A later comeback over tomato-cans surprisingly yields an upset of Bonavena, but I saw the fight and Bonavena was on his way to a victory until he broke his hand. Patterson came on late to win.

To sum up, the Liston fights were the ones in which Patterson should have proven himself, at least with a great effort in defeat. Instead he goes out twice in the first, and later flops also against Ali. I just can't see claiming Patterson as better than the old champions who defeated a great many more top heavies and also beat the man who was really the best of his era, or at least gave top efforts in defeat.


I don't think anyone here is rating Patterson over Marciano or Louis. In fact, I think most would agree with you that those guys were better ( I certainly do. )

Patterson However had a career that I feel is highly comparable to that of Walcott's and Charles. I'm not saying that he was better than those two, but certainly on par with them. Patterson has a sparkling resume in my eyes. He was an olympic gold medalist in 1952. His career stretched 20 years from the early 50's to the early 70's ( one of the most competitive periods in the division's history ). He was the youngest heavyweight champion of all time, a feat topped by only one man. He was the first to regain the heavyweight title upon Losing it. Patterson also had some decent career wins over Johanson, Moore, Chuvalo, Cooper, Bonavena, Machen, Mcneely, Harris and Jackson. I especially give him credit given that he was a relatively small heavyweight fighting during a period where the tide was turning and heavyweights were getting bigger and bigger. His back to back first round losses to Liston were less than flattering, but I'm not going sum up his whole career by them either.

Floyd Patterson is a bit underrated by a lot of fans and historians in my opinion. I have him very close to being a top ten great heavyweight. He falls a bit short, but not by much.

[Holmes' Jab]

Floyd Patterson is a bit underrated by a lot of fans and historians in my opinion. I have him very close to being a top ten great heavyweight. He falls a bit short, but not by much.

I agree that he's underrated certainly, but can't quite make a case for Paterson gaining a Top 10 slot. I have him solidly in the Top 20, though (#14-ish). :good

[PowerPuncher]

A lot is being made of Patterson, as if he is the best here, but I think a big ? hangs over Patterson and his career. Louis, Walcott, and Charles fought everyone. Louis was clearly the best of his time, Walcott probably beat Louis if given a fair decision in 1947, and later knocked out Charles, Charles beat Louis and Walcott.
Patterson, on the other hand, wins the title by knocking out Moore, who was after all badly beaten, despite an early knockdown, by Marciano. Walcott certainly, and Charles probably, were tougher opponents, as Marciano himself said.
Now so far I have no problem with Patterson, but coming to the title only with a victory over a badly defeated challenger, I think he needed to prove his right to the title by cleaning out the top contenders. He did not.
Only the weird Jackson, and Johansson, over the next six years, are actually top men. The highly rated Folley and Machen are given the go-by. When he does fight Johansson, he is badly beaten. He does get revenge and survives a scary third fight, but the problem is Johansson is champion by beating Patterson and Patterson is champion by beating Johansson.
Liston beats the guys Patterson is not fighting and thus becomes the first proven top heavyweight since Marciano. Patterson goes out twice in the first round against him. A later fight with Ali is also dismal, with Patterson hardly competitive.
His victories on his comeback are over a fading Machen, plus Chuvalo, who almost always lost to top men (both lost to Terrell) and old Henry Cooper. He fails to beat a young Quarry or Ellis.
A later comeback over tomato-cans surprisingly yields an upset of Bonavena, but I saw the fight and Bonavena was on his way to a victory until he broke his hand. Patterson came on late to win.

To sum up, the Liston fights were the ones in which Patterson should have proven himself, at least with a great effort in defeat. Instead he goes out twice in the first, and later flops also against Ali. I just can't see claiming Patterson as better than the old champions who defeated a great many more top heavies and also beat the man who was really the best of his era, or at least gave top efforts in defeat.

You make good points and Patterson was definately protected. But he later went on to fight more top contenders after his reign as champ. Johannson, Machen, Chuvalo, Archie Moore, Cooper, Bonavena and he arguably beat Quarrey not to mention his brief career at 175 beating the likes of Durrelle and being robbed against Maxim

Yes he lost twice to Liston in the first, theres no great shame in this, Liston may have done the same to Charles and Walcott (not saying he would). Walcott and Charles have equally embarassing defeats against less stellar opposition.

Saying Patterson flopped against Ali is laughable, how many in history would beat that version of Ali? Not many. And Patterson had a bad back for that 1

As for the validity of Johansen as a top contender other than Patteron he beat Machen, London, Cooper, Erskine

The thing I like about Patteron was the ability he showed on film was nothing short of spectacular

[OLD FOGEY]

You make good points and Patterson was definately protected. But he later went on to fight more top contenders after his reign as champ. Johannson, Machen, Chuvalo, Archie Moore, Cooper, Bonavena and he arguably beat Quarrey not to mention his brief career at 175 beating the likes of Durrelle and being robbed against Maxim

Yes he lost twice to Liston in the first, theres no great shame in this, Liston may have done the same to Charles and Walcott (not saying he would). Walcott and Charles have equally embarassing defeats against less stellar opposition.

Saying Patterson flopped against Ali is laughable, how many in history would beat that version of Ali? Not many. And Patterson had a bad back for that 1

As for the validity of Johansen as a top contender other than Patteron he beat Machen, London, Cooper, Erskine

The thing I like about Patteron was the ability he showed on film was nothing short of spectacular

Since John L Sullivan, lineal heavyweight champions have suffered a total of 11 first round knockout defeats in their entire careers. To be clear, I am not talking about championship fights, but their entire careers.

1. Hart (ko'd by Hanrahan)
2. Dempsey (ko'd by Flynn)
3. Schmeling (ko'd by Daniels)
4. Schmeling (ko'd by Louis)
5. Walcott (ko'd by Marciano)
6. Patterson (ko'd by Liston)
7. Patterson (ko'd by Liston)
8. Liston (ko'd by Ali)
9. M Spinks (ko'd by Tyson)
10. Douglas (ko'd by Savarese)
11. Moorer (ko'd by Tua)

The performance of Patterson against Liston is pretty bad--yeah, Liston could punch, but he only scored 6 first round knockouts in his other 52 fights, probably a pretty good total, but still it is hard for me to simply write off two first round back to back stoppages.
Charles was never stopped inside of 6, even as a washed up veteran.

I certainly agree that Liston might defeat Charles and Walcott, but they could not do worse than Patterson did and I think both would do much better, and an upset is not really that long a shot, especially in the case of Walcott.

Johansson was certainly a legit contender. I'm only pointing out that he became champion by beating Patterson, and then Patterson earned his place in history as the first to regain the title by beating Johansson. Neither beat any other champion. Johansson's other biggest win was over Machen, who was beaten about that time by Liston, Folley, and Johnson. Patterson's was over Moore, who was beaten by Marciano and Charles. Neither gave a good performance against another champion, unlike Charles (who beat Louis) or Walcott (who should have gotten a nod again Louis and fought Marciano tough before a late KO).

The close decisions arguements can go all over the lot. Certainly Charles and Walcott were each victimized by strange judging in big fights.

I find Charles and Walcott more impressive than Patterson on film, myself, but that is pretty subjective.

[janitor]

[quote=OLD FOGEY]Since John L Sullivan, lineal heavyweight champions have suffered a total of 11 first round knockout defeats in their entire careers. To be clear, I am not talking about championship fights, but their entire careers.


Good analysis but I deem the ones highlighted in red to be relevant to the champions prime career, the ones in orange to be borderline and the ones in green to be irrelevant.

1. Hart (ko'd by Hanrahan) circumstances obscure.
2. Dempsey (ko'd by Flynn) early in Dempseys career posibly a dive
3. Schmeling (ko'd by Daniels) early in Schmelings career
4. Schmeling (ko'd by Louis) Shmeling went on to post a dramatic blow out of Adolph Heuser
5. Walcott (ko'd by Marciano) some suspicious circumstances
6. Patterson (ko'd by Liston) many of Pattersons best wins came after this
7. Patterson (ko'd by Liston) "
8. Liston (ko'd by Ali) probably a dive
9. M Spinks (ko'd by Tyson) Spinks was champion
10. Douglas (ko'd by Savarese) Douglas old and shot
11. Moorer (ko'd by Tua) Moorer past his best

That puts the Patterson wins in a diferent perspective.

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote]


Good analysis but I deem the ones highlighted in red to be relevant to the champions prime career, the ones in orange to be borderline and the ones in green to be irrelevant.

1. Hart (ko'd by Hanrahan) circumstances obscure.
2. Dempsey (ko'd by Flynn) early in Dempseys career posibly a dive
3. Schmeling (ko'd by Daniels) early in Schmelings career
4. Schmeling (ko'd by Louis) Shmeling went on to post a dramatic blow out of Adolph Heuser
5. Walcott (ko'd by Marciano) some suspicious circumstances
6. Patterson (ko'd by Liston) many of Pattersons best wins came after this
7. Patterson (ko'd by Liston) "
8. Liston (ko'd by Ali) probably a dive
9. M Spinks (ko'd by Tyson) Spinks was champion
10. Douglas (ko'd by Savarese) Douglas old and shot
11. Moorer (ko'd by Tua) Moorer past his best

That puts the Patterson wins in a diferent perspective.

I think I understand where you are coming from. The greens indicate the victim was raw or washed up. I think Schmeling-Daniels should at least move to orange. Schmeling was four years into his career. I don't understand how Liston gets a green against Ali. I don't assume this fight was a fix.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]

[QUOTE]I think I understand where you are coming from. The greens indicate the victim was raw or washed up.

Correct

I think Schmeling-Daniels should at least move to orange. Schmeling was four years into his career.

Not too sure.

The Daniels loss was Schmelings last fight at light heavyweight before he moved up and he was having a lot of trouble making weight.

