Vitali VS Sonny Liston

[KO'er]

Didn't post in this thread before.

I think Liston beats Vitali by points. I can't see Sonny KO'ing Vitali, but it would be a rough 12 rounds. Liston has the power to hurt and stagger Vitali. His jab would confuse Vitali.

[KO'er]

And just as I post the thread ends, lol.

[titanium]

Wonder how a Wlad-Liston thread would do?

[Anthony342]

Hey Titanium, I take it you're a big fan of The Inside and Criminal Minds?

[Anthony342]

And Liston either wins a decision or wins by stoppage in between rounds.

[Humean]

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.

1: It is rich you calling me a numbskull when you persist in denying something that is clearly the case, namely the increase in the height and weight of heavyweights through time. The median top 10 heavyweight today is probably the same height as the median top 10 heavyweight of the 1970s 1980s and 1990s but the median heavyweight of these eras are probably about a couple of inches taller than the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s heavyweights. What has become more unique is having the very best fighter(s) at the taller end of the height range and thus actually possess high athletic ability combined with a high weight.

2: In the post Lewis era the two best heavyweights have been the Klitschko's, they are 6'6" and 6'7". You are largely using the multiplicity of champions of today to make your argument but what happened to a lot of these title holders when they fought a Klitschko? Sure some had success but on the whole they failed and surely the height and weight was no small matter?

3: Did you fail to see the height difference between Foreman and Vitali? Besides we are talking about Liston, a fighter from the late 1950s and 1960s versus Vitali Klitschko. It is clear that throughout history there has not been a man as tall and large as Vitali Klitschko that was as skilled and athletic as he is. The three really tall heavyweight champs in history up until around the 1970s were Willard and Carnera, both of whom were very poor and in Carnera's case a complete fraud, and the third was Ernie Terrell who was certainly the best guy of his large size up until then. However the point is that nowadays the very best guys, the Klitschko brothers and Lewis before them are at least 6'5" and are heavy but not out of shape. Do you really think that all these heavyweights today are just missing a trick, or worse completely lazy, and that is why they are not coming in lean? They are not coming in lean because of how sizable the weight gap would be against a Klitschko or the like. We have seen in recent years how cruiserweights have fared stepping up against these bigger heavyweights. Have you not being paying attention to what happened?

[billeau2]

1: It is rich you calling me a numbskull when you persist in denying something that is clearly the case, namely the increase in the height and weight of heavyweights through time. The median top 10 heavyweight today is probably the same height as the median top 10 heavyweight of the 1970s 1980s and 1990s but the median heavyweight of these eras are probably about a couple of inches taller than the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s heavyweights. What has become more unique is having the very best fighter(s) at the taller end of the height range and thus actually possess high athletic ability combined with a high weight.

2: In the post Lewis era the two best heavyweights have been the Klitschko's, they are 6'6" and 6'7". You are largely using the multiplicity of champions of today to make your argument but what happened to a lot of these title holders when they fought a Klitschko? Sure some had success but on the whole they failed and surely the height and weight was no small matter?

3: Did you fail to see the height difference between Foreman and Vitali? Besides we are talking about Liston, a fighter from the late 1950s and 1960s versus Vitali Klitschko. It is clear that throughout history there has not been a man as tall and large as Vitali Klitschko that was as skilled and athletic as he is. The three really tall heavyweight champs in history up until around the 1970s were Willard and Carnera, both of whom were very poor and in Carnera's case a complete fraud, and the third was Ernie Terrell who was certainly the best guy of his large size up until then. However the point is that nowadays the very best guys, the Klitschko brothers and Lewis before them are at least 6'5" and are heavy but not out of shape. Do you really think that all these heavyweights today are just missing a trick, or worse completely lazy, and that is why they are not coming in lean? They are not coming in lean because of how sizable the weight gap would be against a Klitschko or the like. We have seen in recent years how cruiserweights have fared stepping up against these bigger heavyweights. Have you not being paying attention to what happened?

