Top 90's heavyweight boxers vs top 70's heavyweight boxers?

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Maravilla your resorting to trying to make out that people have not watched these fighters, the Youtube clips are accessible on here, many people have tapes, dvd's etc of past boxers and can't post them up here, The clips we put up are definite proof of the boxers abilities, Do you genuinely think that the better stuff is not on youtube?!

Are you genuinely trying to say you have watched lots of full fights of Liston's opponents, Because if you have i'd love to find out where, 10 Min clips show their skills.

Sam Peter compared to Liston's opponents was a beast, he'd have smashed little Patterson up and would be stronger than Liston.

What is research? interviews with people from back then who said they where great when at the time they actually where-Now they would not be, apart from in memory only.

Youtube contains the best research you can find on these lads and fact you keep dismissing it show's you have already made up your mind regardless of Listons terrible record opponents, his lack of defending the title, His getting the title shot after beating handbags and getting creamed by the not even big punching Ali.

I like you as a poster but i think your last post was you saying "No mas No mas"!!

Its my honest opinion that some people in this thread haven't watched that much of Liston. I'm making that presumption based on some of the crazy comments I'm reading. If I'm wrong I apologise.

As for Liston. By now you've guessed I rate him very highly. I get what you're saying about some older fighters. A lot of his opponents weren't great but he was and I firmly believe that if you put him into any era he holds his own. I'm not saying every fighter from the 50s/60s holds their own in this era but he was no ordinary fighter. He wasn't invincible and would lose some match ups but he'd also win a lot.

As for defending his title I've said it before but I'll keep saying it he was on the slide when he won his title. He should have got his shot long before he did. Apparently he didn't know his own birthday and its speculated he was close to 40 in the Ali fights. I'm prepared to give him a pass for those fights due to his age, the greatness of Ali and we're still not sure of their legitimacy. Even if they were on the level and I think the first one was, it was still an old Sonny losing to the greatest heavy ever. It would be very harsh to criticise someone for this in my view.

As for what I've watched. I've watched as much footage as I can. I'm no Bert Sugar and am not trying to make out that I am but I do actively try to watch as many fights both old and new as I can. Youtube is great and I wouldn't have seen a lot of fights but for it, but its not gospel. I don't judge anyone based on a clip here or there. I realise fighters have off nights and some footage isn't great so not going to judge anyone based on a 3minute clip.

Sam Peter is very limited and not a good boxer no matter what era you match him against. He's big and strong (a lot of the time overweight) has poor technique and can be outboxed easily. He mightn't be a great match for Patterson because of his chin but not sure he has the skill or speed to land on Floyd and would make Patterson a 70/30 favourite in that one. Throughout boxing history there have been smaller guys that knocked out guys much bigger than them. Size is rarely any use if you don't have the skill to use it properly.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Its my honest opinion that some people in this thread haven't watched that much of Liston. I'm making that presumption based on some of the crazy comments I'm reading. If I'm wrong I apologise..

I'm sure some have not, As a kid I watched tons of footage of him, These days just the odd bit here and there, Back then I would have rated him higher than I do now, I know more about Boxing now and make my own mind up a lot more.

Seeing the stuff wrote about the Klitschko's would make you evaluate what agenda's the press have as they make them out to be poor boxers and totally play down the whole era, American Vitali would be treasured like he is in Germany.

badabing106

Maravilla33 wrote: »

As for being objective I'm one of the few being objective in this thread. Have given Wlad & Vitali plenty of credit and haven't resorted to the he's a bum etc etc..

I don't think anyone has called vitali or vladamir a bum, surely?

Seeing as you are one of the few being objective here, who do you think fought more bums, the klitschko brothers or sonny liston?

Maravilla33

badabing106 wrote: »

I don't think anyone has called vitali or vladamir a bum, surely?

Seeing as you are one of the few being objective here, who do you think fought more bums, the klitschko brothers or sonny liston?