After that Schmelings only knockout losses before he hit his 40s were against Baer and Louis. Two gentlemen whose punching credentials need no justification.

Orange or green it is certainly not a red.


I don't understand how Liston gets a green against Ali. I don't assume this fight was a fix.


There is a lot of circumstantial evidence.

If every green gets turned into an orange you would still only have four reds.

[ChrisPontius]

I don't understand how Liston gets a green against Ali. I don't assume this fight was a fix.

What do you think happened in the second Ali-Liston fight?

[mcvey]

A lot is being made of Patterson, as if he is the best here, but I think a big ? hangs over Patterson and his career. Louis, Walcott, and Charles fought everyone. Louis was clearly the best of his time, Walcott probably beat Louis if given a fair decision in 1947, and later knocked out Charles, Charles beat Louis and Walcott.
Patterson, on the other hand, wins the title by knocking out Moore, who was after all badly beaten, despite an early knockdown, by Marciano. Walcott certainly, and Charles probably, were tougher opponents, as Marciano himself said.
Now so far I have no problem with Patterson, but coming to the title only with a victory over a badly defeated challenger, I think he needed to prove his right to the title by cleaning out the top contenders. He did not.
Only the weird Jackson, and Johansson, over the next six years, are actually top men. The highly rated Folley and Machen are given the go-by. When he does fight Johansson, he is badly beaten. He does get revenge and survives a scary third fight, but the problem is Johansson is champion by beating Patterson and Patterson is champion by beating Johansson.
Liston beats the guys Patterson is not fighting and thus becomes the first proven top heavyweight since Marciano. Patterson goes out twice in the first round against him. A later fight with Ali is also dismal, with Patterson hardly competitive.
His victories on his comeback are over a fading Machen, plus Chuvalo, who almost always lost to top men (both lost to Terrell) and old Henry Cooper. He fails to beat a young Quarry or Ellis.
A later comeback over tomato-cans surprisingly yields an upset of Bonavena, but I saw the fight and Bonavena was on his way to a victory until he broke his hand. Patterson came on late to win.

To sum up, the Liston fights were the ones in which Patterson should have proven himself, at least with a great effort in defeat. Instead he goes out twice in the first, and later flops also against Ali. I just can't see claiming Patterson as better than the old champions who defeated a great many more top heavies and also beat the man who was really the best of his era, or at least gave top efforts in defeat.
Pattersons reign wasnt too distinguished but imo he made up for it as an ex champ he took on a lot of the tough guys most of them when he was a bit past his peak aresume that includes Chuvalo,Bonavena,Ellis,Quarry,Cooper,Ali,Machen,,isnt a bad one.

[OLD FOGEY]

What do you think happened in the second Ali-Liston fight?

Liston got knocked out. That is what ringside observers such as Jim Murray, Nat Fleischer, Sports Illustrated, etc, thought.

[OLD FOGEY]

Pattersons reign wasnt too distinguished but imo he made up for it as an ex champ he took on a lot of the tough guys most of them when he was a bit past his peak aresume that includes Chuvalo,Bonavena,Ellis,Quarry,Cooper,Ali,Machen,,isnt a bad one.

No. It isn't bad, but he didn't beat Ali, Ellis, and Quarry, and it is still not really a list of the top contenders starting in 1964, other than the above three. Folley, Williams, Terrell, Spencer, and Frazier are not on the list. A Frazier fight in 1967 might have been interesting. Bonavena in 1972 was a strong opponent, though.
Machen and Cooper were actually older than Patterson, and Chuvalo was the type who could be and was outboxed by most skilled boxers, such as Folley, Terrell, and Corletti around the time Patterson fought him.

[janitor]

No. It isn't bad, but he didn't beat Ali, Ellis, and Quarry,

To play devils advocate I could argue that he manifestly beat Quarry and Ellis, and that he was leading on the score cards against Ali aged 37 before being stoped on cuts.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Liston got knocked out. That is what ringside observers such as Jim Murray, Nat Fleischer, Sports Illustrated, etc, thought.


But a lot of writers hate to think they've just witnessed a fix in a sport they love.

[My dinner with Conteh]

To play devils advocate I could argue that he manifestly beat Quarry and Ellis, and that he was leading on the score cards against Ali aged 37 before being stoped on cuts.


Patterson was behind on the cards actually.

[janitor]

Patterson was behind on the cards actually.

I understand otherwise.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I understand otherwise.



You understand wrong.

[janitor]

You understand wrong.

Justify

[My dinner with Conteh]

Justify


What, justify the judges cards? It's not my fault they had Floyd trailing. I thought it was pretty even myself but that's not the point. He was behind and, er, that's that. :good

[C. M. Clay II]

Sonny Quitston is no more overrated than Quitssius Clay, Slow Louis, Midget Marciano, Larry "I prefer to fight guys with 10-0 records" Holmes, Mike Quityson, Evander Roidfield, Chinnox Lewis, Duckin' Joe Frazier, Scrawny Jack Dempsey, Chicken Bowe, George "I can't beat a mover if my life depended on it" Foreman, etc.

You're a riot!:lol:

[My dinner with Conteh]

Sonny Quitston is no more overrated than Quitssius Clay, Slow Louis, Midget Marciano, Larry "I prefer to fight guys with 10-0 records" Holmes, Mike Quityson, Evander Roidfield, Chinnox Lewis, Duckin' Joe Frazier, Scrawny Jack Dempsey, Chicken Bowe, George "I can't beat a mover if my life depended on it" Foreman, etc.



So, you're a Sharkey man I see. :good

[OLD FOGEY]

To play devils advocate I could argue that he manifestly beat Quarry and Ellis, and that he was leading on the score cards against Ali aged 37 before being stoped on cuts.

Of the three officials in the first Quarry fight-two voted draw, one Quarry--Majority draw

Of the three officials in the 2nd Quarry Fight--two voted Quarry, one a draw--Majority decision Quarry.

The referee alone voted in the Ellis fight--he had it 9-6 for Ellis.

In the Ali fight, two officials had Ali ahead 5-1 & 4-2--the third had it a draw.

We are talking about ten officials. Not one voted for Patterson. I don't think it is manifest that Patterson deserved the decisions. Why would they screw probably the most popular boxer in the world to give decisions to Jerry Nobody and Jimmy Whatshisname?

I have not seen the first Quarry fight. I thought Quarry won the second and Ellis won his.

I frankly thought Ali could have won in 1972 anytime he wanted to turn it on.

[Street Lethal]

Liston KO2 Marciano
Yep.

[rydersonthestorm]

Listons was an all time great but i have him near the back end of the top ten rather than the front, i would have louis,ali,holmes,dempsey,lewis and maybe a few more ahead of him.

[Street Lethal]

I would add Listons comp is better than Marcianos, Dempseys and maybe Joe Louis, its excellent comp
Yep.

[Street Lethal]

Sorry to interupt what is a pretty scientific debate, but -

When I watch him Listin, i'm quite happy that at his best, he would have a very good chance of beating Louis.

I rate Liston very highly.
Yep.

[Luigi1985]

Street_ Lethal, you fearless warrior, don´t trash my thread so full, go away and create some other nicknames from other ID´s who you can use than...

[Street Lethal]

But having a Don Cockell at #2 isn't quite the same as having a, say, Larry Holmes at 2.
Yep.

[McGrain]

Yes but Wills fought the best around a trillion times each so hes bound to lose once or twice with those odds

You are right (well, not about the "trillion" part) and I did retract - i think it was a pretty stupid thing I did, drawing attention to these loses. I accept your point of view here.

And since when were Holmes/Spinks not world class and thats ignoring very good contenders like Bruno, Tucker, Golota, Rudduck, Smith, Berbick and so on.

All of these guys are very good fighters, of course, but the best fighters that Tyson fought beat him, period. If two of these loses were due to mental weakness rather than physical/technical defficiencies, I don't see how that makes a difference.

As for Spinks 1st round KO loss, pretty much anyone can be ko'd by Tyson in the first if Tyson gets his shots off flush, especially a smaller man.

I would suggest that most every other guy on your list would survive round one with Tyson - if you think otherwise, let's hear which other ATG hw's you think he would blow out in a round?

I personally don't think it's sensible to have HW on your list when that HW is so terrified of Tyson he is unable to fight properly.

Or which divisions to rank Langford in as a whole

Maybe he should just be on a list on his own! Number one bro.

[My dinner with Conteh]

In the Ali fight, two officials had Ali ahead 5-1 & 4-2--the third had it a draw.

Ali could have won in 1972 anytime he wanted to turn it on.


Yep.*





* Sorry Luigi, couldn't resist. ;)

[Luigi1985]

Yep.*





* Sorry Luigi, couldn't resist. ;)



:D

[PowerPuncher]

but the best fighters that Tyson fought beat him, period..

Arguably Larry Holmes was the best but obviously past prime, Tyson wasn't the same fighter he once was against Douglas/Holyfield/Lennox. The main thing Tyson lost was stamina as his style was hugely stamina dependent. I had Tyson up against Holyfield after 5 rounds but he faded.

[PowerPuncher]

I would suggest that most every other guy on your list would survive round one with Tyson - if you think otherwise, let's hear which other ATG hw's you think he would blow out in a round?.