You are illogical. You state right out front that you assume things...How do you know how athletic big men were? Athletic is relative....Skill is objective. Lets take your most ridiculous assertions otherwise I will be here all night...I got paid for this **** as a TA....no such luck here, it is a labor of luv but you are killing me!!!

1) You make the exact mistake once again....You assume a pattern where none exists. Specifically you cite Lewis and the Klits as the new reign of big heavies. The Klits have not fought anyone worth enough salt to establish this claim...even Lewis as good as he was, and he was great, lost to many smaller men. Even if they had dominated 3 champs a reign, a trend, does not make! The fact is the Klits have beaten **** opposition and dominated over **** opposition...Vlad even struggled with Peter! and he lost to Sanders...remember?

2) There is no proof that a heavyweight has changed to become a more athletic, stronger, competitor....There is proof to substantiate that in different eras, people were a bit smaller and bigger due to nutritional differences. YOu have to be careful Humean!!! You are assuming that because of general trends heavyweights are stronger and bigger. Do you know the "AFrica" argument? It goes like this: African Americans in this country tend to be on average more athletic...people natural assume this is due to some "African trait." In fact, When ****** were brought over, bigger stronger Africans were abducted....Africa, China, Mongolia....all have people who are athletic, skinny, fat, ******, smart.....Chinese people who come here for education are well educated and may raise a family here and again, people say "Chinese people are better at math." In fact there are many ****** people who are horrible at math in China....we don't see them because the smart people come here to be educed.....

Boxers have always been strong. We don't ever take people from the general population to box. It takes a special type to be a fighter and that is the sample from which heavyweights are drawn...So why are there variations in size for heavyweights? Because of the game. We are seeing in different eras the best type of conditioning for the contest. If we are fighting for 30 rounds with a lot of grappling and in the heat....as a heavyweight i probably want to come in lean and mean. In the forties we saw guys with tremendous punch stats and with no extra weight. Today in a 12 round contest, guys often come in a little heavier and frankly do not generally match the activity level of a fighter even during the seventies.....the Klits would not last for fifteen rounds unless they trained differently.

Again the mistske is to assume fighting is like football. Football players arebetter athletes, they are bigger, stronger, faster and smarter (most QB's have high IQ's now a days).... But fighting is not purely a sport.

Cruiserweight is a different division...Listen to Ray for chrissake! Its a different division because the heavyweight division is an open division. You see how thick you are dude? Again you have been told by so many knowledgable posters that it is a fallicious argument to think of yesterdays heavyweights as cruisers....Yet you think this is a valid line of reasoning. First off, size is more than just weight. And when guys like Joe Louis got older and fatter he came into the ring at around 210....Guys trained for fights to maximize performance....the Klits would not have the endurance to sustain a 15 round fight against a fighter in the 40's or 50's like marciano...or even Liston...because when you are training for less rounds you train differently....thats your weight difference...any one of those guys could have come in heavier because size is more than weight, it is bone density, reach and structure....Weight is one component.

[billeau2]

And Liston either wins a decision or wins by stoppage in between rounds.

If that fight happened Vitali would run twice.....once for office in the Ukraine and once away from Liston for as long as he could.

[Humean]

You are illogical. You state right out front that you assume things...How do you know how athletic big men were? Athletic is relative....Skill is objective. Lets take your most ridiculous assertions otherwise I will be here all night...I got paid for this **** as a TA....no such luck here, it is a labor of luv but you are killing me!!!

1) You make the exact mistake once again....You assume a pattern where none exists. Specifically you cite Lewis and the Klits as the new reign of big heavies. The Klits have not fought anyone worth enough salt to establish this claim...even Lewis as good as he was, and he was great, lost to many smaller men. Even if they had dominated 3 champs a reign, a trend, does not make! The fact is the Klits have beaten **** opposition and dominated over **** opposition...Vlad even struggled with Peter! and he lost to Sanders...remember?