I don't think either era is particularly strong. I think Liston's era while not great is being under rated and the Klits one which is also not great is being over rated in this thread.

Alll three are great fighters who dominated their respective eras completely which leads people to under rate their opposition to a degree.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Maravilla your resorting to trying to make out that people have not watched these fighters, the Youtube clips are accessible on here, many people have tapes, dvd's etc of past boxers and can't post them up here, The clips we put up are definite proof of the boxers abilities, Do you genuinely think that the better stuff is not on youtube?!

Are you genuinely trying to say you have watched lots of full fights of Liston's opponents, Because if you have i'd love to find out where, 10 Min clips show their skills.

Sam Peter compared to Liston's opponents was a beast, he'd have smashed little Patterson up and would be stronger than Liston.

What is research? interviews with people from back then who said they where great when at the time they actually where-Now they would not be, apart from in memory only.

Youtube contains the best research you can find on these lads and fact you keep dismissing it show's you have already made up your mind regardless of Listons terrible record opponents, his lack of defending the title, His getting the title shot after beating handbags and getting creamed by the not even big punching Ali.

I like you as a poster but i think your last post was you saying "No mas No mas"!!

As regards the clips and articles and research I think this post is a great post.

When I pit two against each other I lend very very little weight to articles, opinions and research. Not saying it cannot help, but footage is the key, the absolute key. And, the best of Liston I think is better than all today, with Wlad and Klit not included. That comparison needs reall video viewing.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

As regards the clips and articles and research I think this post is a great post.

When I pit two against each other I lend very very little weight to articles, opinions and research. Not saying it cannot help, but footage is the key, the absolute key. And, the best of Liston I think is better than all today, with Wlad and Klit not included. That comparison needs reall video viewing.

I disagree to an extent especially if you're comparing fighters from different eras. I can watch a modern fighters career unfold. Can watch him live, will have access to pretty much all of his fights. I don't have this luxury when evaluating an older fighter. There may be only snippets of footage, or none at all or it may be poor quality. That doesn't make them any less of a fighter.

If I was to type Cleveland Williams into Youtube I'd most likely get his 2 bouts against Liston and the one against Ali. Am I to judge him based solely on his fights with 2 all time great opponents? What about the rest of his career?

There's barely any footage of SRR as a welter yet hes universally acclaimed as the greatest welter ever. I think a combination of footage and written records is the fairest way of evaluating some one. Especially if the article is from a known reputable source.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I disagree to an extent especially if you're comparing fighters from different eras. I can watch a modern fighters career unfold. Can watch him live, will have access to pretty much all of his fights. I don't have this luxury when evaluating an older fighter. There may be only snippets of footage, or none at all or it may be poor quality. That doesn't make them any less of a fighter.

If I was to type Cleveland Williams into Youtube I'd most likely get his 2 bouts against Liston and the one against Ali. Am I to judge him based solely on his fights with 2 all time great opponents? What about the rest of his career?

There's barely any footage of SRR as a welter yet hes universally acclaimed as the greatest welter ever. I think a combination of footage and written records is the fairest way of evaluating some one. Especially if the article is from a known reputable source.

I see what you are saying, and can agree. Video footage is still the absolute key. There is plenty or SRR in and around the 147 lb limit. I have seen several documentaries from ESPNs vaults that shows a lot of the early SRR fights. Super special. And, anyway, there is a lot of him weighing below 160 to have some sort or view or opinion on his merits at 147.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

If I was to type Cleveland Williams into Youtube I'd most likely get his 2 bouts against Liston and the one against Ali. Am I to judge him based solely on his fights with 2 all time great opponents? What about the rest of his career?

I just went on you tube and their is videos of
Cleveland Williams v Ali
Wiley
Liston
Liston 2

Dailymotion has chuvalo v Williams

thats 5 seperate fights i found in 1 minute, their is more if you look for them, you can tell a lot from 5 fights and a lot from records and the opponents records too, not bad considering he was more or less a journeyman.

