How many does Liston win vs...

[Mendoza]

With all this talk about Liston being over rated I wanted to air out this question. If Liston had one match vs the ten following fighters, how many would he win?

The fighters are: Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, Holyfield, and Lewis.

[Marciano Frazier]

I went with four. I could really see anywhere from about 2 to 6, though- there are a number of guys in there who I think he could pretty much go either way against

[PowerPuncher]

I went for 3 but maybe 4 - Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier

[McGrain]

He could win all of them, though in reality that's pretty unlikely. There are plenty of tight squeezes in there and he would be almost bound to lose one or three.

[Bigcat]

I say he would have been very competetive in around 7 , but win 5 at a push.. Joe Louis would have made a hamburger out of Sonny , just purely because Joe was so powerful with quick short punches.. Liston would have needed space to compete succesfully but Joe would have just closed him down and crowded his space..

Foreman would have just slammed at Sonny and when Sonny was a fresh young gun , he would have just doubled up his jab and made George tired and outworked. Sonnys easiest fight of the bunch..

Joe Frazier would have found Sonny too much to contain, in this case , you can't just beat fire with fire..

[Senya13]

7

[ChrisPontius]

I went with four. I could really see anywhere from about 2 to 6, though- there are a number of guys in there who I think he could pretty much go either way against

I had 4 as well.

I think he should be favored over Johnson, Dempsey, Frazier and Marciano, although i wouldn't be suprised if one of Dempsey, Frazier and Marciano beats him. I would give Marciano the best chance of those, because he seems most durable and is a bit less predictable than the other two. I don't see Johnson beating him, though.

[Mendoza]

I picked 7.

[Stonehands89]

Against Johnson over 15, he'd win because Johnson's style was not designed for 15 against a modern fighter of Liston's caliber.

Liston is too physically powerful and skilled for Dempsey, Marciano, and yes, Louis. Louis has him on speed, and skill, but not by much there. Louis's problem is Liston's jab and strength at any distance.

Ali is favored here, prime for prime.

Foreman would be stopped late after fading. Liston can outbang him or outbox him in my estimation and I see him using both approaches.

Frazier would be demolished.

Holyfield would make a great stand, but he has to be expected to war with Liston and that won't work. Holyfield's beautiful strategy against Tyson fails against Liston and Holyfield did have problems with superior strength. Again, Liston matches Holyfield's skill and that jab would be a serious problem for Evander who would eat it often. Holyfield's left ventricle may be noncompliant by round 4.

Tyson admitted that he had no answer for the Liston jab and Liston had the style to destroy smaller guys who relied on forward motion.

Lewis is only slightly unfavored here. I think that Liston is twice Mercer in terms of skill and stamina. I've always held that Liston is the strongest of the HW champs. However, Lewis's size and patient disposition would help him.

I have him favored over 9. I pressed 10 by accident.

[ChrisPontius]

Stonehands, fair post but i wonder why you think Liston would outmuscle Louis but such a large margin?
Liston was 6'0 or 6'0 1/2 and Louis 6'2. Liston weighed 204-212lb in his prime, Louis 199-207lb. So in size there's not much between them.
Now, Louis has beaten more big men and better big men. So what makes you think he'd be in a world of trouble because of Liston's strength?

How much of a favorite do you consider Liston to be over Louis, 2 to 1 ?

[rydersonthestorm]

I don't think liston would beat lewis,ali,louis or dempsey, i could see him having trouble with a few other but i reckon he beats the other 6 most of the time. I also think larry holmes would beat liston but he aint on the list.

[JohnThomas1]

Stonehands, fair post but i wonder why you think Liston would outmuscle Louis but such a large margin?
Liston was 6'0 or 6'0 1/2 and Louis 6'2. Liston weighed 204-212lb in his prime, Louis 199-207lb. So in size there's not much between them.
Now, Louis has beaten more big men and better big men. So what makes you think he'd be in a world of trouble because of Liston's strength?

How much of a favorite do you consider Liston to be over Louis, 2 to 1 ?

I think Sonny would be a hard fight for Louis, but no-one gonna rate him 1-2. No man in history can be afforded even close to these odds vs Joe Louis.

[Stonehands89]

Stonehands, fair post but i wonder why you think Liston would outmuscle Louis but such a large margin?
Liston was 6'0 or 6'0 1/2 and Louis 6'2. Liston weighed 204-212lb in his prime, Louis 199-207lb. So in size there's not much between them.
Now, Louis has beaten more big men and better big men. So what makes you think he'd be in a world of trouble because of Liston's strength?

How much of a favorite do you consider Liston to be over Louis, 2 to 1 ?

Liston's weight struck me as deceptive as a measure of his strength. He was thick and cabled and had a physically that was leaden. I don't know if you have boxed before, but there are some guys who have an unusual amount of strength that defies their weight. I would sense it or feel it inside early and would adjust my strategy based on that. I'm no weakling -at 150lbs I was benching 245, but was no match for these types in terms of strength. One of them, a ex. MW contender couldn't bench more than 200lbs but it didn't matter. Watching Liston's films and reading accounts over the years convinced me that he epitomized this theory.

Louis' strength was not close to Liston's -especially during his prime years. He could be moved with ease and I have always questioned his durability (ex. Conn). I do think Louis got stronger as he aged.

The big men that Louis beat were not nearly as formidable as later incarnations of big men. Buddy Baer, Primo, Abe Simon --these were uncoordinated oafs. Buddy put him down. Walcott put him down. Galento, Conn (at 169 lbs), and even Tami Mauriello (who was about 195lbs) staggered him.

I am a fan of Louis -don't get me wrong and go back and forth between Ali and him as to who is the best HW ever. But Liston strikes me as far beyond anything he ever faced because of the combination of asset he brought -durability like Rocco, good skill, murderous jab, physicality, a great chin. Louis isn't going to "box and move" and lacked the height, size and strength to jam with him.

That being said, when examining everyone's chances against Liston, I put 1967 Ali at the top because he is the only one favored against 1959 Liston. Lewis strikes me as the next likely, though not favored, followed by Louis. I'd give Lewis a 45% chance and Louis a bit less of a chance here.

[ChrisPontius]

Liston's weight struck me as deceptive as a measure of his strength. He was thick and cabled and had a physically that was leaden. I don't know if you have boxed before, but there are some guys who have an unusual amount of strength that defies their weight. I would sense it or feel it inside early and would adjust my strategy based on that. I'm no weakling -at 150lbs I was benching 245, but was no match for these types in terms of strength. One of them, a ex. MW contender couldn't bench more than 200lbs but it didn't matter. Watching Liston's films and reading accounts over the years convinced me that he epitomized this theory.

Louis' strength was not close to Liston's -especially during his prime years. He could be moved with ease and I have always questioned his durability (ex. Conn). I do think Louis got stronger as he aged.

The big men that Louis beat were not nearly as formidable as later incarnations of big men. Buddy Baer, Primo, Abe Simon --these were uncoordinated oafs. Buddy put him down. Walcott put him down. Galento, Conn (at 169 lbs), and even Tami Mauriello (who was about 195lbs) staggered him.

I am a fan of Louis -don't get me wrong and go back and forth between Ali and him as to who is the best HW ever. But Liston strikes me as far beyond anything he ever faced because of the combination of asset he brought -durability like Rocco, good skill, murderous jab, physicality, a great chin. Louis isn't going to "box and move" and lacked the height, size and strength to jam with him.

