Marciano: alternate legacy

[IronDanHamza]

Sonny Liston and Joe Fraizer fight almost nothing alike.

[Greatest1942]

Because for one, I don't see Bivens as a "top 30 heavyweight" No matter how much you want to believe it. And Liston beat most of these guys by knocking them out, and clearly beating them. Comparing the two against the listed opponents, Liston's resume is better. Why did you leave Valdes out from Charles list? Charles has losses and inconsistency mixed in with his wins there. And to get to the real topic here, Charles was clearly on his way out when he fought Marciano. So was Louis. You want to make them both better than they were at the time but the facts are against you. Bivens/Savold were not "great" wins for Louis. They did nothing for his legacy.Charles did not have positive momentum going into either fight. And certainly not what Liston had when facing Ali.



Charles lost twice to Walcott, once by KO. Liston destroyed Patterson twice and losing to Ali doesn't compare to losing to Walcott. Ali was a better fighter than Walcott. Two, Liston destroyed Nino Valdes easily. Charles lost to Valdes. Whether you think Charles was robbed or not, Liston's win was more impressive.


I'll say it again. Liston's heavyweight resume is better than Charles and head to head I believe Liston would have knocked Charles out. Which is what I've been saying all along. Either you agree with this or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Why did you leave Valdes out from Charles list?

Because it is top 10 wins list pea brain. The same reason I left Marty Marshall, Ali out of Liston's list.


"Losing to Ali"

Quitting does matter. And anyways Charles is seldom if ever rated in the top 10. Liston is. Obviosuly the criteria for Liston is stricter than Charles who is mostly considered to be a top 20 heavy at most.

Liston destroyed Nino Valdes easily. Charles lost to Valdes.

Ohh...so Charles got beat by Valdes. So did Liston get beat by Marty marshall. What does this prove? No one is saying Charles was invincible. He does seem to have a good resume. He is 3-0 against the guy who beat Valdes too. Besides Whitehurst went twice the distance with Liston , check out Bert vs Moore. So now Moore is a better heavy by your twisted logic? The Vs logic does not work. Sorry.

Charles lost twice to Walcott, once by KO. Liston destroyed Patterson twice and losing to Ali doesn't compare to losing to Walcott. Ali was a better fighter than Walcott

Charles may be (lets say we let go of the fact that he most probably won 3-1) say lost to Walcott twice. So what a top 25 heavy losing to another top 25 heavy is not rare...Liston is rated ahead of Charles in all rankings. (So do I rank them too), against Clay he is 2-0 (with an embarassing quit job in the 1st round). I don't think Liston showed much against Ali too. And yes Walcott is a better heavyweight than Floyd.

Besides let go of the top 5 wins. The bottom 5 of Charles have more quality than Liston's bottom 5. However you can always have DeJohn like guys shead of Elmer ray or Baksi. Ultimately its top 10 wins not top two wins like you are trying to potray. A resume is made of more than that.

I'll say it again. Liston's heavyweight resume is better than Charles and head to head I believe Liston would have knocked Charles out. Which is what I've been saying all along. Either you agree with this or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

My top 10 heavy's list is there in the heavyweights list thread. Check out where I have Liston. Charles is in top 20. Its because he was inconsistent at heavyweight and H2H falls short of Liston. But that does not deter from the fact that Charles had almost as good a resume and a longer title reign.

"Louis legacy'
I don't know what will make you understand the simple fact that Louis at this stage was not the great fearsome champion of yesteryears but a very good contender. Any guy who beats a top 3 contender is deserves kudos. HE was still good enough to beat most contenders and it took some one of Rock's or Charles ability (special fighters) to beat him.

"Bivins"

I was using the top 50 heavyweights published by ring to pinpoint the resumes of each of the guys (Charles, Tyson etc etc). Bivins appeared at #26. I thought it was better to take a list from Ring to compare rather than taking "Joseph" or "Greatest1942" list.

No matter how much you disagree Charles has the better top 10 wins, whether he KO'd them like Liston or not is a moot point. Liston was a puncher boxer , Charles the shifty clever guy. His style was not for KO's. I could not include Maxim in Charles list where as I had to search for names after 8 in Liston's...its a difference like it or not...may be in a year or two you will understand.

