Sonny Liston vs Archie Moore

[uncle ben]

Could Moore make it competitive.....I think he would.

[OctoberRed]

He would, but I see Liston knocking him out.

[uncle ben]

He would, but I see Liston knocking him out.

Yeah I do too. But I think he'd make it competitive for a few rounds. Ultimately, I think Liston is too big, strong and hits too hard.

[billeau2]

Yeah I do too. But I think he'd make it competitive for a few rounds. Ultimately, I think Liston is too big, strong and hits too hard.

Uncle Ben

If you are going to make these type threads, could I make a constructive suggestion? Look carefully at precedent, similar circumstances, fighters that might answer the question. I say this because in this instance we have some pretty good information we can bring into the situation.

A young man modeled himself after Moore... Sure others had their Ali, Robinson, Dempsey...and a lot of fighters certainly borrowed from the Old Mongoose... But this young man was in it for the long game. That young man would later become a champion in his own right, and like the Old Mongoose, he was always ready to fight...Both men could have lived in a boxing ring! Archie even had his swimming pool made in the shape of a glove.

That young man was James Toney. Toney like his idol, fought in a relaxed manner, economy of movement was essential, and the counter punch was designed to make the opponent pay and think twice before launching attacks. Both men could fight up and down, the weight classes were not made for them, and as if to put an exclamation point on this range, both men had great beards, and power enough to rise to the occasion when an opponent was injured.

Archie was competative against Marciano, as Toney was competative and beat some of the better heavyweights, like Evander Holyfield, aka the b astard maker.

With this said we can look at the situation with Moore and Liston and see more information. To me Moore, like Toney, because of their chins, their composure and technical refinements, would both be very dangerous to Liston. Liston could easily lose to Moore.

I would invoke two concepts to bare on this question: "Styles make fights." Liston was a great finisher with power and stamina, but not the stamina of Marciano... Archie is all wrong for Liston! He could certainly counter the bigger man, take a solid shot now and then, and probably time Liston who fought on a "crowstep...punch" type rhythme.

In this case Rusty Trombone saying "Liston does not cut the ring off" could mean a lot. Liston timed movement instead, but he is timing a guy who really has technical chops.

The second Concept is "How good was Marciano?" Marciano was able to impose himself on Moore and had the power to finish him. I think Marciano did this with his pace and his ability to never let Archie set up in the later rounds. Marciano was that good... Liston who is also an ATG just was too big to fight that way. Remember also that Archie and Toney can both fight off the back foot. This counteracts the jab because it gives the fighter more reaction time.

Liston is in trouble in this match up unless he can put Archie down and finish him.

[uncle ben]

Uncle Ben

If you are going to make these type threads, could I make a constructive suggestion? Look carefully at precedent, similar circumstances, fighters that might answer the question. I say this because in this instance we have some pretty good information we can bring into the situation.

A young man modeled himself after Moore... Sure others had their Ali, Robinson, Dempsey...and a lot of fighters certainly borrowed from the Old Mongoose... But this young man was in it for the long game. That young man would later become a champion in his own right, and like the Old Mongoose, he was always ready to fight...Both men could have lived in a boxing ring! Archie even had his swimming pool made in the shape of a glove.

That young man was James Toney. Toney like his idol, fought in a relaxed manner, economy of movement was essential, and the counter punch was designed to make the opponent pay and think twice before launching attacks. Both men could fight up and down, the weight classes were not made for them, and as if to put an exclamation point on this range, both men had great beards, and power enough to rise to the occasion when an opponent was injured.

Archie was competative against Marciano, as Toney was competative and beat some of the better heavyweights, like Evander Holyfield, aka the b astard maker.

With this said we can look at the situation with Moore and Liston and see more information. To me Moore, like Toney, because of their chins, their composure and technical refinements, would both be very dangerous to Liston. Liston could easily lose to Moore.

I would invoke two concepts to bare on this question: "Styles make fights." Liston was a great finisher with power and stamina, but not the stamina of Marciano... Archie is all wrong for Liston! He could certainly counter the bigger man, take a solid shot now and then, and probably time Liston who fought on a "crowstep...punch" type rhythme.

In this case Rusty Trombone saying "Liston does not cut the ring off" could mean a lot. Liston timed movement instead, but he is timing a guy who really has technical chops.

The second Concept is "How good was Marciano?" Marciano was able to impose himself on Moore and had the power to finish him. I think Marciano did this with his pace and his ability to never let Archie set up in the later rounds. Marciano was that good... Liston who is also an ATG just was too big to fight that way. Remember also that Archie and Toney can both fight off the back foot. This counteracts the jab because it gives the fighter more reaction time.

Liston is in trouble in this match up unless he can put Archie down and finish him.

You brought up good points I didn't even think of! Good post.