2) There is no proof that a heavyweight has changed to become a more athletic, stronger, competitor....There is proof to substantiate that in different eras, people were a bit smaller and bigger due to nutritional differences. YOu have to be careful Humean!!! You are assuming that because of general trends heavyweights are stronger and bigger. Do you know the "AFrica" argument? It goes like this: African Americans in this country tend to be on average more athletic...people natural assume this is due to some "African trait." In fact, When ****** were brought over, bigger stronger Africans were abducted....Africa, China, Mongolia....all have people who are athletic, skinny, fat, ******, smart.....Chinese people who come here for education are well educated and may raise a family here and again, people say "Chinese people are better at math." In fact there are many ****** people who are horrible at math in China....we don't see them because the smart people come here to be educed.....

Boxers have always been strong. We don't ever take people from the general population to box. It takes a special type to be a fighter and that is the sample from which heavyweights are drawn...So why are there variations in size for heavyweights? Because of the game. We are seeing in different eras the best type of conditioning for the contest. If we are fighting for 30 rounds with a lot of grappling and in the heat....as a heavyweight i probably want to come in lean and mean. In the forties we saw guys with tremendous punch stats and with no extra weight. Today in a 12 round contest, guys often come in a little heavier and frankly do not generally match the activity level of a fighter even during the seventies.....the Klits would not last for fifteen rounds unless they trained differently.

Again the mistske is to assume fighting is like football. Football players arebetter athletes, they are bigger, stronger, faster and smarter (most QB's have high IQ's now a days).... But fighting is not purely a sport.

Cruiserweight is a different division...Listen to Ray for chrissake! Its a different division because the heavyweight division is an open division. You see how thick you are dude? Again you have been told by so many knowledgable posters that it is a fallicious argument to think of yesterdays heavyweights as cruisers....Yet you think this is a valid line of reasoning. First off, size is more than just weight. And when guys like Joe Louis got older and fatter he came into the ring at around 210....Guys trained for fights to maximize performance....the Klits would not have the endurance to sustain a 15 round fight against a fighter in the 40's or 50's like marciano...or even Liston...because when you are training for less rounds you train differently....thats your weight difference...any one of those guys could have come in heavier because size is more than weight, it is bone density, reach and structure....Weight is one component.

1: Most heavyweight champions in history fought very limited opposition, there is nothing new about the Klitschko's weak opposition when you look at the history of this particular division. Few people question the greatness of Joe Louis but his opposition was routinely of a very poor quality. Anyway it is clear that the post Lennox Lewis era has been the Klitschko era.

2: Wlad Klitschko improved substantially as a fighter, an improvement that took proper advantage of his size advantages, something he was not doing sufficiently before.

3: You can see on film how slow and uncoordinated the very largest (roughly 6'4" plus) men in history were in the heavyweight ranks. Neither of the Klitschkos can be considered as equivalent to Willard nor Carnera for example.

4: I don't know why you are so resistant with denying that heavyweights have gotton bigger and heavier over time. Why are they stronger? Because they have built up more muscle. You said it yourself that heavyweights used to come in 'leaner'. Old school trainers were resistant to putting on muscle. There has probably never been a heavyweight champion in history as physically strong as Wlad Klitschko. Some heavyweights are putting on excess fat to bring up their weight to face a Klitschko, but the Klitschko's themselves are simply huge guys in great shape and have skill to boot. So these 'small' heavyweights, guys who would be normal sized or even big by the standards of the past are putting on more weight, some of it muscle and some of it fat because the two Klitschko's are 240-250 pounds of pretty much solid muscle. Once both the Klitschkos are out of the picture and if there is no similarly sized heavyweight of their talents rulling the roost I expect that the typical heavyweight will be lighter than at present. More like 220 than 240 pounds.

5: The typical 1940s heavyweight was around 6'0" to 6'2" and weighed about 200 or just under 200 pounds so it no surprise they threw more punches and had better stamina. Smaller men obviously have more stamina.

6: No where have I suggested that weight is the only important factor, have I not also been discussing height? Obviously there are other factors too. However the original impetus for this argument was me saying that essentially with all things being equal that a substantially bigger man will have advantages over a smaller man. Vitali Klitshcko is that substantially bigger man to Liston's smaller man.