Their is tonnes of footage of SRR.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Their is tonnes of footage of SRR.

Barely any at welter.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

thats 5 seperate fights i found in 1 minute, their is more if you look for them, you can tell a lot from 5 fights

I agree you can but what if the 5 fights I looked at were Wlad vs Peter 1 Wlad vs Sanders, Wlad vs Brewster Wlad vs Purrity and Wlad vs Ibragimov? I'd think he was a complete donkey. All I'm saying is sometimes some footage is not enough and its good to back it up with other stuff.

cowzerp

badabing106 wrote: »

Seeing as you are one of the few being objective here, who do you think fought more bums, the klitschko brothers or sonny liston?

Could you answer this please Maravilla.

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Barely any at welter.

There is enough to know that he was lethal and not an average Joe soap back then-I don't care if they're 40 when there video'd! good technique does not suddenly disappear, it is very clear when you view a boxer quickly if they are technically good or not, Even Ali in his last couple of fights you could still see his class and he was at the early stages of parkinsons.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Could you answer this please Maravilla.

I don't think either era is particularly strong. I think Liston's era while not great is being under rated and the Klits one which is also not great is being over rated in this thread.

Alll three are great fighters who dominated their respective eras completely which leads people to under rate their opposition to a degree.

That was my answer above. If you're asking me to pick I honestly couldn't with any certainty. I don't think its near as clear cut as you do.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

That was my answer above. If you're asking me to pick I honestly couldn't with any certainty. I don't think its near as clear cut as you do.

Thanks

But surely the smaller men and many having god damn awful records tell's you something, since 2000 most men Wlad has fought have only lost 1-2 with 5 been unbeaten, Rahman lost 6 and 1 or 2 have lost 4, 52 losses in total from 2000 to now in 28 fights

but Liston's before patterson lost 8, 21, 19, 17, 17 and thats just in 3 years and in his entire career 2 unbeaten 1 been Ali and 1 been 5-0-0 fighter at the start of his career.
231 losses his opponents had in the 28 fights prior to Patterson. Hmmmm.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Thanks

But surely the smaller men and many having god damn awful records tell's you something, since 2000 most men Wlad has fought have only lost 1-2 with 5 been unbeaten, Rahman lost 6 and 1 or 2 have lost 4, 52 losses in total from 2000 to now in 28 fights

but Liston's before patterson lost 8, 21, 19, 17, 17 and thats just in 3 years and in his entire career 2 unbeaten 1 been Ali and 1 been 5-0-0 fighter at the start of his career.
231 losses his opponents had in the 28 fights prior to Patterson. Hmmmm.

Yeah but I know better than to only use the records of Wlad's opponents. Fighters these days don't fight as often, are matched easier and can be protected for 20 + odd fights. I'm not arguing that Liston's era was amazing but it was no worse than many that have followed and he cleared out everyone he could have on his way to the title..

Calvin Brock was 29-0 but had fought nobody. So its a flawed system really if you take the figures too literally.

Maravilla33

Not everyone was smaller either. Some of Liston opponents. Not saying they were good but it shows that heavys haven't suddenly grown out of all proportions.

Cleveland Williams 6"3
Nino Valdes 6"3
Gerard Zech 6"5
Bill McMurray 6"4
Henry Clark 6"3

There were big men back in the day too. Klitschkos are super heavys and not the norm size wise today even.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Calvin Brock was 29-0 but had fought nobody. So its a flawed system really if you take the figures too literally.

Calvin Brock had just beat the well rated Ibragimov who was unbeaten at the time.
And clifford Etienne and Jameel Mccline who where both solid journey men yet i'm not claiming he was beast.


I wasn't using the win rates, the loss rates tell you far more, if your good you don't lose 21, 17 fights.

If your bad and especially at Heavyweight you will lose fights, Thats why Wlads opponents show they are better and against bigger better trained and nutritionally advised fighters.

