Vitali VS Sonny Liston

[billeau2]

Liston at his best beats both Klitz bros. he simply had much better form and talent! Sonny at his best is a top 15 al time heavyweight who could fight and be successfull in any era. I can see Sonny breaking down Vitali and busting him up!
Ray.

Liston also had fabulous lateral movement. He showed this against Cleveland Williams. The only other heavyweight that I observed such technical sound lateral movement was Holmes.

[billeau2]

I'm not suggesting that if you are say a 6'2" heavyweight weighing 210 that you should pile on fat and muscle to be 230 or 240, it might well be more advantageous because of better condition and speed to stay at 210 and use that size to your advantage. However whether a small heavyweight piles on extra weight or not he is at a big disadvantage against either of the Klitschko's because they are 245 pounds in great condition, they are simply huge men with fantastic athleticism for their size. Historically it is a very new phenomenon to have such big and heavy guys like that, the old huge guys which the heavyweight division had from time to time were usually fairly useless in comparison.



The average size of heavyweights has increased in meaningful ways over the years. Through most of the history the typical heavyweight hovered around the 200 pounds mark, some slightly under, some slightly over. Your typical heavyweight now is 230-250, this is not an insignificant increase in weight especially when it corresponds to a significant increase in the size of these men. In the 70s being 6'3" meant you were a tall heavyweight, 6'3" now means you are pretty average.

Sigh....you just don't understand do you? It does not matter what the weight consists of....Muscle, fat or water....At a certain point there are diminishing returns REGARDLESS, when a human being carries more weight and attempts certain activities...this is a fact. In theory a muscle mass well tuned athlete should have the same proportionate strength given their weight as a small marathon runner, yet it does not work that way. Fighting has elements of that same skill set, meaning that size, at a certain point ceases to be advantageous.

The only information we have about average proportions in the heavyweight division is from champs....there have always been all sizes of heavyweight in the division. If fighters fought 30 odd rounds with smaller gloves I doubt we would have champions that were on average very big, because these guys would not last a contest like this....As boxings rounds got less and less, as the gloves got bigger and the stress became on one big punch there were certain developments, yet despite this there is no evidence that an average heavyweight champion has to be any bigger than in the past to win the division...wasn't Chris Byrd a champion? On average the boxers in the seventies were in better physical condition, and had less body fat, that might be why obviously big men like Foreman weighed less than some of the big men today. This is a training preference though, not a development. Klitschko can hardly dance a round if his life depended on it, Liston (a big man) was on his toes often.

[Humean]

Sigh....you just don't understand do you? It does not matter what the weight consists of....Muscle, fat or water....At a certain point there are diminishing returns REGARDLESS, when a human being carries more weight and attempts certain activities...this is a fact. In theory a muscle mass well tuned athlete should have the same proportionate strength given their weight as a small marathon runner, yet it does not work that way. Fighting has elements of that same skill set, meaning that size, at a certain point ceases to be advantageous.

The only information we have about average proportions in the heavyweight division is from champs....there have always been all sizes of heavyweight in the division. If fighters fought 30 odd rounds with smaller gloves I doubt we would have champions that were on average very big, because these guys would not last a contest like this....As boxings rounds got less and less, as the gloves got bigger and the stress became on one big punch there were certain developments, yet despite this there is no evidence that an average heavyweight champion has to be any bigger than in the past to win the division...wasn't Chris Byrd a champion? On average the boxers in the seventies were in better physical condition, and had less body fat, that might be why obviously big men like Foreman weighed less than some of the big men today. This is a training preference though, not a development. Klitschko can hardly dance a round if his life depended on it, Liston (a big man) was on his toes often.

Diminishing returns in what specifically?

All you have to do is go to http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th...Annual_Ratings and see the difference in weight and height over time in the top 10 of the division. On average they are getting bigger and heavier, this cannot even be denied.

No where did I say a smaller and lighter man cannot beat a bigger and heavier man only that in a fight being bigger and heavier confers an obvious advantage. The difference in size and weight between Liston and Vitali Klitschko is not unsignificant, in fact it is quite pronounced. Therefore there is reason to believe that if their respective skillsets are broadly similar then the bigger man will win.

If today's heavyweights fought with smaller gloves they would never be able to go 30 rounds, the fights would end even quicker. Bigger gloves do not increase the likelihood of a knockdown but the reverse.

Despite his smaller size and weight Sonny Liston did not move significantly better than Vitali Klitschko does.

[Cardinal Buck]

If you breeze through this thread really quickly, it's difficult to figure out that all those "he lost both fights" posts are not, in fact, about Sonny Liston.

[billeau2]

Diminishing returns in what specifically?

All you have to do is go to http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th...Annual_Ratings and see the difference in weight and height over time in the top 10 of the division. On average they are getting bigger and heavier, this cannot even be denied.

No where did I say a smaller and lighter man cannot beat a bigger and heavier man only that in a fight being bigger and heavier confers an obvious advantage. The difference in size and weight between Liston and Vitali Klitschko is not unsignificant, in fact it is quite pronounced. Therefore there is reason to believe that if their respective skillsets are broadly similar then the bigger man will win.