These aren't predictions of 1st round KOs but rather possibilities, Tyson may KO the following in 1 round if he catches them:

Kenny Norton (been done)
Patterson (been done)
Moore (a bit chinny, Patterson took 5, Tyson )
Charles (not strong enough to keep Tyson off him)
Marciano (if he gets hit in the 1st like he did against Moore/Walcott its possible)
Dempsey (been done)
Willard (if Dempsey takes 3, maybe Tyson does it in 1 especially with modern rules)
Walcott - (been done)
Liston (been done - he make take a dive again:yep )
Langford - too small or too blind :lol:
Johnson - possibility :huh
Frazier - Foreman took 3, 1s a possibility especially with a ref worried about fighter safety
Shavers - been done
Young - been done

Some of those are remote (Liston/Johnson) but none would be a huge suprise, any punch can KO a man, its just usually it takes allot of rounds for fighters to land their money punch or they aren't big enough hitters to do it with 1 shot. Tyson could land his best shots early because of his speed and boxing brilliance and he was quite a big hitter

[My dinner with Conteh]

Arguably Larry Holmes was the best but obviously past prime, Tyson wasn't the same fighter he once was against Douglas/Holyfield/Lennox. The main thing Tyson lost was stamina as his style was hugely stamina dependent. I had Tyson up against Holyfield after 5 rounds but he faded.



Tyson was definitely ahead until the knockdown, he began well in that fight. The fifth was a clear round for him but I think he may have been discouraged that Holyfield was still fresh at the end of the round.


ps. This 'all the best fighters he fought beat him' argument is quite weak. You could say the same things about most fighters: the best two fighters Frazier fought beat him 4 out of 5. Louis didn't do so great against the best three he fought neither: Marciano, Walcott (I) and Charles, even though he was past his best (so was Tyson vs Lewis).

[McGrain]

Arguably Larry Holmes was the best but obviously past prime, Tyson wasn't the same fighter he once was against Douglas/Holyfield/Lennox. The main thing Tyson lost was stamina as his style was hugely stamina dependent. I had Tyson up against Holyfield after 5 rounds but he faded.

You could certainly make the argument that of the names on Tyson's resume Holmes is the best, but the version of Holmes that Tyson beat isn't a fighter I would expect to beat any other names on my list.

On the other hand, the versions of Lewis and Hollfyield that Tyson faced would be trouble for any fighter who had ever lived.

I also agree that Tyson wasn't the same fighter for his loses, I agree with that. But for me it was a pre-exsisting mental weakness in Tyson that was exposed by these men (Douglas especially and most shockingly, despite the ear bite), something that always would have meant trouble for him. I see it as inevitable regardless of who was training him/mentoring him.

[PowerPuncher]

Tyson was definitely ahead until the knockdown, he began well in that fight. The fifth was a clear round for him but I think he may have been discouraged that Holyfield was still fresh at the end of the round.

ps. This 'all the best fighters he fought beat him' argument is quite weak. You could say the same things about most fighters: the best two fighters Frazier fought beat him 4 out of 5. Louis didn't do so great against the best three he fought neither: Marciano, Walcott (I) and Charles, even though he was past his best (so was Tyson vs Lewis).

I was beggining to think I was the only 1 who saw Tyson slightly outdoing Holyfield in the early going. I don't think post-prison Tyson ever regained the stamina to fight be a 12 round fighter again.

I've been labelled a Tyson nutthugger but try to remain objective and over time my opinion of Tyson has dwindelled a little.

Despite Tyson being somewhat past prime against both Lennox and Holyfield you have to give both massive credit for beating him. Lennox and Holyfield may have been past prime too, probably not quite as much though. Lennox aged much more gracefully as a boxer than Tyson did because he didn't need his foot on the gas so much

[PowerPuncher]

I also agree that Tyson wasn't the same fighter for his loses, I agree with that. But for me it was a pre-exsisting mental weakness in Tyson that was exposed by these men (Douglas especially and most shockingly, despite the ear bite), something that always would have meant trouble for him. I see it as inevitable regardless of who was training him/mentoring him.

The mental weakness is a poor argument in the example of Tyson-Holyfield 1. Tyson kept coming and coming but Holyfield was too strong and too well conditioned and won the war of attrition.

What about the strong mentality he showed when he was shook up by Bruno & Rudduck?

Excuses are like assholes, everyone has 1 BUT:

Douglas: took the fight lightly, didnt train etc

Holyfield 1: out of the ring for years, not many rounds under his belt, lacked the stamina he once had and wasn't as polished as he once was

Lennox: No stamina and his foot speed had gone completely

[McGrain]

The mental weakness is a poor argument in the example of Tyson-Holyfield 1. Tyson kept coming and coming but Holyfield was too strong and too well conditioned and won the war of attrition.

Maybe; but I don't actually mean it for that fight in isolation. I mean it for every Tyson fight. I see it as his intrinsic weakness, apparant in retrospect and waiting to be exposed. In my opinion Tyson was never going to beat a guy like Hollyfield.

What about the strong mentality he showed when he was shook up by Bruno & Rudduck?

Tyson will always keep coming - the best example may in fact be V Lewis, where he kept coming despite an actual melt down - but I see him as a real frontrunner.

[PowerPuncher]

You could certainly make the argument that of the names on Tyson's resume Holmes is the best, but the version of Holmes that Tyson beat isn't a fighter I would expect to beat any other names on my list..
.

Actually that version of Holmes may have beaten many champs in history - many thought he beat Spinks in his last fight.

Even that old Holmes may have edged out many fighters with his amazing jab. He went on to take 3-4 rounds against Holyfield 4 years later and beat Mercer. Lennox for 1 could be outjabbed, and it would probably be a closish fight. Holmes boxing ability may have edged out many, it would be foolish to write him off. Dempsey/Marciano both probably would have got to that older version of Holmes BUT they both had problems with boxers and Holmes still
had the best jab HW boxings seen.

How many in history would knock out that version of Holmes in 4 rounds? Holyfield was taken the 12 by Holmes 4 years later and lost rounds.

If only Tyson-Holyfield happened in 1991 and if only Bowe and Lennox got there shots in 1992-1993. We may have had the greatest era of HW boxing ever

[My dinner with Conteh]

Tyson will always keep coming - the best example may in fact be V Lewis, where he kept coming despite an actual melt down - but I see him as a real frontrunner.


Tyson was definitely a front runner, no doubts there.

[PowerPuncher]

Maybe; but I don't actually mean it for that fight in isolation. I mean it for every Tyson fight. I see it as his intrinsic weakness, apparant in retrospect and waiting to be exposed. In my opinion Tyson was never going to beat a guy like Hollyfield.

Tyson will always keep coming - the best example may in fact be V Lewis, where he kept coming despite an actual melt down - but I see him as a real frontrunner.

Tyson was certainly a front runner post-prison. What about against Rudduck/Smith/Ribalta/Green/Tucker he was having no problem fighting the 12 back then or scoring late knock outs.

The fact Tyson was out of boxing for 4 years and didnt fight a contender for 5 years is very significant

Never beat Holyfield? Thats a possibility but Holyfield actually looked ready to go at 1 stage where Tyson had him wiht 3 uppercuts. A prime Tyson with more stamina goes the distance and makes it closer, he probably works the jab more and gets more shots off too.

[McGrain]

Actually that version of Holmes may have beaten many champs in history - many thought he beat Spinks in his last fight.

But we disagree about where Spinks should be rated. To you he is worthy of a place on an ATG HW list - so that's a fine nearly win for Holmes - for me, he really isn't. Our disagreement about these two men frames our respective positions here.

Yes, Holmes would possibly have beaten one or two lineal champs, but I woldn't pick him to beat peak versions of any of the great champs. I just don't see it as anything other than a good win. I don't really see that any other result was possible without something odd. Put it this way, if Holmes wins that fight and Tyson goes onto the have the career that he had anyway, Holmes shoots to #1 on my list.

Lennox for 1 could be outjabbed, and it would probably be a closish fight.

You think peak Lewis and the version of Holmes that Tyson beat would be close? I think it would be a bit dull and it might go the distance, but I don't think it would be close.

Holmes boxing ability may have edged out many, it would be foolish to write him off. Dempsey/Marciano both probably would have got to that older version of Holmes BUT they both had problems with boxers and Holmes still had the best jab HW boxings seen.

How many in history would knock out that version of Holmes in 4 rounds? Holyfield was taken the 12 by Holmes 4 years later and lost rounds.

I agree with some of this. For example, I think you are right to point out that Tyson may have made shorter work of this Holmes than any other fighter. But he is an aggressive KO puncher and a front runner the likes of which has never been seen.

Place Tyson in a difficult position v an ATG fighter and I see no way back for him. Compare and conrast this with the other boys at the very top of your list.

If only Tyson-Holyfield happened in 1991 and if only Bowe and Lennox got there shots in 1992-1993. We may have had the greatest era of HW boxing ever

Yessir.

[McGrain]

Rudduck/Smith/Ribalta/Green/Tucker

None of these fighters are great fighters. Good though. And none of them had him in serious trouble, either. Still, against Smith we see an air of frustration and uncertainty. Imagine what Jack Johnson would do with emotion like that in a similair situation?



Never beat Holyfield? Thats a possibility but Holyfield actually looked ready to go at 1 stage where Tyson had him wiht 3 uppercuts. A prime Tyson with more stamina goes the distance and makes it closer, he probably works the jab more and gets more shots off too.

Ready to go is a different experience for Hollyfield than for Tyson. Do you see what I mean? Something like this could happen to Hollyfield in every round and he could still win a fight. Tyson would crack under this type of pressure.

[Mendoza]

Perhaps I have been overrating Liston. I used to have him at 4 (with Ali/Louis/Marciano as the top 3). But his resume is not all that impressive.
NM

[Mendoza]

I think Liston's resume of wins is a bit behind Louis' and Marciano's. However, Liston did KO Patterson twice via 1st round KO! Patterson is on the level with the best fighters Louis and Marciano beat. I think Patterson is as nearly as good or slightly better than Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Charles, and Moore. Patterson defeated Moore.

In truth, Louis lost to Schemling, and had major league problems with Walcott. I do beleive Walcott won the first fight with Louis. Maricano had to fight tooth and nail to defeat Walcott and Charles.