That being said, when examining everyone's chances against Liston, I put 1967 Ali at the top because he is the only one favored against 1959 Liston. Lewis strikes me as the next likely, though not favored, followed by Louis. I'd give Lewis a 45% chance and Louis a bit less of a chance here.

Yes i have, and indeed some people have a natural strength, i'm not saying that Liston doesn't have it. But i also noticed that it's very hard to overcome when the opponent has far faster hands and won't let you get your punches off. This is one advantage that Louis has, so it evens things out for me. But of course it's subjective.

[Street Lethal]

Ali obviously beats him (because Ali is peerless). Foreman presents a serious challenge, and I so picked Foreman. But I favor Liston against the others.

[janitor]

The answer in short is that he could beat them individualy but nobody could beat all of them.

Johnson,
Hard to say really based on the available data. I can imagine scenarios where either man wins.

At the end of the day we do not have the minutia of Johnsons style.

Dempsey,
50/50 fight simple as that. Both these guys are wrecking machines and would play into eachothers hands.

Louis,
I favour Louis here. He basicaly dose everything Liston dose a bit better and much faster.

A Liston win is certainly not out of the question though.

Marciano,
I favour Liston here for stylistic reasons.

If Marciano somehow wins it will be like the Leotis Martin fight with a batered Marciano coming from behind to win.

Ali,
I do not think that it is out of the question that a focused Liston beats the greatest but I do not expect it.

Frazier,
Liston wins for the same reason that a young Joe Frazier was steered clear of an old Sonny Liston.

Foreman,
Liston wins this. He has the right tools to exploit all Foremans technical weakneses.

Tyson,
Liston for stylistic reasons.

Holyfield,
Holyfield puts up a brave fight but dose not have the tools to win.

Lewis
I favour Liston but a Lewis win is not particularly improbable.

So Liston in my opinion is 6-2-2 vs this group. If you want to know more about my reasoning behind any pick ask me and I will give you the rundown

[OLD FOGEY]

I had 4 as well.

I think he should be favored over Johnson, Dempsey, Frazier and Marciano, although i wouldn't be suprised if one of Dempsey, Frazier and Marciano beats him. I would give Marciano the best chance of those, because he seems most durable and is a bit less predictable than the other two. I don't see Johnson beating him, though.

Dempsey, Frazier, and Marciano will all fight him out of a crouch and get inside. Who did Liston fight who fought anything like that style?
He would have to jab downward and that might leave him vulnerable to a right cross from Dempsey or Marciano who had big rights.

Interestingly, I remember an article written in the early 1960's in Sport Magazine by Dempsey in which he predicted that Liston would not hold the championship a long time as many expected. Dempsey felt that Liston was very vulnerable to overhand rights and his chin was somewhat overrated.

[ChrisPontius]

Dempsey, Frazier, and Marciano will all fight him out of a crouch and get inside. Who did Liston fight who fought anything like that style?


Floyd Patterson, who got annihilated twice.

Of course, Marciano, Dempsey and Frazier are clearly a class above Patterson in durability as well as power, but i still think they would be looking at a bad matchup in which i would not favor them. If would give Marciano the best chance of them, 40/60.


By the way, what lead Dempsey to believe Liston's chin was overrated in the 60's? And who landed many overhand rights on him or why did he conclude that?

[OLD FOGEY]

The answer in short is that he could beat them individualy but nobody could beat all of them.

Johnson,
Hard to say really based on the available data. I can imagine scenarios where either man wins.

At the end of the day we do not have the minutia of Johnsons style.

Dempsey,
50/50 fight simple as that. Both these guys are wrecking machines and would play into eachothers hands.

Louis,
I favour Louis here. He basicaly dose everything Liston dose a bit better and much faster.

A Liston win is certainly not out of the question though.

Marciano,
I favour Liston here for stylistic reasons.

If Marciano somehow wins it will be like the Leotis Martin fight with a batered Marciano coming from behind to win.

Ali,
I do not think that it is out of the question that a focused Liston beats the greatest but I do not expect it.

Frazier,
Liston wins for the same reason that a young Joe Frazier was steered clear of an old Sonny Liston.

Foreman,
Liston wins this. He has the right tools to exploit all Foremans technical weakneses.

Tyson,
Liston for stylistic reasons.

Holyfield,
Holyfield puts up a brave fight but dose not have the tools to win.

Lewis
I favour Liston but a Lewis win is not particularly improbable.

So Liston in my opinion is 6-2-2 vs this group. If you want to know more about my reasoning behind any pick ask me and I will give you the rundown

I would favor Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, and Lewis, Ali for obvious reasons and the others because of their big overhand rights.
I favor Holyfield because of a superior chin and mobility.
Tyson is interesting, but at his peak he was much faster and had more proven heavy guns. I think he slips that long jab and gets in an overhand right.
Johnson--I see him as much quicker, and styles have changed, but Johnson wins because of superior stamina. Under Johnson's rules, I strongly pick Johnson as I think he would drag this one into the later rounds.
Foreman--I take Liston here, because of much greater skill. Foreman impresses me as being too wide open.
Frazier--I would rate this one about even. Frazier would be the favorite if he had a good right. Liston fought no one with close to this style, but Frazier looked too vulnerable against the heavy hitting Foreman.

[OLD FOGEY]

Floyd Patterson, who got annihilated twice.

Of course, Marciano, Dempsey and Frazier are clearly a class above Patterson in durability as well as power, but i still think they would be looking at a bad matchup in which i would not favor them. If would give Marciano the best chance of them, 40/60.


By the way, what lead Dempsey to believe Liston's chin was overrated in the 60's? And who landed many overhand rights on him or why did he conclude that?

Liston is stunned on film by Whitehurst. The fight Dempsey referred to was a Howard King fight in Miami. Dempsey describes King as crossing a right over Liston's jab and sending Liston reeling across the ring against the ropes. Dempsey, who was at ringside, thought Liston was badly hurt and could have been finished, but King was so surprised he did nothing. Dempsey went on to predict Liston would go suddenly from a right cross and everyone would be shocked. This did happen in the second Ali fight.

By the way, I don't see Patterson's style as being much like Dempsey, Marciano, or Frazier,
respectively. I don't remember seeing him use a deep crouch.

[brooklyn1550]

I have him over 7 - Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, Foreman, Frazier, Tyson, and Holyfield. He could even be as high as 8 or 9.

[ChrisPontius]

Liston is stunned on film by Whitehurst. The fight Dempsey referred to was a Howard King fight in Miami. Dempsey describes King as crossing a right over Liston's jab and sending Liston reeling across the ring against the ropes. Dempsey, who was at ringside, thought Liston was badly hurt and could have been finished, but King was so surprised he did nothing. Dempsey went on to predict Liston would go suddenly from a right cross and everyone would be shocked. This did happen in the second Ali fight.

By the way, I don't see Patterson's style as being much like Dempsey, Marciano, or Frazier,
respectively. I don't remember seeing him use a deep crouch.

The second Ali fight was most likely a fight thrown by Liston, for reasons we will never know. It's one of the worst acting jobs you'll see and i don't think many people here besides you thought it was a legit KO.