If today's heavyweights fought with smaller gloves they would never be able to go 30 rounds, the fights would end even quicker. Bigger gloves do not increase the likelihood of a knockdown but the reverse.

Despite his smaller size and weight Sonny Liston did not move significantly better than Vitali Klitschko does.

You truly are hopeless. I don't think you even take the time to read what you are responding to. You seem to want to be contrary and dense at the expense of all reason.

I would just like to ask anyone else who posts: Is it quite clear the concept of an athletic endevour where more weight past a certain point is not an advantage? or am I acting like a little *****? Is the example of more muscle not making someone a better marathon runner not a way of illustrating that even though a bigger stronger person should be able to equal the work of a smaller person....It IN FACT does not?

Is it not clearly enunciated in posts that boxing may be an athletic endevour where at a certain point more strength and size may not be an advantage? and did I ever say that Humean said a larger man would beat a smaller man?

I pointed out that boxing has changed and that the weight a fighter comes in at may be a result of those changes more than the natural size of a fighter...and MAny have told you that given hydration, weight in dates, etc that what a fighter's weight, during the weight in, may not even be an accurate weight. George Foreman and Vitalie Klitschko were both big. They probably walked, walk around at a similar weight... believe it or not. Somewhere down that line of reasoning I asked you to consider "usable" strength...like reach, as opposed to what a fighter weights at the weigh in.

You have made no argument to support that given an equal position the bigger man would win....but you do realize you have just contradicted yourself? :blow: Ill let you figure it out mr: nowhere did I say a bigger man would_____.

Again why are you putting words in m mouth about glove size? DID you READ the POST? I was talking about the need for fighters to fight cautiously because of less protection.

And if you think Vitali moved like Liston that is really funny, it once again demonstrates ignorance....watch a few fights one of these days, you can see the Liston vs Cleveland Williams fight for example and you can see how nice both guys move compared to Vitali, but alas this is your opinion and y beef with you is that you do not seem to read the posts you are responding to, I can respect your opinion.

[StarshipTrooper]

You truly are hopeless. I don't think you even take the time to read what you are responding to. You seem to want to be contrary and dense at the expense of all reason.

I would just like to ask anyone else who posts: Is it quite clear the concept of an athletic endevour where more weight past a certain point is not an advantage? or am I acting like a little *****? Is the example of more muscle not making someone a better marathon runner not a way of illustrating that even though a bigger stronger person should be able to equal the work of a smaller person....It IN FACT does not?

Is it not clearly enunciated in posts that boxing may be an athletic endevour where at a certain point more strength and size may not be an advantage? and did I ever say that Humean said a larger man would beat a smaller man?

I pointed out that boxing has changed and that the weight a fighter comes in at may be a result of those changes more than the natural size of a fighter...and MAny have told you that given hydration, weight in dates, etc that what a fighter's weight, during the weight in, may not even be an accurate weight. George Foreman and Vitalie Klitschko were both big. They probably walked, walk around at a similar weight... believe it or not. Somewhere down that line of reasoning I asked you to consider "usable" strength...like reach, as opposed to what a fighter weights at the weigh in.

You have made no argument to support that given an equal position the bigger man would win....but you do realize you have just contradicted yourself? :blow: Ill let you figure it out mr: nowhere did I say a bigger man would_____.

Again why are you putting words in m mouth about glove size? DID you READ the POST? I was talking about the need for fighters to fight cautiously because of less protection.

And if you think Vitali moved like Liston that is really funny, it once again demonstrates ignorance....watch a few fights one of these days, you can see the Liston vs Cleveland Williams fight for example and you can see how nice both guys move compared to Vitali, but alas this is your opinion and y beef with you is that you do not seem to read the posts you are responding to, I can respect your opinion.

I'm sure at some point somebody did a side by side with Vitali and the Statue of Liberty and decided that Vitali was mobile. Well yes, compared to fixed objects set in concrete Vitali IS mobile :chuckle9:

[billeau2]

I'm sure at some point somebody did a side by side with Vitali and the Statue of Liberty and decided that Vitali was mobile. Well yes, compared to fixed objects set in concrete Vitali IS mobile :chuckle9:

No no actually the truth is that as of about 10 minutes ago Vitali is about as mobile as Anderson Silva!

[Anthony342]

No no actually the truth is that as of about 10 minutes ago Vitali is about as mobile as Anderson Silva!

Aw damn, good one. Yeah both are done. I'd lean towards Liston in this. Stare down? More like stare up.

[StarshipTrooper]

No no actually the truth is that as of about 10 minutes ago Vitali is about as mobile as Anderson Silva!

Now now, you don't have a leg to stand on with that one :chuckle9:

[Daddy T]

Liston is a bad match up for vitali. He's got the power to hurt him and Vitali's lean out of range style would be negated by Liston's reach. A guy that couldn't stop Chris byrd against Liston? This only ends one way.