I tend to doubt Liston would have any issues with Schemling, Walcott, Charles, or Moore. He was simply too much for them. Perhaps Baer has a chance, though his skills were rather average.

The thing to focus on with Liston is, he blew away a good, but not great collection of contenders with shocking ease.

Liston required only twenty rounds in ten fights to finish off the following contenders:: Billy Hunter, Julio Mederos, Wayne Bethea, Frankie Daniels, Nino Valdes, Roy Harris, Cleveland Williams 2x , Zora Folley, and Albert Westphal. This is an average of two rounds work for Liston.

Louis and Marciano had trouble with quick boxer types. See the Pastor, Conn, Walcott, LaSstarza, and Charles fights. Liston matched up extremely well vs smaller boxer types. His weight, reach, defense and skills complemented an awesome arsenal of powerful punches. The smaller man had to get past Liston 84” reach and jab, venture in to no man’s land, avoid Liston right on the way in and counter hook to score. Trading with Liston was not an option.

Eddie Machen was a very good boxer type. He had good movement, a slick defense, and a better chin than the boxer types who gave Marciano and Louis fits. Yet Machen was simply powerless vs Liston.

Can you see how dominate a prime Liston was? He matched up well with up punchers, swarmers and boxers. How many other all time greats can say that? Liston’s weakness was lack of speed vs a bigger and faster boxer type, and questionable intangibles that could be brought into play vs fighters who could survive the first few rounds and mark him up.

[Bummy Davis]

Liston had one of the BEST LOOKS but the LOOK did not revail it all, I see him overated, Patterson admitted he was beaten Mentally before Both fights(FLOYD was Fragile) Big cat was already KO'd in 2 by174lb Bob Satterfield and Liston was not STRONG mentally either. Sometimes the Packaging can be decieving of the contents, and I think this could be a BIT of the case here

[PowerPuncher]

1. But we disagree about where Spinks should be rated. To you he is worthy of a place on an ATG HW list - so that's a fine nearly win for Holmes - for me, he really isn't. Our disagreement about these two men frames our respective positions here.

2. Yes, Holmes would possibly have beaten one or two lineal champs, but I woldn't pick him to beat peak versions of any of the great champs. I just don't see it as anything other than a good win. I don't really see that any other result was possible without something odd. Put it this way, if Holmes wins that fight and Tyson goes onto the have the career that he had anyway, Holmes shoots to #1 on my list.

3. You think peak Lewis and the version of Holmes that Tyson beat would be close? I think it would be a bit dull and it might go the distance, but I don't think it would be close.

4. I agree with some of this. For example, I think you are right to point out that Tyson may have made shorter work of this Holmes than any other fighter. But he is an aggressive KO puncher and a front runner the likes of which has never been seen.

5. Place Tyson in a difficult position v an ATG fighter and I see no way back for him. Compare and conrast this with the other boys at the very top of your list.

Yessir.

1. Spinks is hard to rate but maybe he would have done aswell as Moore/Charles did fighting similar opponents, maybe I have rated him too high, there was nowhere for him to go after losing to Tyson

2. Its hard to measure, I think Holmes may pull an upset against an ATG - Foreman for example hated movers. Put the old Holmes in with the other top 15 ATG, he would probably pick up 4 wins or so.

3. Well this is purely a style thing. Lewis had problems with people who could either outjab him or outreach him. Look at the Mercer and Vitali fights. I had Lewis beating Mercer 6-4, its not out of the realms of the possibility that if Holmes fought the same Lewis or catch him on an off night he'd win a 7-5 SD type decision. I'd expect Lewis to pull out the W but it maybe close

4. Yes and Spinks legacy suffers for facing the most aggressive front runner of all time too. If Spinks faced a Prime Ali instead of a Prime Tyson he probably would have gone the distance and lost more respectably

5. We haven't seen Tyson overcome much hardship but he never needed to in his prime because no one could push him. If he wasn't quite as good in his prime and he had back and forth fights with Holmes and Spinks maybe he'd be rated higher. Just because he couldn't survive adversity against Holyfield doesn't mean any ATG HW could pull off Holys gameplan. Especial to a prime version

Also many ATGs may not get past the first 6 against Tyson

[Mendoza]

Liston had one of the BEST LOOKS but the LOOK did not revail it all, I see him overated, Patterson admitted he was beaten Mentally before Both fights(FLOYD was Fragile) Big cat was already KO'd in 2 by174lb Bob Satterfield and Liston was not STRONG mentally either. Sometimes the Packaging can be decieving of the contents, and I think this could be a BIT of the case here

This depends on how you view the Ali vs Liston fights. I think it is highly probable that Liston threw the second Ali fight. For my money, Ali's best performance was vs Liston in the first fight. He moved and boxed beautifully that night. If Ali had an average performance that night things could have been different.


The Ali fights were the only fights where Liston appeared to be mentally weak.

[PowerPuncher]

1. None of these fighters are great fighters. Good though. And none of them had him in serious trouble, either. Still, against Smith we see an air of frustration and uncertainty. Imagine what Jack Johnson would do with emotion like that in a similair situation?

2. Ready to go is a different experience for Hollyfield than for Tyson. Do you see what I mean? Something like this could happen to Hollyfield in every round and he could still win a fight. Tyson would crack under this type of pressure.

1. Yes but again its not Tysons fault no one could put him in adversity in his prime. And sometimes theres a fine line between very good and great and a very good fighter may give you a harder fight than a great fighter based on styles.

2. Actually no, Tyson didn't just collapse and go into a shell when he go hit. He kept coming forward but just wasn't as relentless as Holyfield at that stage of their careers. Maybe Holy would always be too relentless for him.

Styles make fights and Tyson wouldn't have had as much of a problem with Bowe, Ruiz and Moorer like Holyfield did.

[JohnThomas1]

1. Yes but again its not Tysons fault no one could put him in adversity in his prime.

Douglas didn't? Not a tip top Tyson but don't tell us that technically it wasn't his prime. Very much his prime, regardless of whether his peak had been cut short.

[ChrisPontius]

I think Tyson gave a great account of himself, heart-wise, against Douglas. He was pounded from pillar to post from the opening bell but kept looking for openings and found one twice in the 8th, resulting in that knockdown. He also came out agressively in the 9th and the 10th. He was just broken down badly.

Beautiful display of boxing by Douglas, this is one of my favorite fights. I always wondered if he was a converted southpaw, he had a terrific left hand to throw after the 1-2.

[Bummy Davis]

This depends on how you view the Ali vs Liston fights. I think it is highly probable that Liston threw the second Ali fight. For my money, Ali's best performance was vs Liston in the first fight. He moved and boxed beautifully that night. If Ali had an average performance that night things could have been different.


The Ali fights were the only fights where Liston appeared to be mentally weak.


I think there were a lot of Big fights that changed hands of the title that were not easy fights. Duran/Buchanan was a rough struggle but Duran went on to be #1 in lightweight ATG's. Marciano vs Walcott was a tough title exchange and went on to be an ATG. and there were many. I too believe the 1st Ali/Liston fight was one of Ali's best and Foreman was the 2nd best win. Trilla in Manilla was good but it was not the same Frazier as in the 1st bout, it may have not been the same Ali as in 1st fight but Frazier went downhill faster and worse than Ali. The 2nd Liston fight was a DIVE if there ever was one and anyone that doubts that is proberly a wrestling fan. Liston quit on his stool in the 1st fight with a shoulder injury but I think he was getting outboxed and it was Ali's greatest fight. Tyson did not give up in the Douglas fight something left him when Douglas got up from the KD, strangely it repeated again in the Holyfield fight,Lewis,Williams, and quit again with McBride. Duran quit in the 2nd Leonard fight but it was strange because the man stayed in with Puncher Barkley and Hagler after that event with SRL. There was something suspect about Liston and Ali brought it out of him. Sometimes fighters grow from that kind of humbling loss sometimes they dont

[janitor]

1. Yes but again its not Tysons fault no one could put him in adversity in his prime. And sometimes theres a fine line between very good and great and a very good fighter may give you a harder fight than a great fighter based on styles.

2. Actually no, Tyson didn't just collapse and go into a shell when he go hit. He kept coming forward but just wasn't as relentless as Holyfield at that stage of their careers. Maybe Holy would always be too relentless for him.


Your analysis is verry sound.

My only observation would be that the line between a hero and a coward is a verry fine one and Tyson was always close to the line.

[OLD FOGEY]

I think Liston's resume of wins is a bit behind Louis' and Marciano's. However, Liston did KO Patterson twice via 1st round KO! Patterson is on the level with the best fighters Louis and Marciano beat. I think Patterson is as nearly as good or slightly better than Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Charles, and Moore. Patterson defeated Moore.

In truth, Louis lost to Schemling, and had major league problems with Walcott. I do beleive Walcott won the first fight with Louis. Maricano had to fight tooth and nail to defeat Walcott and Charles.

I tend to doubt Liston would have any issues with Schemling, Walcott, Charles, or Moore. He was simply too much for them. Perhaps Baer has a chance, though his skills were rather average.

The thing to focus on with Liston is, he blew away a good, but not great collection of contenders with shocking ease.

Liston required only twenty rounds in ten fights to finish off the following contenders:: Billy Hunter, Julio Mederos, Wayne Bethea, Frankie Daniels, Nino Valdes, Roy Harris, Cleveland Williams 2x , Zora Folley, and Albert Westphal. This is an average of two rounds work for Liston.

Louis and Marciano had trouble with quick boxer types. See the Pastor, Conn, Walcott, LaSstarza, and Charles fights. Liston matched up extremely well vs smaller boxer types. His weight, reach, defense and skills complemented an awesome arsenal of powerful punches. The smaller man had to get past Liston 84” reach and jab, venture in to no man’s land, avoid Liston right on the way in and counter hook to score. Trading with Liston was not an option.