7: At least up to about the 70s the heavyweights were todays cruiserweights in terms of size and weight. There is nothing fallacious about that claim, it is simply a very obvious factually correct claim. Those pre 70s heavyweights could have come in heavier, but they didn't. Today's cruiserweights can come in heavier also and they sometimes do to fight for the heavyweight crown but they often fail, particularly against a Klitschko because in part they are simply too small. Haye was a cruiserweight champion, he put on a little bit extra weight although not much (he has been one of the lightest heavyweights of recent years) and he won a portion of the heavyweight championship beating a far bigger man in Valuev, which is of course evidence that the smaller man can certainly beat the bigger man but Valuev had all the problems that the really big man tend to have. Wlad Klitschko doesn't really have those problems and thus when Haye fought Wlad Klitschko he was very comprehensively defeated.

[billeau2]

1: Most heavyweight champions in history fought very limited opposition, there is nothing new about the Klitschko's weak opposition when you look at the history of this particular division. Few people question the greatness of Joe Louis but his opposition was routinely of a very poor quality. Anyway it is clear that the post Lennox Lewis era has been the Klitschko era.

2: Wlad Klitschko improved substantially as a fighter, an improvement that took proper advantage of his size advantages, something he was not doing sufficiently before.

3: You can see on film how slow and uncoordinated the very largest (roughly 6'4" plus) men in history were in the heavyweight ranks. Neither of the Klitschkos can be considered as equivalent to Willard nor Carnera for example.

4: I don't know why you are so resistant with denying that heavyweights have gotton bigger and heavier over time. Why are they stronger? Because they have built up more muscle. You said it yourself that heavyweights used to come in 'leaner'. Old school trainers were resistant to putting on muscle. There has probably never been a heavyweight champion in history as physically strong as Wlad Klitschko. Some heavyweights are putting on excess fat to bring up their weight to face a Klitschko, but the Klitschko's themselves are simply huge guys in great shape and have skill to boot. So these 'small' heavyweights, guys who would be normal sized or even big by the standards of the past are putting on more weight, some of it muscle and some of it fat because the two Klitschko's are 240-250 pounds of pretty much solid muscle. Once both the Klitschkos are out of the picture and if there is no similarly sized heavyweight of their talents rulling the roost I expect that the typical heavyweight will be lighter than at present. More like 220 than 240 pounds.

5: The typical 1940s heavyweight was around 6'0" to 6'2" and weighed about 200 or just under 200 pounds so it no surprise they threw more punches and had better stamina. Smaller men obviously have more stamina.

6: No where have I suggested that weight is the only important factor, have I not also been discussing height? Obviously there are other factors too. However the original impetus for this argument was me saying that essentially with all things being equal that a substantially bigger man will have advantages over a smaller man. Vitali Klitshcko is that substantially bigger man to Liston's smaller man.

7: At least up to about the 70s the heavyweights were todays cruiserweights in terms of size and weight. There is nothing fallacious about that claim, it is simply a very obvious factually correct claim. Those pre 70s heavyweights could have come in heavier, but they didn't. Today's cruiserweights can come in heavier also and they sometimes do to fight for the heavyweight crown but they often fail, particularly against a Klitschko because in part they are simply too small. Haye was a cruiserweight champion, he put on a little bit extra weight although not much (he has been one of the lightest heavyweights of recent years) and he won a portion of the heavyweight championship beating a far bigger man in Valuev, which is of course evidence that the smaller man can certainly beat the bigger man but Valuev had all the problems that the really big man tend to have. Wlad Klitschko doesn't really have those problems and thus when Haye fought Wlad Klitschko he was very comprehensively defeated.

1.There are many metrics that show relative weakness and they all point out that the heavyweight division is really lacking. Louis fought Bums but he fought guys who were excellent as well.