Patterson came forward going low and trying to land the hook often. He's not a carbon copy of Dempsey/Marciano/Frazier, but still. I mean, even Dempsey and Frazier have very different styles if you go deep enough. But they all came forward and went low.

[McGrain]

Louis,
I favour Louis here. He basicaly dose everything Liston dose a bit better and much faster.

Let's hear a little bit more about this one (i see it as 50/50 ish) with a lean on how Louis would do v the Liston Jab.

Tyson,
Liston for stylistic reasons.

And a little bit about this pick would be good too.

[C. M. Clay II]

By the way, I don't see Patterson's style as being much like Dempsey, Marciano, or Frazier,
respectively. I don't remember seeing him use a deep crouch.

Well, in that case, neither did Frazier.:good

[Ted Spoon]

Liston painted a lovely picture during his prime, one that has given his fans a super strong belief in his ability against men he would have no bearing for, the very best that is.

It's easy to assume and ultimately a popular decision that Liston would take out Frazier, for instance, but think about how this opinion is being formed. Was Liston anything like Foreman and how would Liston handle Frazier's heat?

Frazier faced big punchers and he took big punches - Foreman beat him with a style that ensured he was hung, drawn and quartered. The scrappy, chance taking, clutch, push and uppercut operation was the perfect antidote to Frazier’s marauding ways - Liston does not have the same program, at all.

Liston was strong, well educated; a specimen, but much like Tyson fans do, you’ll gaze too far into his armoury without double checking his wiring.

Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, and Lennox Lewis were unique and elite fighters. They would each offer Liston a bunch of questions, many of which he would simply not know the answer for and it'd be game over somewhere along the line.

Ted Spoon finds that predicted Liston victories are often off of the basis of his physical stature and neat destructive resume - it says he had tremendous ability, not the power to steam roll equally potent, unknown quantities. Too suggest that any of these ‘smaller’ men are simply out-gunned is a bland and illogical stance. A Jack Johnson clinch, a whipping Dempsey hook on the jaw, Louis’ huge speed advantage, Lewis’ combination of strength speed, and fundamentals...What is the result?

Much of what sums up Liston would not apply here. He is not going to tee-off combinations on a weaving Dempsey like he did Williams, nor would he bully a lively Holyfield like he did Machen.

Now lets slow things down; Liston would come away with some scalps as he was a true force in the history’s division, but he’d have to fight for most and he’d lose a good share.

[OLD FOGEY]

Well, in that case, neither did Frazier.:good

Yes. That is true. I just watched the complete second fight with Johansson. Patterson never used a deep crouch or a deep bob--I mean bobbing so his head is at waist level.
Marciano stayed in the crouch quite a bit, and also now and then did a deep bob.
Dempsey did the deep bob. I think in the case of Dempsey and Frazier, if you had a computer do a graphic in which all the viewer saw was the lines of the body moving up and down, it would probably be rather hard to tell the two apart. Marciano would also bog deep some, but would tend to move more side to side in a crouch.
Patterson, I think, is different. He stands much straighter, uses only a modified bob, and I don't remember him ever going into a deep crouch.
He also relied on the left jab. None of the other three threw it very much. Against Johansson, Patterson seemed willing to accept the jab or at least block it with the gloves. He used his own jab on Ingo much more than I remember Dempsey, Marciano, or Frazier even trying.

I'm going to try to view the two Liston fights as soon as I get time.

Bottom line--off what I saw against Johansson, Patterson has less head movement than the other three.

[OLD FOGEY]

The second Ali fight was most likely a fight thrown by Liston, for reasons we will never know. It's one of the worst acting jobs you'll see and i don't think many people here besides you thought it was a legit KO.


Patterson came forward going low and trying to land the hook often. He's not a carbon copy of Dempsey/Marciano/Frazier, but still. I mean, even Dempsey and Frazier have very different styles if you go deep enough. But they all came forward and went low.

If the St Louis police records of 1950 are correct, Liston was 38 years old at the time of this fight. He got caught with a quick right which he never saw.

There are simularities, but Patterson tends to be much more upright and to box more. I guess the question with Patterson is whether he had the chin to really be effective against big hitters. Charles and Walcott were much better at moving side to side and at quick retreats than Patterson.

[brownpimp88]

The answer in short is that he could beat them individualy but nobody could beat all of them.

Johnson,
Hard to say really based on the available data. I can imagine scenarios where either man wins.

At the end of the day we do not have the minutia of Johnsons style.

Dempsey,
50/50 fight simple as that. Both these guys are wrecking machines and would play into eachothers hands.

Louis,
I favour Louis here. He basicaly dose everything Liston dose a bit better and much faster.

A Liston win is certainly not out of the question though.

Marciano,
I favour Liston here for stylistic reasons.

If Marciano somehow wins it will be like the Leotis Martin fight with a batered Marciano coming from behind to win.

Ali,
I do not think that it is out of the question that a focused Liston beats the greatest but I do not expect it.

Frazier,
Liston wins for the same reason that a young Joe Frazier was steered clear of an old Sonny Liston.

Foreman,
Liston wins this. He has the right tools to exploit all Foremans technical weakneses.

Tyson,
Liston for stylistic reasons.

Holyfield,
Holyfield puts up a brave fight but dose not have the tools to win.

Lewis
I favour Liston but a Lewis win is not particularly improbable.

So Liston in my opinion is 6-2-2 vs this group. If you want to know more about my reasoning behind any pick ask me and I will give you the rundown
How does he do against larry holmes?

[ChrisPontius]

If the St Louis police records of 1950 are correct, Liston was 38 years old at the time of this fight. He got caught with a quick right which he never saw.



At the film of Williams-Liston, Liston is said to be 26; at the fight film of Liston-Clay I he is said to be 29. According to most encyclopedia's, he is born in 1932 making him 32 for the Clay fight, which seems accurate to me.


But aside from that, don't you think it looks like a high school grade acting job when he rolls over ?

[OLD FOGEY]

At the film of Williams-Liston, Liston is said to be 26; at the fight film of Liston-Clay I he is said to be 29. According to most encyclopedia's, he is born in 1932 making him 32 for the Clay fight, which seems accurate to me.


But aside from that, don't you think it looks like a high school grade acting job when he rolls over ?

Ok--that is because he needed a birth certificate to box. So he went to the records office and got one, testifying to his own birth date. His gave his birthyear as 1932. There were many poor and backward areas of the United States back in the 1920's and even later where births were at home and unattended by a physician.

In January, 1950, Sonny was arrested and booked by the St Louis police. His age on the booking sheet was given as 22, making his probable birth year 1927.

That Sonny was much older than his official listed age was widely believed in boxing circles at the time. Jersey Jones, in the Ring Magazine obituary of Liston in the April, 1971, issue, wrote:
"Whether he was 38, or 44, as most boxing authorities believe him to be, . . ."

In his autobiography, THE DEVIL AND SONNY LISTON, author Nick Tosches devotes several pages to Liston's age, including testimony from Foneda Cox, his closest friend, who believed Liston was older than himself. Cox was born in 1929. Liston listed May 8 as his birthday and Pine Bluff as his place of birth. His mother publicly disputed both. She said he was born on a very cold day in January and she was never in Pine Bluff in her life. One problem with the birth certificate year is Sonny did not stick to it himself. In 1960, he claimed to have been born in 1933. Later the year was moved to 1934.
Howard Cosell and Liston joke on a newsreel about his growing younger, mentioning Jack Benny, a famous comedian of the day who had a running joke of claiming because of vanity as always being 39 even when he was in his seventies.