Whats so difficult here?

[Greatest1942]

No, I don't get "touchy" at all about Liston. What I don't like is when people try to play both sides of the fence for the purpose of looking right either way or to conceal their true motives.You did the same thing when you tried to come up with the ridiculous "evidence" that Patterson could have beaten Liston if he had fought with a different strategy or like Ali did.(biased much?) Following that you made sure to quickly add " I'm not saying Patterson could have won." Same thing here. In one sentence you claim you believe Liston was a better heavyweight and ranks higher than Charles as a heavyweight. In another you claim Charles heavyweight resume matches Liston's with better wins. So which is it? And what exactly are you arguing? Because at this point, the only "irrelevant stuff" is coming from you.


I read it properly. And right now your post is as transparent as glass. It's pretty obvious that you're trying to make a case that Charles was the better heavyweight or at least equal to Liston which he wasn't. Whether you "say it" or not. If this is not true, then what is your point exactly?

You really have some problem with comprehension.

The short of what I am trying to prove is "Charles has a comparable resume to better heavies like Liston , Dempsey or Tyson (the three I originally asked for)"

NOTE:- Not that he was a better heavyweight.

So having him in your resume is a big plus.

Anymore help Signor?

[Greatest1942]

Again, this is about who was a better heavyweight between Liston and Charles. And again your changing the topic. I say Liston was a better heavyweight than Charles. And I don't think I'm alone with that choice. As far as me "not liking the fighters of that era" and easy road" that's not my stance or the point I'm making. It's all about Liston and Charles. If you don't care about the comparison between the two then why are you questioning it?




As far as Joe Louis, he was not even close to being what he was in his prime when he fought Marciano. You can talk all you want about how great he still was but I'm not buying it and the facts are clearly against you. I personally find it ridiculous when people try to argue this. Joe Louis retired for a reason the first time. He only came back to fight because he was broke. He needed money and he didn't care about championships. His needs had changed. This is all in his book btw. He didn't even train as hard as he used to and his fight with Charles should have ended any doubts about whether he could compete with the elite in the division. And no, Bivens and Savold wasn't it. After that fight Louis won a handful of carefully selected match ups and had a lot of problems pulling the trigger on his punches which is probably why he wasn't knocking fighters out who really had no business going the distance with him. He said he could see the openings but his body couldn't respond to them in time. His reflexes had diminished terribly.






And you can talk all you want about how "Liston couldn't box" "only had power and chin" and he "didn't really destroy his comp" because at this point you're telling lies with those comments.

Joe Louis still had his fundamentals which made him a good opponent, he was not the destroyer of old, he was a good boxer. You need to read more and comprehend what others are saying instead of posting hysteric stuff each time.

[joseph5620]

Because it is top 10 wins list pea brain. The same reason I left Marty Marshall, Ali out of Liston's list.


"Losing to Ali"

Quitting does matter. And anyways Charles is seldom if ever rated in the top 10. Liston is. Obviosuly the criteria for Liston is stricter than Charles who is mostly considered to be a top 20 heavy at most.



Ohh...so Charles got beat by Valdes. So did Liston get beat by Marty marshall. What does this prove? No one is saying Charles was invincible. He does seem to have a good resume. He is 3-0 against the guy who beat Valdes too. Besides Whitehurst went twice the distance with Liston , check out Bert vs Moore. So now Moore is a better heavy by your twisted logic? The Vs logic does not work. Sorry.



Charles may be (lets say we let go of the fact that he most probably won 3-1) say lost to Walcott twice. So what a top 25 heavy losing to another top 25 heavy is not rare...Liston is rated ahead of Charles in all rankings. (So do I rank them too), against Clay he is 2-0 (with an embarassing quit job in the 1st round). I don't think Liston showed much against Ali too. And yes Walcott is a better heavyweight than Floyd.

Besides let go of the top 5 wins. The bottom 5 of Charles have more quality than Liston's bottom 5. However you can always have DeJohn like guys shead of Elmer ray or Baksi. Ultimately its top 10 wins not top two wins like you are trying to potray. A resume is made of more than that.




