Vitali VS Sonny Liston

[Humean]

Again the point went over your head. You obviously have a ridiculous theory that because a fighter is not normally a one punch KO artist they shouldn't be able to ever achieve this. If they do that somehow means the knockout victim is a glass jaw fraud judging by your implications.

Nunn and Pernell Whitaker knocked out top fighters with one punch. Those fighters they knocked out had sturdy chins.If that concept is still foreign to you, nothing else needs to be said.

Your belief that Liston would be intimidated by Vitali Klitschko is laughable. Not even light hitting Chris Bryd ( on seven days notice)was intimidated by Vitali Klitschko, but Liston would be in your mind lol.

Vitali is not is good as Liston was, will never be ranked as high by anybody credible, and nothing on his resume says otherwise. You'll have to deal with that.

Can you list what you consider to me Liston's most impressive wins, impressive in the sense of the quality of the opponent he defeated? I'm genuinely asking that question because the quality of the opponents that Liston defeated do not seem especially high to me. Both Liston and Vitali Klitschko are great heavyweights but not because either of them beat anyone even remotely great.

Think about this, if you were wanting to compile a top 100 greatest fighters p4p but were only going by the quality of opponents defeated would Joe Louis be anywhere near the top? Indeed bar the 70s heavyweights there would be a weak case for almost all the other top heavyweight world champions throughout history being anywhere near the top 10.

In short any discussion of resume in regards to the Klitschko's is going to run you into great inconsistency when measuring the greatness of a whole host of past heavyweight champions.

[joseph5620]

Can you list what you consider to me Liston's most impressive wins, impressive in the sense of the quality of the opponent he defeated? I'm genuinely asking that question because the quality of the opponents that Liston defeated do not seem especially high to me. Both Liston and Vitali Klitschko are great heavyweights but not because either of them beat anyone even remotely great.

Think about this, if you were wanting to compile a top 100 greatest fighters p4p but were only going by the quality of opponents defeated would Joe Louis be anywhere near the top? Indeed bar the 70s heavyweights there would be a weak case for almost all the other top heavyweight world champions throughout history being anywhere near the top 10.

In short any discussion of resume in regards to the Klitschko's is going to run you into great inconsistency when measuring the greatness of a whole host of past heavyweight champions.

Vitali Kitschko is not a great heavyweight, number one. He has never even been the best heavyweight of his era. His brother has been that and they will never fight each other.

Number 2, Liston cleaned out his division(Vitlali has not and never will) by beating every contender that mattered while being ducked by Patterson. Included in that: Prime Cleveland Williams twice, Zora Folley and Eddie Machen. Those three alone were better heavyweights than Chris Arreola, Sam Peter, Juan Carlos Gomez or Tomasz Adamek. Those four are Vitali's best wins which does not in any way,shape, or form qualify him as a great heavyweight.

He also lost to Chris Byrd who his brother handled easily and Ike ibeabuchi knocked Byrd silly in five rounds. You can talk about the injury all you want, but other fighters have finished fights with injuries just as severe.



Liston knocked Floyd Patterson out twice in less than a round both times, No other fighter ever beat Patterson like that. Patterson was not the horrible fighter many try to make him out to be when convenient.


My question to you: What exactly has Vitali accomplished that makes him a "great" heavyweight?

If you think I'll have difficulty finding heavyweights with better resumes than Vitali, try me. I can name many heavyweights who beat the best heavyweights of their era. Including Frazier, Louis, Foreman, Marciano, Lewis off the top of my head. Vitali has never done that. He didn't do it in his prime with a past prime Lewis, and he'll never do it with his brother. He never avenged the embarrassing loss to Byrd. That in itself disqualifies him from being "great".




If Ali's career stopped in the 60's you might have a point although beating Sonny Liston alone is better than anything Vitlai has ever done. But unfortunately for your point, Ali's career did not end in the 60's.

You can't use something that didn't happen as an example.

[Cardinal Buck]

Again the point went over your head. You obviously have a ridiculous theory that because a fighter is not normally a one punch KO artist they shouldn't be able to ever achieve this. If they do that somehow means the knockout victim is a glass jaw fraud judging by your implications.

Nunn and Pernell Whitaker knocked out top fighters with one punch. Those fighters they knocked out had sturdy chins.If that concept is still foreign to you, nothing else needs to be said.