The HBO documentary SONNY LISTON: THE MYSTERIOUS LIFE AND DEATH OF A CHAMPION, also concludes he was born sometime in the late 1920's.

Let me say that you must remember that many areas of the United States back then, especially rural areas, were extremely poor and backward. Liston himself could not read. I don't know, but probably his mother couldn't. If you can not and do not read the newspaper and do not have a radio or anything else you can be pretty cut off from the world and I am not certain you would need to keep track of what year it is. I remember a white man from the Ozarks who was interviewed on television back in the late fifties by the comedian Groucho Marx. He did not know what year it was nor who the president was. He was not, by the way, mentally defective and could express himself well. He just lived so far out in the sticks he was cut off.

[ChrisPontius]

But Liston himself did not know how old he was, either.
How reliable is the police report in 1950? Did they spend much time or cared about how old just another "misbehaving black man" was?

For each age you will be able to find a source that says he was that old. That his best friend said he was younger than Liston does not prove anything either; some people reach maturity much faster than others (both in mental and physical ways), there's no way to tell how old someone is within more than 4 years precision, especially past puberty.

If you look at Liston's fighting weight then you will see it gradually going up from barely scaling 200 pounds in 1953 to 213lb against Floyd Patterson in 1963. He then goes up to around 220lb between '66 and '70.

If you ask me, this is exactly the way most heavyweights fill out in weight between their 20's and 30's (1953-1963 200lb to 213lb) and past their 30's (up to 220+lb in the late 60's).



I will admit that how slow and ponderous Liston looks does support your theory that he was that old. But he might always have been that slow.
After that he goes

[Mendoza]

But Liston himself did not know how old he was, either.
How reliable is the police report in 1950? Did they spend much time or cared about how old just another "misbehaving black man" was?

For each age you will be able to find a source that says he was that old. That his best friend said he was younger than Liston does not prove anything either; some people reach maturity much faster than others (both in mental and physical ways), there's no way to tell how old someone is within more than 4 years precision, especially past puberty.

If you look at Liston's fighting weight then you will see it gradually going up from barely scaling 200 pounds in 1953 to 213lb against Floyd Patterson in 1963. He then goes up to around 220lb between '66 and '70.

If you ask me, this is exactly the way most heavyweights fill out in weight between their 20's and 30's (1953-1963 200lb to 213lb) and past their 30's (up to 220+lb in the late 60's).

I will admit that how slow and ponderous Liston looks does support your theory that he was that old. But he might always have been that slow.
After that he goes


I have Sonny's fights on DVD. He was faster pre Ali for sure. The post Ali Liston was even slower. Even in his youth, Sonny was never fast handed. His hand speed was average at best. This is not to say Liston could not hit quick moving targets. His technique and accuracy were good, and his reach seemed to be about half the ring.

Regarding Sonny's age, information on a census taken when he was a child might help...assuming his family gave the correct information.

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]Let's hear a little bit more about this one (i see it as 50/50 ish) with a lean on how Louis would do v the Liston Jab.


Louis and Liston do a lot of similar things. A matchup between two fighters of this type tends to come down to who has the fastest hands. Whether the fight unfolds as a jabfest or a mid range afair Louis will tend to beat Liston to the punch and this would be the critical factor.


And a little bit about this pick would be good too


On the Tyson match up I tend to favour Liston because Tyson will be coming forward. Liston knew how to fight on the back foot and would likley give Tyson just enough room to hang himself.

Another factor worth taking into acount is that Liston was verry good on the inside and it is hard to say how Tyson would handel this if it became a factor.

[janitor]

How does he do against larry holmes?

I think that he would probably finish what Earnie Shavers started.

Holmes might be ahead on the score cards when it hapened but I think that Liston would get him eventualy.

[Stonehands89]

Regarding Sonny's age, information on a census taken when he was a child might help...assuming his family gave the correct information.

Two years ago, the 1930 U.S. Census became public. In Sand Slough, Arkansas, there is no child in the Liston household listed as "Charles". These are pretty exhaustive and it does diminish the chances that Charles was any older than 34 when he faced Clay. The 1940 census is due to go public in 2015.

Arkansas may have a local census conducted more often....

[Stonehands89]

I think that he would probably finish what Earnie Shavers started.

Holmes might be ahead on the score cards when it hapened but I think that Liston would get him eventualy.

Your analysis of Liston's chances against the HW champions are fairly congruent with mine. Although I would dispute the Louis choice that you and Pontius favor.

Holmes' has a better chance than most -but I don't favor him either.

[Holmes' Jab]

I'd take Liston to beat: Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier and Foreman

Close calls: Holyfield, Tyson and Lewis

Liston loses against: Ali and Louis

[Mendoza]

The results of the poll are interesting. We have the full spectrum of opinions on ten different choices. 35 posters have voted to date.

[OLD FOGEY]

Two years ago, the 1930 U.S. Census became public. In Sand Slough, Arkansas, there is no child in the Liston household listed as "Charles". These are pretty exhaustive and it does diminish the chances that Charles was any older than 34 when he faced Clay. The 1940 census is due to go public in 2015.

Arkansas may have a local census conducted more often....

This does seem to be the best evidence I have seen so far.

I managed to find that. I didn't realize the 1930 census was out. His immediate older brother Curtis was born in 1929, so he was born sometime in the early thirties.
Either way, he got knocked out in 1965.

[Marciano Frazier]

The results of the poll are interesting. We have the full spectrum of opinions on ten different choices. 35 posters have voted to date. I would note the biggest cluster of votes is in the 3-5 range.

[Mendoza]

I would note the biggest cluster of votes is in the 3-5 range.

Yes. So far. However 15 posters think Liston wins 7,8,9, or 10 matches. The leading number so far is for 7 matches. I wonder if any other heavyweight would have this type of spread at the top and the bottom?

[OLD FOGEY]

Yes. So far. However 15 posters think Liston wins 7,8,9, or 10 matches. The leading number so far is for 7 matches. I wonder if any other heavyweight would have this type of spread at the top and the bottom?

It does answer the question of who is the most overrated.

[Maxmomer]

If would give Marciano the best chance of them, 40/60.
why's that?

[Stonehands89]

It does answer the question of who is the most overrated.

I rebuke that notion.

It's heard out here all the time, most notably by Spoon. I think it is too casual an assertion and it is careless as well. It begs the question of objectivity. Liston was a "thug" -a real one, not a fake one like Tyson and these shithead rappers polluting American culture with bravado. Liston was bad and many civilized intelligent people disdained him because they feared what he represented. I only ask that we remain open-minded in looking at boxers who with unlikable personalities.

In fact, in head-to-head competition, I am forced by objective reasoning to place Liston atop the biggest hill of vanguished hypothetical ex-champs. Ali is second. My arguments in defense of this admittedly controversial position have been noted before.

The problem with the detractors is a preoccupation with his brief reign and a failure to consider the context of his controversial connections, bad luck, and age. Spoon's arguments are just not very strong. You profess that he was KOd in 1965 as if that is any kind of meaningful measure. Spoon questions his wiring and makes the silly assertion that his heart was Tysonesque. That is crap.