My top 10 heavy's list is there in the heavyweights list thread. Check out where I have Liston. Charles is in top 20. Its because he was inconsistent at heavyweight and H2H falls short of Liston. But that does not deter from the fact that Charles had almost as good a resume and a longer title reign.

"Louis legacy'
I don't know what will make you understand the simple fact that Louis at this stage was not the great fearsome champion of yesteryears but a very good contender. Any guy who beats a top 3 contender is deserves kudos. HE was still good enough to beat most contenders and it took some one of Rock's or Charles ability (special fighters) to beat him.

"Bivins"

I was using the top 50 heavyweights published by ring to pinpoint the resumes of each of the guys (Charles, Tyson etc etc). Bivins appeared at #26. I thought it was better to take a list from Ring to compare rather than taking "Joseph" or "Greatest1942" list.

No matter how much you disagree Charles has the better top 10 wins, whether he KO'd them like Liston or not is a moot point. Liston was a puncher boxer , Charles the shifty clever guy. His style was not for KO's. I could not include Maxim in Charles list where as I had to search for names after 8 in Liston's...its a difference like it or not...may be in a year or two you will understand.

Whats so difficult here?

Because he's a common opponent "pea brain". Charles lost to Valdes, Liston didn't which further proves my point about Charles up and down record as a heavyweight as well as the fact that it doesn't "match" Liston's. This also indicates that Charles was starting to decline as a fighter. I'm sure you will argue against that too. It's funny how you use Liston's 8th pro fight as an example. Digging back that far in his career to find a loss says a lot. Should we go back and critique Charles in his 8th pro fight here too? Ridiculous comparison and the fact that it takes you three post to mkae one point shows who could be lacking anything here. Typing unnecessarily long responses don't change anything.


So now you're admitting that Charles heavyweight resume was not as good as Liston's? Before you said Charles resume matched Liston's with better wins for Charles. Either you like contradicting yourself or you just like arguing for the hell of it. Make up your mind. It's one or the other.



Sorry but I don't have as much time on my hands as you do so I can't respond to everything you posted. And since when have Ring Magazines all time ratings been the end all and be all when it comes to accuracy? Most of the time I disagree with their all time ratings.

[joseph5620]

Joe Louis still had his fundamentals which made him a good opponent, he was not the destroyer of old, he was a good boxer. You need to read more and comprehend what others are saying instead of posting hysteric stuff each time.

Joe Louis was an old fighter WAY past prime fighter and his "fundamentals" couldn't protect him from the truth.

Joe Louis beating two fighters who like him, were at the end of their careers doesn't change that fact. Bivens and Savold were not "great wins" like you're delusional enough to believe. And what "others" are you referring too? If you're referring to the post that stated Liston was a "poor mans' Frazier" who couldn't box or that the Louis who fought Marciano "would beat almost every heavyweight in history." I comprehend that just fine for what it is. A bunch of BS.

[THE REED]

Could knock the top 4 fighters off most fighters resumes and knock em a fair way down though surely Jabs?

Exactly... I'd like to think the OP question is a bit self explanatory.

If we take Liston, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton out of Ali's resume does it take him down a notch.

Uh.... maybe.

Exactly what fighter can you take away their 4 greatest wins and NOT have them drop in the rankings significantly?

[Greatest1942]

Because he's a common opponent "pea brain". Charles lost to Valdes, Liston didn't which further proves my point about Charles up and down record as a heavyweight as well as the fact that it doesn't "match" Liston's. This also indicates that Charles was starting to decline as a fighter. I'm sure you will argue against that too. It's funny how you use Liston's 8th pro fight as an example. Digging back that far in his career to find a loss says a lot. Should we go back and critique Charles in his 8th pro fight here too? Ridiculous comparison and the fact that it takes you three post to mkae one point shows who could be lacking anything here. Typing unnecessarily long responses doesn't change anything.


So now you're admitting that Charles heavyweight resume was not as good as Liston's? Before you said Charles resume matched Liston's with better wins for Charles. Either you like contradicting yourself or you just like arguing for the hell of it. Make up your mind. It's one or the other.