17 years Liston had 54 fights, Wlad had 60 in 16 years so Wlad is more active too and has an 11% higher ko rate, both ko'd 3 times.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

17 years Liston had 54 fights, Wlad had 60 in 16 years so Wlad is more active too and has an 11% higher ko rate, both ko'd 3 times.

But I haven't said Wlad isn't good? He's a big puncher i'm not surprised he has a high KO rate. Liston had a much better chin the 3 KO losses each is misleading. Styles make fights though and Listons a bad style for him. If fights were all decided on stats there'd be no point fighting at all.

cowzerp

Cleveland Williams 6"3 212lbs
Mormeck 216Lbs

Nino Valdes 6"3
211lbs
Haye 210lbs

Gerard Zech 6"5
221lbs
Peters 241lbs

Bill McMurray 6"4
223lbs
chambers 209lbs

Henry Clark 6"3
219lbs
Chagaev 224lbs


Rahman 253lbs
peters 241lbs
Thompson 247lbs
Austin 247lbs
Botha 241lbs

There is several more larger men i left out, plenty over 250 and 1 over 280lbs, it's worth noting that people knocked Wlad because Mormeck was a light heavy, when he was a huge solid Heavy if you put him back in the Liston days.

Maravilla33

Bigger doesn't automatically mean better. Guys like Bowe, Lewis, the Klitschkos have skills to go with their size. That makes them horrible to face. Sam Peter at 260lbs is an absolute dream for any of the great heavys to face and very beatable for your average mobile heavy. He's slow one dimensional and as long as you have a decent chin or can avoid his looping telegraphed shots you'll be ok.

Sam Langford, Bob Fitsimmons, Barbados Joe Walcott, Mickey Walker, Tommy Burns, Harry Greb and a whole host of others beat several opponents much bigger than themselves. Duran beat Barkley and took Hagler the distance. Roy Jones beat John Ruiz. If you have the skills you can get over a disadvantage in size.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Bigger doesn't automatically mean better. Guys like Bowe, Lewis, the Klitschkos have skills to go with their size. That makes them horrible to face. Sam Peter at 260lbs is an absolute dream for any of the great heavys to face and very beatable for your average mobile heavy. He's slow one dimensional and as long as you have a decent chin or can avoid his looping telegraphed shots you'll be ok.
.

This is key. I have no issue with anyone saying men like Lewis and Bowe and Klit's are bad for the smaller HW men from the past. These men are big big dudes, with power, and boxing skills. I still don't see any major "technique" improvement. They are simply skilled men with size and skills and real talent. I just don't see it with slobs like Peter and Danny Williams and Audley and some others. I think Liston and Foreman and some other HW greats feast on these guys.

"Rahman 253lbs." Rahman could be 500 lbs, he never beats a Sonny Liston, never! Liston eats this guy.

cowzerp

My job is done here!
I've backed up my end of it by loads, the opposite side has not at all.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

My job is done here!
I've backed up my end of it by loads, the opposite side has not at all.

What? You didn't reply to my last post. All you've done is imply bigger is better (insert joke here..) and posted some weights of Wlad's opponents. You havent once acknowledged their limitations as boxers or argued why they are good. Simply they're big..

On the other thread where you posted Wlad's best wins they are all smallish heavys. Bit contradictory me thinks...

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

There is several more larger men i left out, plenty over 250 and 1 over 280lbs, it's worth noting that people knocked Wlad because Mormeck was a light heavy, when he was a huge solid Heavy if you put him back in the Liston days.

I don't think it's worth noting! Mormeck in 2012 is a sham. Put that 2012 man in any HW era and he'd be a sham. And, at peak, Mormeck would suffer the same fate as he did vs. Wlad had it been a peak Liston in there; solid or not, Liston destroys Mormeck. Haye did for chrissake!