Liston was an owned man. The strings attached to his career were held in formidable hands and Liston did as he was told. What happened in Maine has overwhelming evidence that, though circumstantial, cannot be dismissed. Someone asserted that Liston simply didn't see the shot from Ali. That is laughable. Liston wasn't stopped until he was about 39 years old (Martin) and was more of a functional drunk than a formidable destroyer. -And even in that fight, he was looking pretty damn good before the boom got dropped. Have you read Wepner's account of his fight with Liston?

During his prime years, Liston was also avoided. He had earned a title shot earlier than he got it and everyone knew it; he was forced to clean out the division to force Floyd's conscience. Meanwhile, he was getting older.

If you are considering hypothetical match-ups, it is right to look at two things first and foremost: strength and style. The record comes second... which is why I chose Pavlik to KO Taylor despite that clear fact that Taylor had faced far superior competition.

An objective anaysis of Liston's strength forces the conclusion that he was more of a complete HW than almost anyone before or after him. Listing his strengths would take far less time than listing his weaknesses... I see one, average speed. He could be a bit predictable as well, although usually he was predictably dominant.

[ChrisPontius]

why's that?

Because Marciano is, in my opinion, more durable than Frazier and Dempsey. Liston seems to be very good at blocking the left hook which puts Frazier at a big disadvantage whereas Marciano can come with the overhand right, uppercut or any other weird punch that he threw. Dempsey i think has fought pretty bad opposition and when he had better opponents he either struggled (Sharkey, Firpo) or lost (Tunney). I don't think he can overwhelm Liston nor outbox him over the distance, whereas i can see Marciano breaking Liston down over the distance. I can also imagine Frazier doing this, but i'm concerned he doesn't make it out of the early rounds.

[Marciano Frazier]

Yes. So far. However 15 posters think Liston wins 7,8,9, or 10 matches. The leading number so far is for 7 matches. I wonder if any other heavyweight would have this type of spread at the top and the bottom? That could be an interesting experiment- as long as we don't overdo it(ie. spamming the whole front page with it), perhaps we could run a few similar threads with other champions.

[Stonehands89]

That could be an interesting experiment- as long as we don't overdo it(ie. spamming the whole front page with it), perhaps we could run a few similar threads with other champions.

It was done with the HWs about a year or so ago and was the best thread out here in my estimation.

It's interesting in that the conclusions drawn from real inspections can be surprising. I rank Liston very low in terms of greatness in a HW champion but at the top in this way.

[Mendoza]

That could be an interesting experiment- as long as we don't overdo it(ie. spamming the whole front page with it), perhaps we could run a few similar threads with other champions.

Will do. I'll author some. After the Liston thread dies down, I'll do another poll like this outside of the heavyweight divison.

[OLD FOGEY]

I rebuke that notion.

It's heard out here all the time, most notably by Spoon. I think it is too casual an assertion and it is careless as well. It begs the question of objectivity. Liston was a "thug" -a real one, not a fake one like Tyson and these shithead rappers polluting American culture with bravado. Liston was bad and many civilized intelligent people disdained him because they feared what he represented. I only ask that we remain open-minded in looking at boxers who with unlikable personalities.

In fact, in head-to-head competition, I am forced by objective reasoning to place Liston atop the biggest hill of vanguished hypothetical ex-champs. Ali is second. My arguments in defense of this admittedly controversial position have been noted before.

The problem with the detractors is a preoccupation with his brief reign and a failure to consider the context of his controversial connections, bad luck, and age. Spoon's arguments are just not very strong. You profess that he was KOd in 1965 as if that is any kind of meaningful measure. Spoon questions his wiring and makes the silly assertion that his heart was Tysonesque. That is crap.

Liston was an owned man. The strings attached to his career were held in formidable hands and Liston did as he was told. What happened in Maine has overwhelming evidence that, though circumstantial, cannot be dismissed. Someone asserted that Liston simply didn't see the shot from Ali. That is laughable. Liston wasn't stopped until he was about 39 years old (Martin) and was more of a functional drunk than a formidable destroyer. -And even in that fight, he was looking pretty damn good before the boom got dropped. Have you read Wepner's account of his fight with Liston?

During his prime years, Liston was also avoided. He had earned a title shot earlier than he got it and everyone knew it; he was forced to clean out the division to force Floyd's conscience. Meanwhile, he was getting older.

If you are considering hypothetical match-ups, it is right to look at two things first and foremost: strength and style. The record comes second... which is why I chose Pavlik to KO Taylor despite that clear fact that Taylor had faced far superior competition.

An objective anaysis of Liston's strength forces the conclusion that he was more of a complete HW than almost anyone before or after him. Listing his strengths would take far less time than listing his weaknesses... I see one, average speed. He could be a bit predictable as well, although usually he was predictably dominant.

The point of these head to head is that they are only opinions-and they have two flaws:
1. They are totally unsubstantiated opinion
2. I notice that normally one picks a few bouts at his own guys peak and then tears down the opposition on the basis of much longer top-level performances. We had a classic of this with Liston and Louis where one poster kept bringing up Louis' loss to Schmeling. Louis was two years into his pro career and 22 years old. Could Liston in 1955 have beaten Schmeling? I doubt it, and I don't think anyone has any proof he could. So claims that Liston would do better are based on a peak Liston, but a peak Louis slaughtered Schmeling in one erasing the whole point.

Your reasoning is no more or less objective than anyone elses. And spare the psychobabble about why someone might not concur with Liston sweeping the top ten heavies in history. Their reason might be that they just don't see him as being quite as overpowering as you do. Personally, I find Liston the most interesting and sympathetic of heavyweight champions. That does not mean he is the best.

You rate Liston "on top of the hill" over even Ali, who badly defeated him twice. Ali was green in 1964. He clearly improved later, but Liston lost badly in 1964. Even in 1960 he was unable to catch the not nearly as fast moving Machen. I don't see him ever catching a top Ali.

As for his detracters focusing on his brief reign. I would focus more on Liston only defeating three men, Folley, Machen, and Patterson, who were rated in the top five when he fought them. All lost to others at their peak at about the same time Liston beat them--Patterson was ko'd by Johansson, Folley beaten by Cooper, and ko'd by Lavorante and Jones, Machen ko'd by Johansson, and outpointed by Folley and Johnson.

I would say there is just too wide a gap between his accomplishments and the level some are putting him at, as a likely winner over Ali, Louis, or Lewis, especially. With Lewis, for example, Liston was ko'd at 37 by the ordinary Martin. At 38, Lewis defeated the much, much bigger and more skilled Vitali Klitschko.

I have just been watching Liston on film, to refresh my memory, and I must say his supporters have one good point. He is more impressive on film than his resume would lead one to think.
I must say, though, that Patterson is far less so. Patterson seems to be neither fish nor fowl as a heavyweight. He did not have good enough movement to box to top standard, and neither his chin, nor perhaps even his punch, were strong enough to justify the swarming style of a Dempsey or Marciano or Tyson. I know Patterson had crushing knockouts of Moore, Johansson, and Cooper, but more often than not he went a long way with decent heavyweights. Jackson, Harris, London, Machen, Chuvalo, Quarry twice, Ellis, and Bonavena all went ten or more. Johansson and Cooper, moreover, were not noted for having good chins.

[OLD FOGEY]

Floyd Patterson, who got annihilated twice.