Sorry but I don't have as much time on my hands as you do so I can't respond to everything you posted. And since when have Ring Magazines all time ratings been the end all and be all when it comes to accuracy? Most of the time I disagree with their all time ratings.

"Long Posts"

I understand now your IQ does not allow you to comprehend a long post. I will post shorter ones after this..how long will you need 2 lines ?

"Busy"
I don't know how busy you are, yea I have time , since I am always on the net , on my job. So I do have plenty of time. Besides I think I spend lesser times than you , after all you have to use italics , boldem and all then think twice hard with your "pea brain". Count the number of lines and posts we make a month, and you see the difference dumbass.

"Common Opponents"

Common opponents don't prove a damn thing. Its circular logic , which kids like you feast on. Foreman destroyed Frazier, Ali lost to him...doesn't make Ali lesser...Valdez was at the end of his career when Liston got to him...Archie Moore KO'd Whitehurst Liston couldn't. Doesn't make Liston a worse fighter. You bring up Valdez in Liston's case and say how well he did , that was however his second last fight. Yet you are the one who discredits Louis's Savold win. (Valdez lost the fight prior to Liston, Savold won his prior to Louis)...as usual your BS double standards

Norton was destroyed in 1 round by Cooney and Ali struggled with Norton and is in all fairness 2-1 with him. Conney greater resume and better than Ali now ...you are great.

"Resume"

I am still saying Charles has the deeper resume, their top wins cancel each other out but the bottom half of Charles's list is far superior to Liston's.

But Liston as a heavyweight still ranks over Charles because when you rank them you use (OR I use ) 75% resume and 25% H2H...in that resume part Liston is close enough but in the H2H part Charles isn't . So Liston ranks higher. Doesn't however completely overshadow the fact that Charles has the deeper resume though in all fairness Liston is close enough.

I am not critisizing Liston for his loss to Marshall, I mentioned that because you brought up Valdez, same with Ali, its not my fault you can't comprehend what is a win's list...HOW THE HELL WILL I LIST VALDEZ ON CHARLES TOP 10 WINS, you really are a moron or try hard to be one. .Harp on 8th fight yet You also fail to acknowledge the fact that Marshall took the fight on a three days notice which is a big handicap too.


To reiterate so that you get it "Charles has the better resume at heavyweight"...to make up a top 10 list of Sonny Liston you have to sc**** the bottom of the Barrell (no shame you have to do that with other great heavies too), but with Charles you have to exclude (or I did) Maxim, who would be a top 6 win in Liston's resume. You still might not get it even after Maxim analogy but what I can I do, I always have tried to make the novices understand what they should..

If I could rank Charles better in H2H , I will have him over Liston, as is resume is better...but I have Liston pretty high H2H and Charles pretty low.

Surely you understand now, you should unless you are thick.:chom

"Ring Lists'

Post your top 50 heavyweights list in future I will replace that with the Ring list...

[Greatest1942]

Joe Louis was an old fighter WAY past prime fighter and his "fundamentals" couldn't protect him from the truth.

Joe Louis beating two fighters who like him, were at the end of their careers doesn't change that fact. Bivens and Savold were not "great wins" like you're delusional enough to believe. And what "others" are you referring too? If you're referring to the post that stated Liston was a "poor mans' Frazier" who couldn't box or that the Louis who fought Marciano "would beat almost every heavyweight in history." I comprehend that just fine for what it is. A bunch of BS.

"Others"
Anyone except yourself, includes me..now no more homework lessons.

I did not say that Louis will beat almost every heavies in history..So answer the guy who did.

In the previous fight Savold beat by KO Bruce Wood**** to hold the BBC Heavyweight Title, in other words an alphabet belt in todays term.

Bivins cracked the top 10 after Louis beat him. So he was far from a spent force "Mr Delusional". Louis also beat Cesar Brion who was a good contender (I hope you heard the name ). The fact that a top 5 contender is beating other top 10 contenders and is a big victory for the guy ...but in your small world perhaps beating the #2 contender does not count for anything. During this period in an exhibition he KO'd Valentino who was #8 ranked in 1949. He was old and shot, not the great champ he was , but he was still a good heavyweight, otherwise he would not have beaten the guys he did.