Your belief that Liston would be intimidated by Vitali Klitschko is laughable. Not even light hitting Chris Bryd ( on seven days notice)was intimidated by Vitali Klitschko, but Liston would be in your mind lol.

Vitali is not is good as Liston was, will never be ranked as high by anybody credible, and nothing on his resume says otherwise. You'll have to deal with that.

You should read more books or go back to school.
1. My point is that Liston's loses to Ali definitely are not excusable if Vitali's loses aren't excusable.
2. I did not state that Liston would be intimidated by Vitali. That's your poor reading comprehension acting up, but you used the word "laughable" so you must be smart.

[joseph5620]

You should read more books or go back to school.
1. My point is that Liston's loses to Ali definitely are not excusable if Vitali's loses aren't excusable.
2. I did not state that Liston would be intimidated by Vitali. That's your poor reading comprehension acting up, but you used the word "laughable" so you must be smart.

No, you just implied it. Apparently you're not smart enough to remember your failed attempt at sarcasm. You're also not smart enough to realize losing to Ali is not the same as losing to Chris Byrd or an overweight Lennox Lewis. This isn't about what is "excusable" as neither fighter gets an excuse. Take your own advice and read a boxing history book.

Muhammad Ali is Superman, then. So if you fight Ali twice--after Ali almost got knocked out--it's okay to quit with a shoulder injury far less severe than Vit's (Vitali didn't need an "out" in his fight like Liston) and get knocked out in one round. Ali is Superman, so he could've knocked out anyone in one round with one punch. He just chose not to with everyone except Liston. This too, explains why Liston was intimidated by Ali but wouldn't be by Vitali.

[Ben Bolt]

The point is, getting knocked out by Ali is not the embarrassment ...
Also Sonny Liston was diagnosed by eight doctors with a torn shoulder tendon.

Yep. And getting knocked out shouldn’t be an embarrassment to any boxer. A haphazardly punch, which he fails see coming, and it can ruin the evening for even the most sturdy fighter.

It’s a pity the Ali-Liston II was postponed in the autumn 1964, because old reports say Liston was in great shape at the time. But not that determined when the fight took place the following year.

Though, his style was probably not suited for Ali anyway. Liston, often compared with Foreman, but Ali did point out one thing that seperated these heavy gunners. While Liston chased Ali all around the ring in vain, eating Ali’s combinations and doing little damage himself, Foreman was a master of cutting off the ring. To “dance like a butterfly” wasn’t a thing Foreman allowed (which forced Ali into the dangerous rope-a-dope procedure).

As for Vitali (I believe his renommé will increase with time) in the ring against Liston or Foreman … well, it wouldn’t be fights I’d dared to gamble on. There are safer bets.

[billeau2]

Thanks. I'm trying lol

That last post to Buck was also brutally logical.... Wouldn't it be a nice world if logic held some sway? But no....alas, we must all except that the Klitschkos are the modern heavyweights of the future! Despite all the logical discourse which impedes this understanding....its almost like being in the middle ages and trying to explain to the clergy that there are no angels on the head of a pin.

[billeau2]

1: Thanks for the psychologizing, most informative.

2: It is not always easy to understand what you write because it is often pretty incoherent.

3: The weight and size issue is a question of strength, increased weight to put through a punch, increased capacity to take a punch, more weight to simply lean on their opponent to tire them out. Surely these things give a fighter an advantage?

4: The weigh in and hydration has little or no significance for the heavyweight division.

5: There has been an increase in height also, not just fight weight. You chastized me for not reading your post but I clearly mentioned the increase in height on at least one occasion.

6: Vitali Klitschko is 6'7" and Foreman 6'3" or 6'4"

7: I did not contradict myself, to say 'there is reason to believe that if their respective skillsets are broadly similar then the bigger man will win' does not mean the same as 'smaller and lighter man cannot beat a bigger and heavier man'. So where is the contradiction or can you not understand the difference?

8: I have watched the film of Sonny Liston and I stand by what I said about him not really moving much better than Vitali Klitschko.

1.If calling you a numbskull is psychologizing (is that a word?) you then I am guilty as charged.