Of course, Marciano, Dempsey and Frazier are clearly a class above Patterson in durability as well as power, but i still think they would be looking at a bad matchup in which i would not favor them. If would give Marciano the best chance of them, 40/60.


By the way, what lead Dempsey to believe Liston's chin was overrated in the 60's? And who landed many overhand rights on him or why did he conclude that?

I just watched Patterson against Liston and he did bob much more than he did against Johansson or any other of his fights which I have seen. I know it sounds silly, but he did pretty well making Liston miss for a minute and a half or so, then stood up straight as Liston knocked him out with a couple of hooks. I have to apologize, as I guess Floyd did try to be a bob and weaver. Frankly, though, Patterson did not have the chin, and he did not show much early power in most of his fights at heavyweight. I think punchers like Louis, Dempsey, Tyson, and Marciano would be an entirely different kettle of fish for Liston.

[Stonehands89]

The point of these head to head is that they are only opinions-and they have two flaws:
1. They are totally unsubstantiated opinion
Wrong. The good ones are based on informed opinion, and informed opinion is formed on patterns observed, styles observed, and objectivity.

2. I notice that normally one picks a few bouts at his own guys peak and then tears down the opposition on the basis of much longer top-level performances. We had a classic of this with Liston and Louis where one poster kept bringing up Louis' loss to Schmeling. Louis was two years into his pro career and 22 years old. Could Liston in 1955 have beaten Schmeling? I doubt it, and I don't think anyone has any proof he could. So claims that Liston would do better are based on a peak Liston, but a peak Louis slaughtered Schmeling in one erasing the whole point.
Well, those that offer selective examples that bolster their man and tear down the other are not objective are they.

Perhaps you read selective posts --I think that most posts have sense enough to take each man at their peak and hypothesize from there.

Your reasoning is no more or less objective than anyone elses. And spare the psychobabble about why someone might not concur with Liston sweeping the top ten heavies in history. Their reason might be that they just don't see him as being quite as overpowering as you do. Personally, I find Liston the most interesting and sympathetic of heavyweight champions. That does not mean he is the best.
I am as objective as I can be and if I am not, I admit it --and others out here will attest to that. You will not read many opinions out here from me that are not backed up by argument.

At the same time, others make no bones about their bias -and if you are paying attention out here you could name them. You're coming off like an old fogey.

The psychobabble you accuse me of was not about why he isn't ranked higher, it was about the threat that society -both black and white found in him. The NAACP did not want Floyd to fight Liston for the title. Pscyhobabble? Try historical fact.

You rate Liston "on top of the hill" over even Ali, who badly defeated him twice. Ali was green in 1964. He clearly improved later, but Liston lost badly in 1964. Even in 1960 he was unable to catch the not nearly as fast moving Machen. I don't see him ever catching a top Ali.
You misunderstood the post. I said that when you take all of the HW champs and have each man fight his peers, Liston would have the best record in my (informed) opinion. Ali is second. Also, If you have been reading what I have written, you would have read that I don't believe that Liston should be favored against Ali, prime for prime.

Anyway, you state that Ali was green in 1964 and say nothing about Liston's age in 1964. Someone needs an objectivity check.

As for his detracters focusing on his brief reign. I would focus more on Liston only defeating three men, Folley, Machen, and Patterson, who were rated in the top five when he fought them. All lost to others at their peak at about the same time Liston beat them--Patterson was ko'd by Johansson, Folley beaten by Cooper, and ko'd by Lavorante and Jones, Machen ko'd by Johansson, and outpointed by Folley and Johnson.

I would say there is just too wide a gap between his accomplishments and the level some are putting him at, as a likely winner over Ali, Louis, or Lewis, especially. With Lewis, for example, Liston was ko'd at 37 by the ordinary Martin. At 38, Lewis defeated the much, much bigger and more skilled Vitali Klitschko.
Again, Liston does not have the greatest scalps in HW history. You need to look at what his strengths were in the ring, how he dealt with different styles, and his level of skill. Styles make fights, indeed, and although it is true that Liston had some trouble with speed and particularly large men with demon speed, he could handle swarmers, punchers, and boxers.

I have just been watching Liston on film, to refresh my memory, and I must say his supporters have one good point. He is more impressive on film than his resume would lead one to think.
---this has been the crux of what I've been saying! What took you so long?

[OLD FOGEY]

Wrong. The good ones are based on informed opinion, and informed opinion is formed on patterns observed, styles observed, and objectivity.


Well, those that offer selective examples that bolster their man and tear down the other are not objective are they.

Perhaps you read selective posts --I think that most posts have sense enough to take each man at their peak and hypothesize from there.


I am as objective as I can be and if I am not, I admit it --and others out here will attest to that. You will not read many opinions out here from me that are not backed up by argument.

At the same time, others make no bones about their bias -and if you are paying attention out here you could name them. You're coming off like an old fogey.

The psychobabble you accuse me of was not about why he isn't ranked higher, it was about the threat that society -both black and white found in him. The NAACP did not want Floyd to fight Liston for the title. Pscyhobabble? Try historical fact.


You misunderstood the post. I said that when you take all of the HW champs and have each man fight his peers, Liston would have the best record in my (informed) opinion. Ali is second. Also, If you have been reading what I have written, you would have read that I don't believe that Liston should be favored against Ali, prime for prime.

Anyway, you state that Ali was green in 1964 and say nothing about Liston's age in 1964. Someone needs an objectivity check.


Again, Liston does not have the greatest scalps in HW history. You need to look at what his strengths were in the ring, how he dealt with different styles, and his level of skill. Styles make fights, indeed, and although it is true that Liston had some trouble with speed and particularly large men with demon speed, he could handle swarmers, punchers, and boxers.


---this has been the crux of what I've been saying! What took you so long?

see below

[OLD FOGEY]

Wrong. The good ones are based on informed opinion, and informed opinion is formed on patterns observed, styles observed, and objectivity.


Well, those that offer selective examples that bolster their man and tear down the other are not objective are they.

Perhaps you read selective posts --I think that most posts have sense enough to take each man at their peak and hypothesize from there.


I am as objective as I can be and if I am not, I admit it --and others out here will attest to that. You will not read many opinions out here from me that are not backed up by argument.

At the same time, others make no bones about their bias -and if you are paying attention out here you could name them. You're coming off like an old fogey.

The psychobabble you accuse me of was not about why he isn't ranked higher, it was about the threat that society -both black and white found in him. The NAACP did not want Floyd to fight Liston for the title. Pscyhobabble? Try historical fact.


You misunderstood the post. I said that when you take all of the HW champs and have each man fight his peers, Liston would have the best record in my (informed) opinion. Ali is second. Also, If you have been reading what I have written, you would have read that I don't believe that Liston should be favored against Ali, prime for prime.

Anyway, you state that Ali was green in 1964 and say nothing about Liston's age in 1964. Someone needs an objectivity check.


Again, Liston does not have the greatest scalps in HW history. You need to look at what his strengths were in the ring, how he dealt with different styles, and his level of skill. Styles make fights, indeed, and although it is true that Liston had some trouble with speed and particularly large men with demon speed, he could handle swarmers, punchers, and boxers.


---this has been the crux of what I've been saying! What took you so long?

1. On Ali over Liston--I was responding to the direct quote of Liston rating at the top of the hill not the post of two days earlier which frankly I no longer remembered. You did say back then that Ali would beat Liston. I apologize for being mistaken.

