Please post a description of Liston's basic attributes

[billeau2]

Powerful and effective jab. I've read where it was described as a "telephone pole" jab. KO Power in both hands and ability to cut off the ring. Cleaned out the top fighters in the heavyweight division prior to fighting Ali.


George Foreman claims that Liston was the only fighter that he ever fought or sparred that didn't back off or back up from him.

Some people believe that intelligence, because it is basically how we adapt, can compensate for perceived handicaps. Liston was illiterate, but could show remarkable insight. I have an idea... don't really know if its so... But I believe Liston compensated for his lack of literacy with a real nuanced understanding of the physical world, for lack of a better term Liston had a very intelligent body.

Even his training, watching him work his neck, and his flexability which was remarkable for a big man, seemed to show intelligence. he was anything but the big brute some characterized him as.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I think of him as I do Langford or Marquez: Technically exquisite, compared to his competition; and physically imposing, especially for a man his size. But not the best.

He couldn't cut off the ring. He didn't make necessary adjustments. Similar to Lewis and Norton his mental soundness was linked to the challenge before him.

I doubt Sonny could beat Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Quarry, Holy, Usyk. But on the other hand, there've been plenty of big men - even those who dwarf him - who'd get pummeled for trying to simply impose their size.

Never off balance, fast, crafty/creative offense, a quick study. I get the admiration. But like Tyson, I think fans conflate the dominance with greatness, and are more in love with the character portrayed than the actual man in the ring.

[billeau2]

I think of him as I do Langford or Marquez: Technically exquisite, compared to his competition; and physically imposing, especially for a man his size. But not the best.

He couldn't cut off the ring. He didn't make necessary adjustments. Similar to Lewis and Norton his mental soundness was linked to the challenge before him.

I doubt Sonny could beat Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Quarry, Holy, Usyk. But on the other hand, there've been plenty of big men - even those who dwarf him - who'd get pummeled for trying to simply impose their size.

Never off balance, fast, crafty/creative offense, a quick study. I get the admiration. But like Tyson, I think fans conflate the dominance with greatness, and are more in love with the character portrayed than the actual man in the ring.

Great post. I disagree with certain points, but they are reasonable comments. I just take issue with one point you make repeatedly about Liston: that he did not cut the ring off. Cutting the ring off is used under the aegis of certain methods of pursuit. It is not absolute as a skill set.

Take the following fighters: Wilder, Ruiz, and Tyson. Wilder does not ever really need to cut the ring down. He has fast feet and reach and if he tries to cut the ring, and starts chasing his opponent he stands to lose a tremendous amount...bare with me on this point. Ruiz absolutely has to be able to angle into and keep his opponent on he defensive...He has no reach, and even with pretty good feet, he has to have an entry point...Unlike Wilder he cannot hit his man with reach. Ruiz has to cut the ring.

Tyson? he cut the ring off well, same reason as Ruiz. Here is the problem: If your a fighter with great reach and fast feet, and a puncher... You never want to wind up chasing after a fellow puncher. This is an easy way to get caught quickly. Cutting the ring off properly works at angles... but if you are not paying attention and start to just try to push in directly in front of your man, it is a great liability...Hence, why certain fighting styles do not require it.

Lets take the extreme... the ambush fighter... David Haye, martinez (who won his comeback fight at 45 lol) In this style you never pursue your opponent until he is ready to finish. This is why Martinez fought Williams well... can you imagine cutting the ring down, even with the right angles, against a guy with William's reach? Haye was similar, in launching his attack from a great distance...actually Roy Jones was this kind of style, with some other factors to consider.

Finally lets take the opposite extreme: Joe Louis. Louis genius was in the perfection of stalking his opponent. I believe that the 15 round genre was a great benefit to Louis...It enabled him to understand mathmatically that with his punch, during a certain amount of time, he would get a certain number of opportunities to catch his man. His whole strategy was predicated on that approach, it is how he beat Conn. So for Louis cutting the ring, using the right angles, the right distance and always being a presence was integral to his approach.

So for Liston, who had Deontay's reach... and was a great finisher, he had no real reason to try to chase a puncher, or cut the ring down and risk chasing a puncher.