2. I take responsability for that, now why don't you not use my writing as an excuse for being so dense? I sort of understand I will never be poster of the month if you catch my drift?

3. The "Weight and Size issue" as you call it is not a matter of the physics of how mass via size affect punching, once again you fail to see my point.

4. The weigh and size issue has to do with decisions big men make regarding how to be ready to go on fight night versus how they walk around. George Foreman in his prime was a big man and was not dwarfed by Vitali Klitschko. Fighters were traditionally taught to come in lean as possible for a fight....that does not hold today and this is a possible reason for bigger fighters along with so called superior training and nutrition (which is imo nonsense).

So when did the average heavyweight become marginally taller? was it during Tyson's reign? Evander's? Fraziers reign? Do you understand the difference between general averages and the averages concerning a characteristic affecting performance in a select group? The general average height of people may have increased due to nutrition, but how has this had an impact on the height of an elite heavyweight contender? Have we had a succession of ten years of champions that average a greater height when compared to all heavyweight champs of the past? No I didn't think so....As a matter of fact I mentioned above a few champs who were kind of on the short side.

In fact: [B]While height has perhaps increased in the general population, there has been no evidence that this superior height is necessary to attain elite status as a fighter in modern times[B] Most people assume that because Lewis and the Klits happened to be on the large size that the average size of a heavyweight has gotten larger and taller.

[StarshipTrooper]

While Liston chased Ali all around the ring in vain, eating Ali’s combinations and doing little damage himself, Foreman was a master of cutting off the ring. To “dance like a butterfly” wasn’t a thing Foreman allowed (which forced Ali into the dangerous rope-a-dope procedure).

One point: The ring used in Zaire for the Foreman fight was phone booth size and it was a "slow track" with heavy wet padding under the canvas. Ali wouldn't have been able to dance in that fight no matter who the opponent was. That being said, Foreman was better than Liston at cutting off the ring. One of the best in fact.

[StarshipTrooper]

That last post to Buck was also brutally logical.... Wouldn't it be a nice world if logic held some sway? But no....alas, we must all except that the Klitschkos are the modern heavyweights of the future! Despite all the logical discourse which impedes this understanding....its almost like being in the middle ages and trying to explain to the clergy that there are no angels on the head of a pin.

Careful now. There's someone in this thread that's really into those angels on the head of a pin debates :chuckle9:

[Ben Bolt]

One point: The ring used in Zaire for the Foreman fight was phone booth size and it was a "slow track" with heavy wet padding under the canvas. Ali wouldn't have been able to dance in that fight no matter who the opponent was. That being said, Foreman was better than Liston at cutting off the ring. One of the best in fact.

Here’s a piece of an article the day before Ali-Liston II, written by Tex Maule:

While Liston's tactics in this fight will be to wait for an opening before committing himself, instead of chasing Clay as he did in the first fight, he is still a straight-line fighter, moving directly in on an opponent. He does not move well to either side. In training, while trying to develop more lateral movement—the idea is to cut the ring in half on Clay, thus preventing him from slipping sideways as Jose Torres did so effectively against Willie Pastrano—Liston looked clumsy and unsure of himself. And, oddly enough, he trained in a 15-foot ring, even though the fight will be held in a 20-foot ring. This was done on the dubious theory that the smaller ring would make him quicker; all it actually did was restrict the mobility of his sparring partners, making them easier for Liston to catch.

Clay, on the other hand, trained in a 20-foot ring—and used all of it. When he first went to his training camp in Chicopee Falls, Angelo Dundee discovered that a 12-foot ring had been built.
"We want a 20-foot ring," he said. "We gonna fight in a 20-foot ring, aren't we? I want Clay to be used to the size. I don't want him expecting ropes where there ain't gonna be ropes in the fight."

(I believe Ali-Foreman was staged in an 18-foot ring, right?)

Eric Neel/ESPN sums it up: Rope-a-dope. The ring for the Foreman fight was set up wrong: the floor was soft and slow, the ropes were loose. Ali had planned to dance and jab ― Dundee was sure that's what he'd do ― but decided he'd tire out too quickly that way. "In the first round, I used more energy staying away from Foreman than he used chasing me."

Talking about ring sizes: Vitali vs Sonny in a 15-foot ring or in a 24-foot ring could make a difference of the outcome, I guess.