Eddie Machen was a very good boxer type. He had good movement, a slick defense, and a better chin than the boxer types who gave Marciano and Louis fits. Yet Machen was simply powerless vs Liston.

Can you see how dominate a prime Liston was? He matched up well with up punchers, swarmers and boxers. How many other all time greats can say that? Liston’s weakness was lack of speed vs a bigger and faster boxer type, and questionable intangibles that could be brought into play vs fighters who could survive the first few rounds and mark him up.

A. I think Liston's resume is more than a bit behind Louis'. Here is a comparision of Liston's whole career with Louis' resume prior to his fight with BRADDOCK! with the highest Ring Magazine rating any opponent ever achieved down to the position of #5 contender:
Liston:
Champion--Patterson
1. Valdes, Folley, Machen
2.
3.
4. Williams, Harris
5.
Louis:
Champion--Carnera, Baer, Sharkey
1.
2. Pastor
3. Uzcudun, Levinsky, Poreda
4. Retzlaff, Toles
5.
So, before he wins the championship at 23, Louis has ko'd three champions to Liston's one for his career, and beaten 9 top 5 men, eight by ko, to Liston's 6, five by ko, for his career. Louis still has 26 victories in championship fights ahead of him, and a few more wins as an ex-champ. There really is no comparision. The best you could say is that you might consider Patterson about on par with the best of Louis' opponents, which I have my doubts about, but the width and depth of resume is not in the same league.

Yes, Louis lost to Schmeling, but Liston lost to Marshall.

B. Liston matched up well with smaller boxer types. Who knows? Only Machen, and perhaps Harris, could even be viewed this way. Harris was fairly ordinary and was stopped twice by the slow moving Bob Cleroux. Machen, and also, John Summerlin twice, went the distance with Liston.
As for Marciano and Louis having trouble with quick boxers, Louis knocked out Conn, Pastor, and Walcott--Marciano ko'd Walcott, Charles, and LaStarza. Liston did not knock out Machen, nor Summerlin.

Of that list of contenders you posted, Frankie Daniels, Albert Westphal, and Julio Mederos were never in the Ring's yearly ratings. Hunter was a fringe contender-old Valdes, Williams, Bethea, Harris, and Folley, are a fairly impressive run, but why not mention that Whitehurst, every bit as good as Mederos, Westphal, and Daniels, twice went 10 with Liston at his peak, and Machen went 12, or that guys like Cab, DeJohn, Besmanoff, and Howard King lasted more rounds than the men you mentioned?

[janitor]

A. I think Liston's resume is more than a bit behind Louis'. Here is a comparision of Liston's whole career with Louis' resume prior to his fight with BRADDOCK! with the highest Ring Magazine rating any opponent ever achieved down to the position of #5 contender:
Liston:
Champion--Patterson
1. Valdes, Folley, Machen
2.
3.
4. Williams, Harris
5.
Louis:
Champion--Carnera, Baer, Sharkey
1.
2. Pastor
3. Uzcudun, Levinsky, Poreda
4. Retzlaff, Toles
5.
So, before he wins the championship at 23, Louis has ko'd three champions to Liston's one for his career, and beaten 9 top 5 men, eight by ko, to Liston's 6, five by ko, for his career.

If Joe Louis fell under the weels of a model T ford the day before he was due to fight Jimmy Bradock you could still make a case for him as an all time great heavyweight.

[McGrain]

ps. This 'all the best fighters he fought beat him' argument is quite weak. You could say the same things about most fighters: the best two fighters Frazier fought beat him 4 out of 5. Louis didn't do so great against the best three he fought neither: Marciano, Walcott (I) and Charles, even though he was past his best (so was Tyson vs Lewis).


This is a bold and interesting claim and I thought I would give it another look. Here's what I got using my own top 10 list and looking at the three top encounters for that fighter. "3" isn't totally random in selection, it's the number of times Tyson took on guys on my list which was what the original point was about.

I'm interested in the version of the fighter that the great fought, which is why, for example, Liston does not appear on Ali's list.

Anyway:

1 - Ali v ........Frazier(L) Holmes (L) Frazier III (W)............ 1-2

2 - Louis v ....Waclott I (W) Walcott II (W) Marciano (L)... 2-1

3 - Liston v... Ali II (L) Ali I (L) Patterson II (W)................1-2

4 - Lewis v ....Hollyfield I (D) Hollyfield II (W) Klitschko (W) 2-0-1

5 - Johnson v. Langford (W) McVea (W) McVea (W)...........3-0

6 - Jeffries v.. Corbett (W) Fitzimmons (W) Johnson (L)......2-1

7 - Frazier v... Ali (W) Ali (L) Ali (L).................................1-2

8 - Hollyfield v. Lewis (D) Lewis (L) Tyson (W)..................1-1-1

9 - Tyson v.... Lewis (L) Hollyfield (L) Hollyfield (L).............0-3

10-Holmes v... Tyson (L) Hollyfield (L) Norton (W)..............1-2



So a lot of these guys do have winning records against the best they took on, though there are some surprises as MDWC suggested. Overall my list of the greatest champs won 14 lost 14 drew 2, which is about as close to balanced as you can get.

Anyway, a lot of this is subjective, any thoughts?

[McGrain]

Just because he couldn't survive adversity against Holyfield doesn't mean any ATG HW could pull off Holys gameplan. Especial to a prime version

Also many ATGs may not get past the first 6 against Tyson

I actually agree with all of this. Tyson/Louis, for example (my#2) is pretty close to 50/50 in my eyes and if Tyson won it could well be early. I can't offer higher praise than that. But if Louis is dropped twice in round one the fight is still live in my opinion - if Tyson is dropped twice in round one I'd say that fight is as good as over. Would you agree?

[McGrain]

1. Yes but again its not Tysons fault no one could put him in adversity in his prime. And sometimes theres a fine line between very good and great and a very good fighter may give you a harder fight than a great fighter based on styles.

But the weakness that was later exposed in Tyson was mental. It seems unlikely to me that this weakness was "born" in Tyson post prime. It would be far harder to expose in a prime Tyson - because he had those incredible physical attributes. But my opinion is that mental weakness exsisted even then, and a great fighter could always have exposed it (unless your opinion is that Tyson would destroy every fighter he came up against).

Would you agree or disagree?

2. Actually no, Tyson didn't just collapse and go into a shell when he go hit. He kept coming forward but just wasn't as relentless as Holyfield at that stage of their careers.

But what is he able to achieve? What do Tyson's mental attributes mean for his physical abilities in situations like these?

Maybe Holy would always be too relentless for him.

Certainly this is my feeling.

Styles make fights and Tyson wouldn't have had as much of a problem with Bowe, Ruiz and Moorer like Holyfield did.

I agree.

My position on Tyson: he could be outgamed and he could be outboxed. Top 5 is to high for him for this reason.

In spite of this it is still fair to pick him over great fighters like Louis and Dempsey because he is such an incredible physical package.

[McGrain]

Douglas didn't? Not a tip top Tyson but don't tell us that technically it wasn't his prime. Very much his prime, regardless of whether his peak had been cut short.

Your point is entirely valid. Tyson was indeed in his physicl prime.

But he wasn't at peak. It's reasnable, in my view, to ignore that fact when appraising the Douglas win - after all it was Tyson's own fault he had past peak, no one elses - but it is not my position.

[JohnThomas1]

Your point is entirely valid. Tyson was indeed in his physicl prime.

But he wasn't at peak. It's reasnable, in my view, to ignore that fact when appraising the Douglas win - after all it was Tyson's own fault he had past peak, no one elses - but it is not my position.

Totally agree. I am the first to proclaim it wasn't an in form sound Tyson, but the sheer facts are that he was in his prime. Absolutely. Tyson burnt unbelievably bright, but for a medium length of time.

[Marciano Frazier]

A. I think Liston's resume is more than a bit behind Louis'. Here is a comparision of Liston's whole career with Louis' resume prior to his fight with BRADDOCK! with the highest Ring Magazine rating any opponent ever achieved down to the position of #5 contender:
Liston:
Champion--Patterson
1. Valdes, Folley, Machen
2.
3.
4. Williams, Harris
5.
Louis:
Champion--Carnera, Baer, Sharkey
1.
2. Pastor
3. Uzcudun, Levinsky, Poreda
4. Retzlaff, Toles
5.
So, before he wins the championship at 23, Louis has ko'd three champions to Liston's one for his career, and beaten 9 top 5 men, eight by ko, to Liston's 6, five by ko, for his career. Louis still has 26 victories in championship fights ahead of him, and a few more wins as an ex-champ. There really is no comparision. The best you could say is that you might consider Patterson about on par with the best of Louis' opponents, which I have my doubts about, but the width and depth of resume is not in the same league.

Yes, Louis lost to Schmeling, but Liston lost to Marshall.

B. Liston matched up well with smaller boxer types. Who knows? Only Machen, and perhaps Harris, could even be viewed this way. Harris was fairly ordinary and was stopped twice by the slow moving Bob Cleroux. Machen, and also, John Summerlin twice, went the distance with Liston.
As for Marciano and Louis having trouble with quick boxers, Louis knocked out Conn, Pastor, and Walcott--Marciano ko'd Walcott, Charles, and LaStarza. Liston did not knock out Machen, nor Summerlin.