2. Ok

3. No you can't. Film has changed substantially. In fact you have to be looking for certain things, the speed of the film make a lot of fighters look ******ed! Its like a microscope Humean. I can tell you that there are cells and other such Protozoa but unless you know what you are looking at it will all look like nothing to the untrained eye. A great example of this is a guy who did an analysis of Marciano on Utube (try to find it if you can I can't find it anymore or I would link it). Boy, when you start to see what Marciano was doing....he hardly looks like the unscientific brawler. The guy used angles, kept just out of range, set his punches up...BUT you have to know what to look for or it looks like a Kimbo fight!!

4. The Klitschkos have poor endurance, I doubt they could last in a real punchout, they are not particularly strong... A strong heavyweight would be a guy like Mccall, prime Tyson, Bowe for example. What makes them so strong? Muscle is not the Be-all and end-all of being a strong fighter. Heck I can tell you from experience....I had a reputation for fighting very strong as a karate Black Belt and i was a twerp (back then ha ha). Muscle had nothing to do with it, some guys just are aggressive and controlling in the ring and cannot be backed off. Jermaine Taylor...Strong. The Klits hold, maybe Vitali but not really. Muscle boundness and size are qualities that fluctuate more so in some populations than others....a boxer has never desired excessive musclulator for its own sake....Look at heavywieght who were of great physique...Frank Bruno, Mike Weaver, shannon briggs...none of them were even strong in the ring. As a matter of fact: when Tony fought Rahman Rahman, a strong fighter, was solid as a rock at around 240 and Toney was fat as a pig....and Toney threw more punches than Rahman! Vitali is big and has benefitted at times from being in better shape than his opponent, but there is no strength calculus that the Klits are on top of....

5. Perhaps, but this decision to come in at that weight was based on strategy, any one of those guys could have come in at a greater weight, built more size if it was an advantage...it wasn't and indeed, it isn't. There are times like when a fighter that is not a heavy weight, like James Toney, or JOnes (for example) simply are too small. But these guys would never fight as heavyweights. This is the misconception. Toney only came up to expose a weakness, he simply is not a heavyweight. Jones beat Ruiz who was considered skilled but flawed and ripe for the taking. Billy COnn did the same thing when he challenged Louis BTW and he almost won but he was not really a heavyweight.

6.Ok just be aware that all things are seldom equal. Arty Donovan ate bolognia sandwiches and was a bit jiggly. A defensive back who issolid muscle, trained as an elite athlete, chemically enhanced will be BIGGer. But thats kind of a red herring when considering the other differences between a ballplayer today and in the 50's....Its kind of like saying "well, I brought my knife to the gunfight and ate lead...damn blade jammed on me!" there were prolly other factors at work! The Klitschkos are very foible laden. They may be bigger than a lot of guys but they are not the equal of a fighter like Liston. Liston was "strong" in the fighting sense of the word....if you hurt his shoulder he would not quit (for example...it actually happened!). Liston had great lateral movement, a great jab, a granite chin and a lot of experience against hard hitters like Cleveland. Regardless of who won size would not be the reason Humean! Thats my point.
7. Wrong, flat out wrong. And you cannot prove that size was a determining factor in Haye's loss. This point is where you are truly misguided. You simply do not understand that as Ray says the heavyweight division is an open division. The guys in the 70's walked around as big as the guys today and were all around just north of 200 which is the average size for a heavyweight. Heres more proof of this point: When I trained MMA guys the heavyweights look small. They actually weigh like 230 and up but the way they are built is small compared to boxers. I could not even tell you why it just has to do with the way they train. Some flabby guys look big but they are an exception. Thing is....these MMA guys? some of them are like 5% body fat! Its the way the body takes form with the demands placed upon it....there is no advantage, strength gain, or otherwise for one of these guys to be bigger, if anything the opposite holds true and lo and behold there was a lot more inside game in the old ways of boxing as well.

There are certain intangables that make some guys heavyweights and muscle mass is not on that list. Tyson was always a heavyweight...Mormeck looks a bit like Tyson but was always a cruiser. Some aspects of size are only reflected in the averages....200 to 240 is the average size for a red blooded legitimate heavyweight.