2. Objectivity--Well, you brought it up by criticizing Ted Spoon, and by implication myself, with "it begs the question of objectivity." Gas about observed patterns and objectivity means nothing because there is no pattern to be objective about. Who did Liston fight who compares as a puncher to Tyson? Who was as big and skilled as Lewis? Holyfield fought men who were bigger than Liston and who punched extremely hard. Who did Liston fight who was both as big and as skilled as Holyfield? An arguement that he blew away the weak-jawed 189 lb Patterson, so therefore he blows away Holyfield or Tyson or Lewis is just not convincing.

3. On the point about psychobabble-where is Liston necessarily underrated. In the 2000 poll by the AP to rate the best heavies of the century, he was #7. Ring Magazine rated him #7 in their 1999 yearbook. Nor was he underrated in his own time. He was favored over Patterson and Ali, 7-1 against Ali, and even 7-5 in the second fight, which I think was kind of nuts. Liston has an interesting back story and like others with an interesting back story, such as Dempsey, he is more likely to be overrated than underrated.

4. How did he deal with different styles? All top fighters met a wide variety of styles. Liston is below average in this regard. His best, and indeed only, top tier victim was Patterson, but Patterson never showed consistent or early power at heavyweight. He scored 18 knockouts in 34 fights after moving into the heavyweight division in 1956 to fight Jackson. He scored only one 1 round knockout at heavy. And Patterson had a shaky jaw. He suffered four crushing stoppages in his prime years of 24 to 30. As the jewel in the Liston resume, he hardly convinces that because Liston handled Patterson; Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano, all of whom had bigger punches and better chins, would follow suit.

5. Patterson aside, what about the rest of Liston's resume. I would say that if Liston had never boxed, and if Ali had never boxed, none of Liston's opponents would still have ever have been champion. Machen lost to Johansson, Folley, Johnson, Patterson, and Terrell in critical fights. Folley lost to Cooper and Terrell, and was stopped by Lavorante and Jones. Williams did stop Terrell in their first fight, but was outpointed in the second. One could argue he might have the best chance, but I think Terrell would most likely have eventually replaced Patterson as champion sometime in the mid-sixties.

6. Liston looks better than his resume--so do a number of other champions, Dempsey, Walcott, Tyson, among others. The problem on judging by film is that Liston was rarely in deep and when he was, he folded rather quickly. It makes it an act of faith to assume he would win against top men who were tougher and more talented than anyone he defeated.

[Stonehands89]

1. On Ali over Liston--I was responding to the direct quote of Liston rating at the top of the hill not the post of two days earlier which frankly I no longer remembered. You did say back then that Ali would beat Liston. I apologize for being mistaken.
Fair enough.

2. Objectivity--Well, you brought it up by criticizing Ted Spoon, and by implication myself, with "it begs the question of objectivity." Gas about observed patterns and objectivity means nothing because there is no pattern to be objective about. Who did Liston fight who compares as a puncher to Tyson? Who was as big and skilled as Lewis? Holyfield fought men who were bigger than Liston and who punched extremely hard. Who did Liston fight who was both as big and as skilled as Holyfield? An arguement that he blew away the weak-jawed 189 lb Patterson, so therefore he blows away Holyfield or Tyson or Lewis is just not convincing.
Did I argue that the Floyd decimation represented anything indicative of anything?

"Gas"? You said that head-to-head hypotheticals have nothing but "unsubstantiated opinion" and I retorted that such a position is simply wrong -observed patterns and objectivity substantiate an opinion. That is pretty plain and easy to understand.

You then proceed to "gas" about Liston's conquests which I conceded long ago are not nearly as formidable as others'. You have either forgotten or have chosen to ignore that I asserted that Liston's strengths and style and skill level should be honestly factored in.

The rest of the paragraph is a study in irrelevance. To wit: who has Dempsey faced that had the jab of Liston? or endurance of Marciano? or the power of Foreman? Who has Louis faced that had the coordination and mobility of Ali? or the relentlessness of Frazier? Who has Marciano faced who has the functional size of Lewis? The adaptability of Holmes? The slicing straight shots of Ali? The strength of Liston?

We can see and raise each other all night with that merry-go-round.

3. On the point about psychobabble-where is Liston necessarily underrated. In the 2000 poll by the AP to rate the best heavies of the century, he was #7. Ring Magazine rated him #7 in their 1999 yearbook. Nor was he underrated in his own time. He was favored over Patterson and Ali, 7-1 against Ali, and even 7-5 in the second fight, which I think was kind of nuts. Liston has an interesting back story and like others with an interesting back story, such as Dempsey, he is more likely to be overrated than underrated.
I said that considering his smarmy reputation and police record, he was likely to be "disdained" and there are posters whose apparant disdain of Liston shades their objectivity.

Liston is getting some credit these days, but how is he generally remembered? --as the guy laid out at the feet of Ali in the famous photograph. The guy who took a dive. The guy who died mysteriously in 1970. Most people never saw film of Liston's reign of terror in the late 50s and early 60s. Even out here where analysts dwell, they can't help but focus on Clay-Liston when discussing him. The Martin fight is thrown about as evidence despite the fact that Liston was old and a wreck by that time.


4. How did he deal with different styles? All top fighters met a wide variety of styles. Liston is below average in this regard. His best, and indeed only, top tier victim was Patterson, but Patterson never showed consistent or early power at heavyweight. He scored 18 knockouts in 34 fights after moving into the heavyweight division in 1956 to fight Jackson. He scored only one 1 round knockout at heavy. And Patterson had a shaky jaw. He suffered four crushing stoppages in his prime years of 24 to 30. As the jewel in the Liston resume, he hardly convinces that because Liston handled Patterson; Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano, all of whom had bigger punches and better chins, would follow suit.
Forget Patterson and look at the whole record. How did he deal with different styles you ask....

Liston could go a solid 10 rounds with a skilled boxer in Machen -and outbox him.

He could outbang a larger slugger in Williams and take monster shots. He stopped Mike DeJohn in 6 and DeJohn was considered up there with Foreman in terms of power by none other than Chuvalo. Chuvalo fought him in deJohn's last fight. Liston got him near prime. He went right through Nino Valdes. Liston dominated punchers.

While green, he could drop a split decision after getting his jaw broken.
Cleveland slammed home monster shots on him and Sonny took it and returned it. That shows heart.

He could do exactly what he should have done against a smaller champion -destroy him. Twice.

He handled boxer-punchers like Summerlin, Henry Clark, and Zora Folley -giving Folley his first KO loss. Folley went on to defeat Cooper, Bonavena, and Chuvalo and was no joke. He knocked out #2 ranked HW contender Roy Harris in 1 round. If my memory serves me well not only Harris, but Folley, Clark, DeJohn, Williams, and Wepner were all HW contenders at some point.

Right after the dive in Maine, he fought Zech, who was a superheavy and rendered him a bleeding mess. Another fringe contender in Amos Lincoln cound't last either. His last fight was against a young Wepner -who was over 6'5- and utterly destroyed them. Liston barely trained for these. Wepner needed 75 stitches in his face and was later quoted "no man should ever have to take this kind of punishment."