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

What? You didn't reply to my last post. All you've done is imply bigger is better (insert joke here..) and posted some weights of Wlad's opponents. You havent once acknowledged their limitations as boxers or argued why they are good. Simply they're big..

On the other thread where you posted Wlad's best wins they are all smallish heavys. Bit contradictory me thinks...

I'm just repeating myself, I told you I felt Listons opponents where mouldy, Wlads far better, might not be all time greats but far far better than Listons dross opponents

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

I'm just repeating myself, I told you I felt Listons opponents where mouldy, Wlads far better, might not be all time greats but far far better than Listons dross opponents

And i've told you, you over rate Wlad's opponents alot and while Liston's weren't amazing they werent as bad as you're making out and some of them were actually good.

So don't see how this statement is true? "My job is done here!
I've backed up my end of it by loads, the opposite side has not at all. "

Well thats enough for one day...

cowzerp

Ok im confident that if someone neutral was to read both our replies they would side with me, how's that for you?!

Because im right that is

Liston was overrated and his opponents where terrible.

People think of liston as been much bigger than he was, more of a 1 punch ko merchant than he was and it's all myth, the clips are there and he is not that impressive.

Maravilla33

I'm neutral... You are right though anything before the 80s is a myth....

Head to head hes a match for anyone. OK lets match them up head to head on a 15 round scoring system. Note: I'm scoring this as if it was a fight not giving them 10/10 for certain traits etc..

Power - Wlad 10 Liston 10
Stamina - Wlad 10 Liston 10
Experience - Wlad 10 Liston 10
Ring generalship - Wlad 10 Liston 9
Strength - Wlad 9 Liston 10 (No doubt Wlads strong but doesn't use it)
Skill - Wlad 10 Liston 9
Body work - Wlad 9 Liston 10
Chin - Wlad 9 Liston 10
Jab - Wlad 10 Liston 10
Defence - Wlad 10 Liston 9
Attack - Wlad 9 Liston 10
Durability - Wlad 9 Liston 10
Workrate - Wlad 10 Liston 10
Cut/swellings - Wlad 10 Liston 10
Speed - Wlad 10 Liston 9

Wlad 145 - 146 Liston

I scored that as honestly as I could and will back up any of the scoring if needed.

Edit: Obviously this proves nothing if they did actually meet but just a bit of fun..

gene_tunney

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I'm neutral... You are right though anything before the 80s is a myth....

Head to head hes a match for anyone. OK lets match them up head to head on a 15 round scoring system. Note: I'm scoring this as if it was a fight not giving them 10/10 for certain traits etc..

Power - Wlad 10 Liston 10
Stamina - Wlad 10 Liston 10
Experience - Wlad 10 Liston 10
Ring generalship - Wlad 10 Liston 9
Strength - Wlad 9 Liston 10 (No doubt Wlads strong but doesn't use it)
Skill - Wlad 10 Liston 9
Body work - Wlad 9 Liston 10
Chin - Wlad 9 Liston 10
Jab - Wlad 10 Liston 10
Defence - Wlad 10 Liston 9
Attack - Wlad 9 Liston 10
Durability - Wlad 9 Liston 10
Workrate - Wlad 10 Liston 10
Cut/swellings - Wlad 10 Liston 10
Speed - Wlad 10 Liston 9

Wlad 145 - 146 Liston

I scored that as honestly as I could and will back up any of the scoring if needed.

Edit: Obviously this proves nothing if they did actually meet but just a bit of fun..

That's about the most arbitrary and pointless list I've seen in a long time.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I'm neutral.

In this context you are far from Neutral, you have invested many years believing that era and Liston are better than they are, Now it's been questioned you are on the defensive.

Liston would be just another challenger now, and a smallish 1 at that.

I'd genuinely pick Sam Peters at peak to beat Liston, or at least to trouble him.

walshb

gene_tunney wrote: »

That's about the most arbitrary and pointless list I've seen in a long time.

This is one of the most unhelpful and unproductive posts I've seen in a long time.