[billeau2]

He would, but I see Liston knocking him out.

Yeah I do too. But I think he'd make it competitive for a few rounds. Ultimately, I think Liston is too big, strong and hits too hard.

i know triangle theory is not reliable. But lets take the basic premise of the theory that says a relationship exists between the outcome of a match in a prize fight, based on performance against a similar opponent.

Now instead of postulating that there is a chain consisting of fighter A beating fighter B and Fighter C losing to fighter B... Lets take the idea in a different direction.

Instead, if we see that Liston could have problems against fighters that were smaller, hung in there, and could avoid him, and then assume that Archie Moore was much better at this then Marty Marshall, for example, Or letus martin... I think this is a logical assumption.

There are too many thing to consider in triangle theory: what is it about the fighter that beat fighter A? that fighter C was able to figure out? Who knows? All we really know is that two fighters fought one guy and one fighter did better, its very difficult to figure out why this is, hence the jokes about the theory.

On the other hand, if we see that Archie Moore could be a lot more tricky, mobile, technically sound than another fighter that had success against Liston, it is logical to assume a fighter who does those things better, unless there are specific technical things that tell a different story, will probably be a handful for Liston.

Unless there was something specific about Marshall that accounts for his victory, then Archie could probably be better at it and fight in a similar fashion where it benefitted him.

This is another way to look at this match up and why Moore could win this. Lets also be mindful that Sonny made adjustments and beat Marshall the second time, so sonny could make adjustments when he needed to do so.

But all in all I think Archie might be a real problem for Sonny, and i am a liston fan.

[OctoberRed]

i know triangle theory is not reliable. But lets take the basic premise of the theory that says a relationship exists between the outcome of a match in a prize fight, based on performance against a similar opponent.

Now instead of postulating that there is a chain consisting of fighter A beating fighter B and Fighter C losing to fighter B... Lets take the idea in a different direction.

Instead, if we see that Liston could have problems against fighters that were smaller, hung in there, and could avoid him, and then assume that Archie Moore was much better at this then Marty Marshall, for example, Or letus martin... I think this is a logical assumption.

There are too many thing to consider in triangle theory: what is it about the fighter that beat fighter A? that fighter C was able to figure out? Who knows? All we really know is that two fighters fought one guy and one fighter did better, its very difficult to figure out why this is, hence the jokes about the theory.

On the other hand, if we see that Archie Moore could be a lot more tricky, mobile, technically sound than another fighter that had success against Liston, it is logical to assume a fighter who does those things better, unless there are specific technical things that tell a different story, will probably be a handful for Liston.

Unless there was something specific about Marshall that accounts for his victory, then Archie could probably be better at it and fight in a similar fashion where it benefitted him.

This is another way to look at this match up and why Moore could win this. Lets also be mindful that Sonny made adjustments and beat Marshall the second time, so sonny could make adjustments when he needed to do so.

But all in all I think Archie might be a real problem for Sonny, and i am a liston fan.

Some very good points made here.

[uncle ben]

i know triangle theory is not reliable. But lets take the basic premise of the theory that says a relationship exists between the outcome of a match in a prize fight, based on performance against a similar opponent.

Now instead of postulating that there is a chain consisting of fighter A beating fighter B and Fighter C losing to fighter B... Lets take the idea in a different direction.

Instead, if we see that Liston could have problems against fighters that were smaller, hung in there, and could avoid him, and then assume that Archie Moore was much better at this then Marty Marshall, for example, Or letus martin... I think this is a logical assumption.

There are too many thing to consider in triangle theory: what is it about the fighter that beat fighter A? that fighter C was able to figure out? Who knows? All we really know is that two fighters fought one guy and one fighter did better, its very difficult to figure out why this is, hence the jokes about the theory.

On the other hand, if we see that Archie Moore could be a lot more tricky, mobile, technically sound than another fighter that had success against Liston, it is logical to assume a fighter who does those things better, unless there are specific technical things that tell a different story, will probably be a handful for Liston.

Unless there was something specific about Marshall that accounts for his victory, then Archie could probably be better at it and fight in a similar fashion where it benefitted him.

This is another way to look at this match up and why Moore could win this. Lets also be mindful that Sonny made adjustments and beat Marshall the second time, so sonny could make adjustments when he needed to do so.

But all in all I think Archie might be a real problem for Sonny, and i am a liston fan.

Agreed and good points.

[The Old LefHook]

Let me settle the issue, especially for a neophyte like Sukamin. The Marciano KO'd Moore. And Clay, who KO'd Liston, was decisioned by the Marciano. Patterson KO'd Moore and was KO'd by Sonny. There. Marciano wins!

[GhostofDempsey]

That would be a one-sided bludgeoning. Over in the mid-rounds, maybe sooner. As much respect as I have for Archie, he would be in over his head with Liston.