[joseph5620]

"Long Posts"

I understand now your IQ does not allow you to comprehend a long post. I will post shorter ones after this..how long will you need 2 lines ?

"Busy"
I don't know how busy you are, yea I have time , since I am always on the net , on my job. So I do have plenty of time. Besides I think I spend lesser times than you , after all you have to use italics , boldem and all then think twice hard with your "pea brain". Count the number of lines and posts we make a month, and you see the difference dumbass.

"Common Opponents"

Common opponents don't prove a damn thing. Its circular logic , which kids like you feast on. Foreman destroyed Frazier, Ali lost to him...doesn't make Ali lesser...Valdez was at the end of his career when Liston got to him...Archie Moore KO'd Whitehurst Liston couldn't. Doesn't make Liston a worse fighter. You bring up Valdez in Liston's case and say how well he did , that was however his second last fight. Yet you are the one who discredits Louis's Savold win. (Valdez lost the fight prior to Liston, Savold won his prior to Louis)...as usual your BS double standards

Norton was destroyed in 1 round by Cooney and Ali struggled with Norton and is in all fairness 2-1 with him. Conney greater resume and better than Ali now ...you are great.

"Resume"

I am still saying Charles has the deeper resume, their top wins cancel each other out but the bottom half of Charles's list is far superior to Liston's.

But Liston as a heavyweight still ranks over Charles because when you rank them you use (OR I use ) 75% resume and 25% H2H...in that resume part Liston is close enough but in the H2H part Charles isn't . So Liston ranks higher. Doesn't however completely overshadow the fact that Charles has the deeper resume though in all fairness Liston is close enough.

I am not critisizing Liston for his loss to Marshall, I mentioned that because you brought up Valdez, same with Ali, its not my fault you can't comprehend what is a win's list...HOW THE HELL WILL I LIST VALDEZ ON CHARLES TOP 10 WINS, you really are a moron or try hard to be one. Just to explain that the Valdez lost was not a travesty , since you yourself mention Charles was over the hill then...you can't have your cake and eat it too..You also fail to acknowledge the fact that Marshall took the fight on a three days notice which is a big handicap too.

To reiterate so that you get it "Charles has the better resume at heavyweight"...to make up a top 10 list of Sonny Liston you have to sc**** the bottom of the Barrell (no shame you have to do that with other great heavies too), but with Charles you have to exclude (or I did) Maxim, who would be a top 6 win in Liston's resume. You still might not get it even after Maxim analogy but what I can I do, I always have tried to make the novices understand what they should..

If I could rank Charles better in H2H , I will have him over Liston, as is resume is better...but I have Liston pretty high H2H and Charles pretty low.

Surely you understand now, you should unless you are thick.:chom

"Ring Lists'

Post your top 50 heavyweights list in future I will replace that with the Ring list...

It's interesting that you talk about "circular logic" when just a few post ago you claimed Charles was the same age as Ali for Foreman and Liston for Ali as if that somehow nullifies that he was on his way out against Marciano. I don't think I need to explain how ridiculous that is.

I highlighted your statements about the resume comparison because today you said "Charles had almost as good a resume and a longer title reign. Now once again, according to you, Charles has the better heavyweight resume? Make up your mind, slick. It's too bad you can't be a man and take a stand one way or the other. Either you have a multiple personality disorder or you're just a ******, forgetful, old man. For someone who prides himself in having a high IQ you should have been smart enough to avoid making this elementary contradiction. So who's really the "thick" one here?

Now you finally admit that Charles was over the hill when he lost to Valdez. But you want everybody to believe he drank from the fountain of youth for Marciano? That doesn't even make sense. If he was over the hill for Valdez, he was for over the hill for Marciano as well. And Liston rematched Marshall twice and beat him handily. If there were doubts in your head that should have erased them. Not biased against Liston huh?

I should have known you were a confused old fart when you tried to prove Patterson could have beaten Liston if he "moved" like Ali . I see you're now using the bold and italics too.Too bad you're not smart enough to grasp when to use them and when not to use them lol.