Of that list of contenders you posted, Frankie Daniels, Albert Westphal, and Julio Mederos were never in the Ring's yearly ratings. Hunter was a fringe contender-old Valdes, Williams, Bethea, Harris, and Folley, are a fairly impressive run, but why not mention that Whitehurst, every bit as good as Mederos, Westphal, and Daniels, twice went 10 with Liston at his peak, and Machen went 12, or that guys like Cab, DeJohn, Besmanoff, and Howard King lasted more rounds than the men you mentioned? Excellent post. Liston has a small collection of impressive wins, but his overall body of work is nowhere near Marciano's or especially Louis', and he was ultimately lackluster when he had the chance to really put himself on their level, or at least not to disgrace himself the way he did both times out.

[mcvey]

I think there were a lot of Big fights that changed hands of the title that were not easy fights. Duran/Buchanan was a rough struggle but Duran went on to be #1 in lightweight ATG's. Marciano vs Walcott was a tough title exchange and went on to be an ATG. and there were many. I too believe the 1st Ali/Liston fight was one of Ali's best and Foreman was the 2nd best win. Trilla in Manilla was good but it was not the same Frazier as in the 1st bout, it may have not been the same Ali as in 1st fight but Frazier went downhill faster and worse than Ali. The 2nd Liston fight was a DIVE if there ever was one and anyone that doubts that is proberly a wrestling fan. Liston quit on his stool in the 1st fight with a shoulder injury but I think he was getting outboxed and it was Ali's greatest fight. Tyson did not give up in the Douglas fight something left him when Douglas got up from the KD, strangely it repeated again in the Holyfield fight,Lewis,Williams, and quit again with McBride. Duran quit in the 2nd Leonard fight but it was strange because the man stayed in with Puncher Barkley and Hagler after that event with SRL. There was something suspect about Liston and Ali brought it out of him. Sometimes fighters grow from that kind of humbling loss sometimes they dont
Good Post!

[PowerPuncher]

1 - Ali v ........Frazier(L) Holmes (L) Frazier III (W)............ 1-2

2 - Louis v ....Waclott I (W) Walcott II (W) Marciano (L)... 2-1

3 - Liston v... Ali II (L) Ali I (L) Patterson II (W)................1-2

4 - Lewis v ....Hollyfield I (D) Hollyfield II (W) Klitschko (W) 2-0-1

5 - Johnson v. Langford (W) McVea (W) McVea (W)...........3-0

6 - Jeffries v.. Corbett (W) Fitzimmons (W) Johnson (L)......2-1

7 - Frazier v... Ali (W) Ali (L) Ali (L).................................1-2

8 - Hollyfield v. Lewis (D) Lewis (L) Tyson (W)..................1-1-1

9 - Tyson v.... Lewis (L) Hollyfield (L) Hollyfield (L).............0-3

10-Holmes v... Tyson (L) Hollyfield (L) Norton (W)..............1-2?

Nice Analysis BUT BUT BUT I would argue top 4-5 fighters should be used (AS LONG AS THEY ARE ELITE) to make it more fairer and look at who really won. (Maybe we shouldnt include when the fighter was shot either)

1. Ali (Liston, Patterson, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes) 5-2

2. Louis (Schmelling, Sharkey, Walcott, Charles, Marciano) should be 3-3 (Walcott really won the first)

3. Liston (Ali/Patterson) - 2-2

4. Lewis (Holyfield/Klitchko/Tyson) - 4-0

5. Johnson (Jeffries/Langford/McVey/Jeanette) - can't remember all these series but think he lost to Jeanette

6. Jeffries - 2-1

7. Frazier - (Ali/Foreman) 1-3

8. Holyfield (Tyson/Bowe/Lewis) - 2-4

9. Tyson (Holmes/Lewis/Holyfield) - 1-2

10. Holmes (Tyson/Holyfield) - 0-2 (you can't count a Parkisons Syndrome Ali as an elite win as Ali was the most shot champ/challenger ever)

11. Dempsey (Tunney/Sharkey) - 1-2

So do we take from this analysis Lennox Lewis is the GOAT and Dempsey, Tyson and Holmes are sub-great HWs? :hey

[PowerPuncher]

If Joe Louis fell under the weels of a model T ford the day before he was due to fight Jimmy Bradock you could still make a case for him as an all time great heavyweight.

Yes Louis would have KO'd the Ford and still beaten Bradock the next day with ease BUT if he'd died hmm lets think

Would he have been that much more than an Ike Ibeauchi figure

Sharkey, Baer and Carnera are great wins no doubt but would he crack the top 20 HWs? With the unavenged Schmelling loss, probably not quite.

[PowerPuncher]

I actually agree with all of this. Tyson/Louis, for example (my#2) is pretty close to 50/50 in my eyes and if Tyson won it could well be early. I can't offer higher praise than that. But if Louis is dropped twice in round one the fight is still live in my opinion - if Tyson is dropped twice in round one I'd say that fight is as good as over. Would you agree?

I agree with your fight anlysis of Tyson best chance of winning. Actually I think Tysons chances go up if Tyson if dropped in the first it may increase his chances of winning because it may go straight into a toe-toe war and I'd expect Tyson to win.

To win Louis would need to give a calculated beating, pounching on eras, countering with right hands when Tysons in mid range following by pushing Tyson on the back foot with the jab and right and concentrating on the right hand and 1-2s. I think throwing left hooks against Tyson and letting the fight get into mid range is something Louis should avoid at all costs.

A bigger weakness Tyson had was he didn't have much of a plan B if his initial plan failed. He had to be coming forward, throwing more shots, pressuring. It is harder for a shorter smaller reach fighter to have a good plan B

Tysons weaknesses became larger as he aged. He just wasn't as good as he aged.

And the amount of determination he had went down after 1988. Once you've acheived everything in the sport, you may never have the huge amount of determination you had prior to achieving the pinnacle. The drop in motivation had to be at an all time low against McBride, yes Tyson was shot BUT he could have won that fight if he really pushed himself, he just had no desire to push himself that extra mile against Mcbride that he did have against say Rudduck/Bruno. I suppose you could compare it to sleeping with Halle Berry and then having a chance to pull a fat girl at the club, you just don't have the same desire or desperation you once had.

[PowerPuncher]

1. But the weakness that was later exposed in Tyson was mental. It seems unlikely to me that this weakness was "born" in Tyson post prime. It would be far harder to expose in a prime Tyson - because he had those incredible physical attributes. But my opinion is that mental weakness exsisted even then, and a great fighter could always have exposed it (unless your opinion is that Tyson would destroy every fighter he came up against).

Would you agree or disagree?

2. But what is he able to achieve? What do Tyson's mental attributes mean for his physical abilities in situations like these?

3. My position on Tyson: he could be outgamed and he could be outboxed. Top 5 is to high for him for this reason.

In spite of this it is still fair to pick him over great fighters like Louis and Dempsey because he is such an incredible physical package.

1. Disagree, as mentioned when you've achieved everything in the sport, its hard to motivate yourself to go and take yoru body to the limit again. 'When you sleep in silk sheets its hard to get out of bed and run at 5 in the morning'.

Also Tysons mental problems in fights are over-emphasised. If he had limitless stamina, the mental would be a none issue.

2. Again Tyson isn't near his physical best post-1991. Would Tyson crack under pressure - he didn't crack against Holyfield in fight 1, he just got beat. He cracked in the rematch though no doubt.

3. I know its a controversal pick having Tyson top5 but I'm picking based on Tysons sheer dominance and excellence (the way he won) of performance on what I consider very good opposition. What he achieved from 1986-1990 is huge, his legacy thereafter is declined but has very good wins. The fact you also pick him over other ATGs shows you do agree peak Tyson achieved a level of excellence that few have ever matched.

Could prime Tyson be outboxed? Yes but by very few, nearly every fighter can be outboxed, his boxing ability over his pressure/power is underrated however.

[OLD FOGEY]

Nice Analysis BUT BUT BUT I would argue top 4-5 fighters should be used (AS LONG AS THEY ARE ELITE) to make it more fairer and look at who really won. (Maybe we shouldnt include when the fighter was shot either)

1. Ali (Liston, Patterson, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes) 5-2

2. Louis (Schmelling, Sharkey, Walcott, Charles, Marciano) should be 3-3 (Walcott really won the first)

3. Liston (Ali/Patterson) - 2-2

4. Lewis (Holyfield/Klitchko/Tyson) - 4-0

5. Johnson (Jeffries/Langford/McVey/Jeanette) - can't remember all these series but think he lost to Jeanette

6. Jeffries - 2-1

7. Frazier - (Ali/Foreman) 1-3

8. Holyfield (Tyson/Bowe/Lewis) - 2-4

9. Tyson (Holmes/Lewis/Holyfield) - 1-2

10. Holmes (Tyson/Holyfield) - 0-2 (you can't count a Parkisons Syndrome Ali as an elite win as Ali was the most shot champ/challenger ever)

11. Dempsey (Tunney/Sharkey) - 1-2

So do we take from this analysis Lennox Lewis is the GOAT and Dempsey, Tyson and Holmes are sub-great HWs? :hey

I notice you leave off Marciano, but if he is considered (not unfair if you are considering Dempsey & Jeff, after all) he would be something like 6-0 (Louis, Charles, Walcott, Moore)

[PowerPuncher]

I notice you leave off Marciano, but if he is considered (not unfair if you are considering Dempsey & Jeff, after all) he would be something like 6-0 (Louis, Charles, Walcott, Moore)

Yep forgot Marciano, indeed he is 6-0 or 5-0 though, because I don't know if Moore qualifies as elite. Where is Moore as an all time HW? I don't think he quite makes top50 tbh, but would be open to some

In raw win-loss stats marciano will always comes out on top ofcourse

[Dempsey1238]

I belive Moore was elite, He did become the top contender after all and was mostly chaseing Marciano for that title shot.

[PowerPuncher]

I belive Moore was elite, He did become the top contender after all and was mostly chaseing Marciano for that title shot.