Liston can be outboxed by larger men but I find it hard to fathom how Dempsey is going to accept Liston's straighter, more efficent bombs when he got lucky against a cave man named Firpo. Or how Marciano is going to deal with that jab without getting sliced and diced like Wepner. Or how the offensive minded, less physically powerful, and plodding Louis is going to overcome a superior physical speciman with matching skill, a longer jab, and a better chin. I am indulging in Devil's advocacy there, but it is still clear to me thath you are the one making the leap of faith. I would be curious to hear from you how any of the punchers you mention are going to overcome Liston's strengths.

6. Liston looks better than his resume--so do a number of other champions, Dempsey, Walcott, Tyson, among others. The problem on judging by film is that Liston was rarely in deep and when he was, he folded rather quickly. It makes it an act of faith to assume he would win against top men who were tougher and more talented than anyone he defeated.
You are magnifying Maine again. That was a fix, and it is as clear as day to most historians and people who were there.

Liston mirrored Ali's courage against Norton when he fought Marshall by fighting with a broken jaw. Go watch the hell that Williams put him through. Watch him at about 40 years old against Leotis Martin. Liston had plenty of heart. Not alot of luck, but plenty of heart.

I do not see Louis' record of conquests as that much more formidable than Liston's --and I do not see Conn ever hurting Liston. Liston, I believe, went down legitly once when he was about 40.

I think that you are really underestimating Liston and you are justifying it with arguments that are weighed down with selective evidence.

[Muchmoore]

With all this talk about Liston being over rated I wanted to air out this question. If Liston had one match vs the ten following fighters, how many would he win?

The fighters are: Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, Holyfield, and Lewis.

I would favor him over Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, and I dont know about Lewis, Louis, and Holyfield. So 4 at least but with the possibilty of getting a few more than that.

[Ted Spoon]

No assertion about relating Liston and Tyson's substance was made by yours truly.

The point was presented to question the general assertion made by the masses that Liston unquestionably has the 'resources' to deal with the very best of all time.

Now if lesser fellows continue to read Ted Spoon wrong then you'll find it hard to lap-up the fistic elixir of life.

[Stonehands89]

No assertion about relating Liston and Tyson's substance was made by yours truly.

The point was presented to question the general assertion made by the masses that Liston unquestionably has the 'resources' to deal with the very best of all time.

Now if lesser fellows continue to read Ted Spoon wrong then you'll find it hard to lap-up the fistic elixir of life.

Here is what you wrote:
"Liston was strong, well educated; a specimen, but much like Tyson fans do, you’ll gaze too far into his armoury without double checking his wiring."

Seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps, if you exchanged turgid verbalisms for concise statements it would be pretty clear to you too.

~ A "lesser fellow".

[Black Eyes To You]

4 Johnson(who knows, Yes), Dempsey(50/50,no), Louis(not a chance), Marciano(great fight, but no), Ali(been there, no), Frazier(sadly yes), Foreman(no), Tyson(not in his prime, no), Holyfield(great fight, but yes), and Lewis(yes).

*if he fought Holmes* Yes :nod

[Ted Spoon]

Seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps, if you exchanged turgid verbalisms for concise statements it would be pretty clear to you too.

~ A "lesser fellow".

A point was made, not a direct comparison referring to how Tyson fans elevate their mans abilities beyond his actual capabilities.

Liston is in the same basket in the sense he gets people drooling over his tools, but did not underline an aptitude towards churning out sticky situations where he was dragged into deeper waters than usual.

[Stonehands89]

A point was made, not a direct comparison referring to how Tyson fans elevate their mans abilities beyond his actual capabilities.

Liston is in the same basket in the sense he gets people drooling over his tools, but did not underline an aptitude towards churning out sticky situations where he was dragged into deeper waters than usual.

The insinuation you made was clear, it's not being a direct comparison was never disputed. The statement stands.

It is difficult to place a measurable value on "aptitude towards churning out sticky situations where [a fighter] was dragged into deeper waters than usual." Perhaps if his chin were a bit less solid, he would have proven himself more (?). It may simply mean dominance. It may also be the formidability or lack thereof in the field.

I give Sonny credit for fighting only 6 guys in 54 fights who were without winning records. In his 6th fight he's thrown in against Summerlin. Sonny, mobbed up or not, wasn't fed a series of tomato cans like most fighters. Compare the w/l records of his opponents against say, Marcel Cerdan.

[McGrain]

drooling over his tool.


:lol:

[Ted Spoon]

The insinuation you made was clear, it's not being a direct comparison was never disputed. The statement stands.

It is difficult to place a measurable value on "aptitude towards churning out sticky situations where [a fighter] was dragged into deeper waters than usual." Perhaps if his chin were a bit less solid, he would have proven himself more (?). It may simply mean dominance. It may also be the formidability or lack thereof in the field.

I give Sonny credit for fighting only 6 guys in 54 fights who were without winning records. In his 6th fight he's thrown in against Summerlin. Sonny, mobbed up or not, wasn't fed a series of tomato cans like most fighters. Compare the w/l records of his opponents against say, Marcel Cerdan.

The remark was not insinuative of a parallel between 'Old stone face' and 'Iron' Mike with regards to their actual ability, but rather how their fans perceive their man and then elevate their actual ability. Fans get too far ahead of themselves, that is the point.

Ultimately, the faith put into Liston is not just. If all the greatest Heavyweights locked horns there would be losses left, right and centre as the talent pool would be great and the opponent gauging poor.

[Marnoff]

Why even put Ali on the list? That's a moot point since we know how that fight goes.

[JohnBKelly]

Sonny would have very brutal even fights with every guy on the list. Only Ali and Johnson have better than even chances against a peak Sonny.

[Stonehands89]

The remark was not insinuative of a parallel between 'Old stone face' and 'Iron' Mike with regards to their actual ability, but rather how their fans perceive their man and then elevate their actual ability. Fans get too far ahead of themselves, that is the point.

Ultimately, the faith put into Liston is not just. If all the greatest Heavyweights locked horns there would be losses left, right and centre as the talent pool would be great and the opponent gauging poor.
Perhaps I am straining gnats but it seems clear that you question Liston's "wiring" ..."his aptitude" to deal with tough situations. Circumstances and other events in his career besides the dive in Maine cast some doubt on your position. We simply disagree there.

You offer a subjective a post -and methinks that your induced it from a pretty faulty and specific event -Liston had a dog in him. Maine was enough for you. In any event, fans often elevate ability. It's done out here regularly. Few sets of fans out here elevate, glorify, and in my opinion, fool themselves about their man more than the fans of Fitzsimmons. If my memory is right, you are among them.

I think it is better to approach this question in terms of probability -subjective yes, but the debates won't necessarily deteroriate into nonsense if we try to be honest and objective about what each man brings to the table.

I invite you to give me a name of the one champion you see as the odds on favorite who would walk away with the best record against his peers. List who you favor against Liston and by what %. It would reveal just how out of sync we are here.

[Stonehands89]

Sonny would have very brutal even fights with every guy on the list. Only Ali and Johnson have better than even chances against a peak Sonny.
Ah... a like mind. Would you mind presenting an argument as to why Johnson should be favored?

[Stonehands89]

Liston beats Marciano,Dempsey,Louis.Johnson but loses to the others.They were all to skilled and fast for Liston who only looked good against fighters like Floyd Patters on who he outweighed by about 30 plus pounds.

Tell me how Frazier beats him. And Foreman.