He was a top contender for his time but who did he beat at HW that made him an elite HW? Valdes? I think Moore would struggle to make the top60 HWs of all time on the back of his HW resume

Especially when Holmes conquerer Spinks isn't counted as an elite HW win for Tyson

[Marnoff]

Head to Head I consider him exceedingly dangerous.

[Mendoza]

Mendoza says: I think Liston's resume of wins is a bit behind Louis' and Marciano's. However, Liston did KO Patterson twice via 1st round KO! Patterson is on the level with the best fighters Louis and Marciano beat. I think Patterson is as nearly as good or slightly better than Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Charles, and Moore. Patterson defeated Moore.

In truth, Louis lost to Schemling, and had major league problems with Walcott. I do beleive Walcott won the first fight with Louis. Maricano had to fight tooth and nail to defeat Walcott and Charles.

I tend to doubt Liston would have any issues with Schemling, Walcott, Charles, or Moore. He was simply too much for them. Perhaps Baer has a chance, though his skills were rather average.

The thing to focus on with Liston is, he blew away a good, but not great collection of contenders with shocking ease.

Liston required only twenty rounds in ten fights to finish off the following contenders:: Billy Hunter, Julio Mederos, Wayne Bethea, Frankie Daniels, Nino Valdes, Roy Harris, Cleveland Williams 2x , Zora Folley, and Albert Westphal. This is an average of two rounds work for Liston.

Louis and Marciano had trouble with quick boxer types. See the Pastor, Conn, Walcott, LaSstarza, and Charles fights. Liston matched up extremely well vs smaller boxer types. His weight, reach, defense and skills complemented an awesome arsenal of powerful punches. The smaller man had to get past Liston 84” reach and jab, venture in to no man’s land, avoid Liston right on the way in and counter hook to score. Trading with Liston was not an option.

Eddie Machen was a very good boxer type. He had good movement, a slick defense, and a better chin than the boxer types who gave Marciano and Louis fits. Yet Machen was simply powerless vs Liston.

Can you see how dominate a prime Liston was? He matched up well with up punchers, swarmers and boxers. How many other all time greats can say that? Liston’s weakness was lack of speed vs a bigger and faster boxer type, and questionable intangibles that could be brought into play vs fighters who could survive the first few rounds and mark him up.

A. I think Liston's resume is more than a bit behind Louis'. Here is a comparision of Liston's whole career with Louis' resume prior to his fight with BRADDOCK! with the highest Ring Magazine rating any opponent ever achieved down to the position of #5 contender:
Liston:
Champion--Patterson
1. Valdes, Folley, Machen
2.
3.
4. Williams, Harris
5.
Louis:
Champion--Carnera, Baer, Sharkey
1.
2. Pastor
3. Uzcudun, Levinsky, Poreda
4. Retzlaff, Toles
5.
So, before he wins the championship at 23, Louis has ko'd three champions to Liston's one for his career, and beaten 9 top 5 men, eight by ko, to Liston's 6, five by ko, for his career. Louis still has 26 victories in championship fights ahead of him, and a few more wins as an ex-champ. There really is no comparision. The best you could say is that you might consider Patterson about on par with the best of Louis' opponents, which I have my doubts about, but the width and depth of resume is not in the same league.

Yes, Louis lost to Schmeling, but Liston lost to Marshall.

B. Liston matched up well with smaller boxer types. Who knows? Only Machen, and perhaps Harris, could even be viewed this way. Harris was fairly ordinary and was stopped twice by the slow moving Bob Cleroux. Machen, and also, John Summerlin twice, went the distance with Liston.
As for Marciano and Louis having trouble with quick boxers, Louis knocked out Conn, Pastor, and Walcott--Marciano ko'd Walcott, Charles, and LaStarza. Liston did not knock out Machen, nor Summerlin.

Of that list of contenders you posted, Frankie Daniels, Albert Westphal, and Julio Mederos were never in the Ring's yearly ratings. Hunter was a fringe contender-old Valdes, Williams, Bethea, Harris, and Folley, are a fairly impressive run, but why not mention that Whitehurst, every bit as good as Mederos, Westphal, and Daniels, twice went 10 with Liston at his peak, and Machen went 12, or that guys like Cab, DeJohn, Besmanoff, and Howard King lasted more rounds than the men you mentioned?

Mendoza: It seems to me that Liston was far more dominant in the ring than Marciano or Louis were, especially vs boxer types. I don't seem much room for debate here.

While Marciano and Louis had better " name " wins, Sharkey, and Carnera were on the decline when Louis beat them, just as Charles was on the decline when Marciano beat him.

Machen had a much better chin than the fighters who marked up, or stunned Louis and Marciano. And unlike Conn, Chalres, Lastarza, Pastor, and Walcott who were at one point up on points or even with Louis and Marciano, Liston owned Machen. I'm not sure if Charles or Walcott were really that much better as heavyweight in comparison to Machen and Folley. If you look at the ring records as heavyweights, perhaps I am right. However, Walcott and Charles were more famous heavyweights. Patterson in my opinion was near even or sight better than Walcott or Charles. It’s a toss up, yet Sonny bltized Patterson twice, while Walcott and Charles who were a bit past their best gave Marciano and Louis hell.

Whitehurst was a very good journeyman. Liston was a few seconds of knocking him out. Indeed- Liston knocked Whitehurst out of the ring, and had him dazed in the final round. Extend the fight another few seconds, or give it another rounds and it’s a KO win for Liston. As for Summerlin, Liston unlike Marciano was not a protected fighter early. He fought tough guys out of the gate. MArciano didn't have many tough tests early. If Rocky fights Summerlin ealry, he might win, lose or draw.

In closing, while Louis and Marciano beat better fighters, I think Sonny looked better in many of his wins.

[OLD FOGEY]

Yep forgot Marciano, indeed he is 6-0 or 5-0 though, because I don't know if Moore qualifies as elite. Where is Moore as an all time HW? I don't think he quite makes top50 tbh, but would be open to some

In raw win-loss stats marciano will always comes out on top ofcourse

Yes, you seem to be listing champions, so Marciano should be 5-0.

[OLD FOGEY]

Mendoza says: I think Liston's resume of wins is a bit behind Louis' and Marciano's. However, Liston did KO Patterson twice via 1st round KO! Patterson is on the level with the best fighters Louis and Marciano beat. I think Patterson is as nearly as good or slightly better than Schmeling, Baer, Walcott, Charles, and Moore. Patterson defeated Moore.

In truth, Louis lost to Schemling, and had major league problems with Walcott. I do beleive Walcott won the first fight with Louis. Maricano had to fight tooth and nail to defeat Walcott and Charles.

I tend to doubt Liston would have any issues with Schemling, Walcott, Charles, or Moore. He was simply too much for them. Perhaps Baer has a chance, though his skills were rather average.

The thing to focus on with Liston is, he blew away a good, but not great collection of contenders with shocking ease.

Liston required only twenty rounds in ten fights to finish off the following contenders:: Billy Hunter, Julio Mederos, Wayne Bethea, Frankie Daniels, Nino Valdes, Roy Harris, Cleveland Williams 2x , Zora Folley, and Albert Westphal. This is an average of two rounds work for Liston.

Louis and Marciano had trouble with quick boxer types. See the Pastor, Conn, Walcott, LaSstarza, and Charles fights. Liston matched up extremely well vs smaller boxer types. His weight, reach, defense and skills complemented an awesome arsenal of powerful punches. The smaller man had to get past Liston 84” reach and jab, venture in to no man’s land, avoid Liston right on the way in and counter hook to score. Trading with Liston was not an option.

Eddie Machen was a very good boxer type. He had good movement, a slick defense, and a better chin than the boxer types who gave Marciano and Louis fits. Yet Machen was simply powerless vs Liston.

Can you see how dominate a prime Liston was? He matched up well with up punchers, swarmers and boxers. How many other all time greats can say that? Liston’s weakness was lack of speed vs a bigger and faster boxer type, and questionable intangibles that could be brought into play vs fighters who could survive the first few rounds and mark him up.



Mendoza: It seems to me that Liston was far more dominant in the ring than Marciano or Louis were, especially vs boxer types. I don't seem much room for debate here.

While Marciano and Louis had better " name " wins, Sharkey, and Carnera were on the decline when Louis beat them, just as Charles was on the decline when Marciano beat him.

Machen had a much better chin than the fighters who marked up, or stunned Louis and Marciano. And unlike Conn, Chalres, Lastarza, Pastor, and Walcott who were at one point up on points or even with Louis and Marciano, Liston owned Machen. I'm not sure if Charles or Walcott were really that much better as heavyweight in comparison to Machen and Folley. If you look at the ring records as heavyweights, perhaps I am right. However, Walcott and Charles were more famous heavyweights. Patterson in my opinion was near even or sight better than Walcott or Charles. It’s a toss up, yet Sonny bltized Patterson twice, while Walcott and Charles who were a bit past their best gave Marciano and Louis hell.

Whitehurst was a very good journeyman. Liston was a few seconds of knocking him out. Indeed- Liston knocked Whitehurst out of the ring, and had him dazed in the final round. Extend the fight another few seconds, or give it another rounds and it’s a KO win for Liston. As for Summerlin, Liston unlike Marciano was not a protected fighter early. He fought tough guys out of the gate. MArciano didn't have many tough tests early. If Rocky fights Summerlin ealry, he might win, lose or draw.

In closing, while Louis and Marciano beat better fighters, I think Sonny looked better in many of his wins.

How good actually are Folley and Machen?
Folley had 30 fights against heavies rated at one time or another. He went 16-11-3 with 2 knockouts. That is correct. His only two knockouts over a fighter who was ever rated were back to back KO's of Henry Cooper and Mike DeJohn in 1961. He clearly was not much of a punching threat. He defeated five men who were ever rated in the top six heavyweights--Valdes, Machen, Cooper, Jones, Chuvalo, Bonavena. Only Machen and Cooper were actually rated in the top five when he defeated him. His record is long winning streaks against mainly unrated fighters, followed normally by losses in big matches-Cooper in 1958, Liston in 1960, and Terrell in 1963-or disastrous ko defeats-Lavorante in 1961 and Jones in 1962.
Machen couldn't beat Folley, but in many ways seems to have been the better fighter. He went 21-11-2 with 8 knockouts against rated opponents and he beat 7 top five men, mainly fading veterans Valdes, Maxim, Jackson, Baker, and Holman in 1956 & 1957, and the green Quarry in 1966. In retrospect, his most impressive win might be over unbeaten lightheavy Doug Jones in 1962. In big matches against top men he came up short every time, failing twice against Folley, being blown away by Johansson, losing to Liston, Harold Johnson, and Patterson. The failures against Johansson, Folley twice, Liston, and Johnson came in his peak years of 25 to 28. Machen was talented, and had a good left, but an inferior right hand cost him at the highest echelon.

In contrast, Walcott and Charles won major bouts which moved them to the top. Between 1945 and 1947, Walcott earned the #1 contender spot by beating Sheppard, Baksi, Oma, Murray, Bivins, and Ray, all top five men in those years, plus #6 man Gomez and Joey Maxim. Bivins and Ray were the #1 contender when they entered the ring against Walcott. That is a better job of cleaning out the division than Liston did, let alone second-tier come up short types such as Machen and Folley.

Whitehurst might have been fairly tough to knock out, though Moore did it twice.

I don't think Marciano was all that protected. In his second year as a pro, he was in against the tough spoiler Lowry, as well as Muscato, slipping then, but a top ten man in 1948. He fought the rated and undefeated LaStarza in 1950, two years after turning pro. Liston didn't fight a rated heavyweight until 1958. And don't forget that Summerlin and Marshall were heavy underdogs to Liston who were not expected to perform as well as they did.

I want to add that Folley and Machen did do very well with second-tier contenders, which is why they stayed high in the ratings for a long time. Their biggest drawback is consistently failing against
elite opposition. They were the best of the second-tier fighters, not first tier fighters.

[McGrain]

So do we take from this analysis Lennox Lewis is the GOAT and Dempsey, Tyson and Holmes are sub-great HWs? :hey

:lol:

Well...not that I would ever say that Dempsey Tyson and Holmes are sub-great BUT, I do percieve distance between my eight (Hollyfield) and my nine (Tyson) and those below (which includes Holmes (10) and Dempsey (11), so i'm not upset by that idea at all...

As for Lennox being the GOAT...it is not at all scientific, but i'm most interested in who could kick who's ass, or H2H as they say. In that regard I'm happy to see Lennox mixing with the very best of company. That's about as far as i'm willing to go...

[PowerPuncher]

:lol:

Well...not that I would ever say that Dempsey Tyson and Holmes are sub-great BUT, I do percieve distance between my eight (Hollyfield) and my nine (Tyson) and those below (which includes Holmes (10) and Dempsey (11), so i'm not upset by that idea at all...

As for Lennox being the GOAT...it is not at all scientific, but i'm most interested in who could kick who's ass, or H2H as they say. In that regard I'm happy to see Lennox mixing with the very best of company. That's about as far as i'm willing to go...

Come on I want someone to come out and call Lennox GOAT on Classic. I think good arguments can be made in H2H and Legacy. I think its obscene some don't have Lennox in the top10, and Bert 'I know more about cigars than boxing' Sugar has him around 18th :admin

[ChrisPontius]

Many people on this board are smarter and more knowledgeable than Bert Sugar. Even Zakman has Lewis in his top15.

[McGrain]

Many people on this board are smarter and more knowledgeable than Bert Sugar. Even Zakman has Lewis in his top15.


Which is actually a bit random when you consider that he picks anyone who can hit as hard/harder than Rahman to beat him.

[NickHudson]

Lennox as GOAT? :(

Head to Head is debatable, Legacy is a resounding 'No' for my money.

We've covered most of the ground a million times before. But just to take a slight change of tack what are his best 5 opponents (with opponents condition at the time of the Lewis fight taken into account)?

'99 Holyfield (8 years past prime), '92 Ruddock (solid but a perenial bridesmaid)?? Ive honestly got no idea, but I would be interested in other posters opinions? Ray Mercer, Klitchko, Lionel Butler, Noel Quarless (Noel Clueless?)??

I would love to see some debate on these issues, and then a brief comparison to Ali's legacy opponents/victories... 64 Liston (10 year winning streak), 74 Foreman (unbeaten) etc...

(Also, where do the McCall and Rahman debacles come into play Legacy wise, as they are more important here than in the 'best night of their lives' Head to Head rating).

Come on I want someone to come out and call Lennox GOAT on Classic. I think good arguments can be made in H2H and Legacy. I think its obscene some don't have Lennox in the top10, and Bert 'I know more about cigars than boxing' Sugar has him around 18th :admin

[ChrisPontius]

It is funny in 2007 you racist still praise a loser like Marciano but put down various black fighters.I supose Marciano only fighting black fighters if they were pushing 40 or naturally 20 pounds smaller than he was like Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles makes him a god right?He never got in the ring with a true heavyweight who was black.Liston was highly overrated but even so he was still far superior to a slow unskilled cruiserweight joke like Marciano.

You need professional help.

[Luigi1985]

You need professional help.


I think he needs a left hook from me right on his chin...

[mr. magoo]

It is funny in 2007 you racist still praise a loser like Marciano but put down various black fighters.I supose Marciano only fighting black fighters if they were pushing 40 or naturally 20 pounds smaller than he was like Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles makes him a god right?He never got in the ring with a true heavyweight who was black.Liston was highly overrated but even so he was still far superior to a slow unskilled cruiserweight joke like Marciano.

Can you say Troll?

[Luigi1985]

I don´t know why such "objects of dispute" like this "Dave Krieg" just don´t get banned immediately...

[mr. magoo]

I don´t know why such "objects of dispute" like this "Dave Krieg" just don´t get banned immediately...

The problem Luigi is that we give these people the exact kind of attention that they crave. If we all agreed to just ignore these types of posters they'd go away.

Think about this for a moment. What is the number one thing that keeps you or any poster coming back here? I think I know the answer. Its responses from other people. Imagine if you posted for three weeks straight and never got one reply from anyone else. Would you still continue to come to this site?

Therefore I suggest we don't respond anymore to Dave Kreig, Thad Spencer or some of the otehr trolls.

[Luigi1985]

The problem Luigi is that we give these people the exact kind of attention that they crave. If we all agreed to just ignore these types of posters they'd go away.

Think about this for a moment. What is the number one thing that keeps you or any poster coming back here? I think I know the answer. Its responses from other people. Imagine if you posted for three weeks straight and never got one reply from anyone else. Would you still continue to come to this site?

Therefore I suggest we don't respond anymore to Dave Kreig, Thad Spencer or some of the otehr trolls.


That´s right, I always said that in the past, but the problem is, that most posters here answers. Do you remember this "Homicidal Hank"- guy? I extra created a thread that everyone shouldn´t respond to him, than this idiot wouldn´t write here anymore. But most people answered and that´s just what he was waiting for...

[C. M. Clay II]

Let Dave Krieg stay. He can provide entertainment for when the forum get boring sometimes. He's always good for a laugh.:yep

[Luigi1985]

Let Dave Krieg stay. He can provide entertainment for when the forum get boring sometimes. He's always good for a laugh.:yep

He would be better as a punchingbag for my training IMO...

[Luigi1985]

Here, for SuzieQ49 for example, ridiculous to rank Sonny that high... (2nd best HW ever or 3rd best)

[McGrain]

I have him at three, too :D

[Luigi1985]

I have him at three, too :D


:D

But just answer me one question: Let´s take Lennox Lewis as an example, how can Liston be placed over him? I mean, Lewis resume is far better, and also head-to-head he would be more dangerous...

[McGrain]

:D

But just answer me one question: Let´s take Lennox Lewis as an example, how can Liston be placed over him? I mean, Lewis resume is far better, and also head-to-head he would be more dangerous...

I have Lewis at #4. I agree that Liston has the better resume, but I disagree with you that Lewis is more dangerous h2h. I would say that your man, Marciano, has a better chance against Lewis than Liston (who I think is the wrong man for Rocky) because of Lewis' slight chin problem (exaggerated but for real).

Do you see what I mean? ATG power punchers have a chance v Lewis because of punch resistance, Liston's chin seems solid.

[Luigi1985]

I have Lewis at #4. I agree that Liston has the better resume, but I disagree with you that Lewis is more dangerous h2h. I would say that your man, Marciano, has a better chance against Lewis than Liston (who I think is the wrong man for Rocky) because of Lewis' slight chin problem (exaggerated but for real).

Do you see what I mean? ATG power punchers have a chance v Lewis because of punch resistance, Liston's chin seems solid.


Liston´s chin was solid, agreed. But also far away from great IMO. The C. Williams-fights don´t count for me, because Liston destroyed him quick both times and Williams didn´t land something heavy, and Williams KO-record is misleading, he KO´d only 2 good opponents. Liston was also sometimes hurt by mediocre hitting fighters, Lewis head-to-head would be more dangerous IMO, because he had a good combination of skills, size, power, etc....

[Quick Cash]

Concentrating on head-to-head ability (which is the proper way to rank fighters, in my opinion):

1.) Ali
2.) Louis
3.) Holmes
4.) Lewis
5.) Liston

Sonny is my gatekeeper, and is actually considered by me as a big favorite against my fourth all-time pick Lennox Lewis. By my estimation, no other boxer in the latter portion of the top ten can best Liston in a heavyweight contest.