[billeau2]

I think of him as I do Langford or Marquez: Technically exquisite, compared to his competition; and physically imposing, especially for a man his size. But not the best.

He couldn't cut off the ring. He didn't make necessary adjustments. Similar to Lewis and Norton his mental soundness was linked to the challenge before him.

I doubt Sonny could beat Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Quarry, Holy, Usyk. But on the other hand, there've been plenty of big men - even those who dwarf him - who'd get pummeled for trying to simply impose their size.

Never off balance, fast, crafty/creative offense, a quick study. I get the admiration. But like Tyson, I think fans conflate the dominance with greatness, and are more in love with the character portrayed than the actual man in the ring.

I want to respond to the bolded here. I actually agree with you that there is a good possibility he could lose to every fighter on that list but Quarry. Usyk is still debatable, but the guy has skills that translate well against a big strong opponent who is more methodical than explosive. Quarry was to open to the exchange... IMO. Lets see how Usyk does as he fights more legit heavies... If he shows he can take the shots, or not.

I think your Quarry pick is kind of like picking Toney Bellew. A guy who is gutsy, can hang in there, has underrates skills, etc. But in these case I would take the methodical approach of Liston.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I want to respond to the bolded here. I actually agree with you that there is a good possibility he could lose to every fighter on that list but Quarry. Usyk is still debatable, but the guy has skills that translate well against a big strong opponent who is more methodical than explosive. Quarry was to open to the exchange... IMO. Lets see how Usyk does as he fights more legit heavies... If he shows he can take the shots, or not.

I think your Quarry pick is kind of like picking Toney Bellew. A guy who is gutsy, can hang in there, has underrates skills, etc. But in these case I would take the methodical approach of Liston.

Looks like you need to watch Jerry Quarry's fights.

Jerry Quarry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leotis Martin.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Great post. I disagree with certain points, but they are reasonable comments. I just take issue with one point you make repeatedly about Liston: that he did not cut the ring off. Cutting the ring off is used under the aegis of certain methods of pursuit. It is not absolute as a skill set.

Take the following fighters: Wilder, Ruiz, and Tyson. Wilder does not ever really need to cut the ring down. He has fast feet and reach and if he tries to cut the ring, and starts chasing his opponent he stands to lose a tremendous amount...bare with me on this point. Ruiz absolutely has to be able to angle into and keep his opponent on he defensive...He has no reach, and even with pretty good feet, he has to have an entry point...Unlike Wilder he cannot hit his man with reach. Ruiz has to cut the ring.

Tyson? he cut the ring off well, same reason as Ruiz. Here is the problem: If your a fighter with great reach and fast feet, and a puncher... You never want to wind up chasing after a fellow puncher. This is an easy way to get caught quickly. Cutting the ring off properly works at angles... but if you are not paying attention and start to just try to push in directly in front of your man, it is a great liability...Hence, why certain fighting styles do not require it.

Lets take the extreme... the ambush fighter... David Haye, martinez (who won his comeback fight at 45 lol) In this style you never pursue your opponent until he is ready to finish. This is why Martinez fought Williams well... can you imagine cutting the ring down, even with the right angles, against a guy with William's reach? Haye was similar, in launching his attack from a great distance...actually Roy Jones was this kind of style, with some other factors to consider.

Finally lets take the opposite extreme: Joe Louis. Louis genius was in the perfection of stalking his opponent. I believe that the 15 round genre was a great benefit to Louis...It enabled him to understand mathmatically that with his punch, during a certain amount of time, he would get a certain number of opportunities to catch his man. His whole strategy was predicated on that approach, it is how he beat Conn. So for Louis cutting the ring, using the right angles, the right distance and always being a presence was integral to his approach.

So for Liston, who had Deontay's reach... and was a great finisher, he had no real reason to try to chase a puncher, or cut the ring down and risk chasing a puncher.

His inability to cut off the ring absolutely was an inhibitor to his overall success. I don't know any one who believes otherwise, at least not anyone who's Boxed and has watched Liston's fights and reviewed his record.

Louis was slower and lacked the same power. Foreman's technique, comparatively, was abysmal and he tended to punch himself out. Dempsey was small and crude. Frazier was smaller and less powerful. But all were much more effective offensively, and ultimately far more successful professionally, because they were far more effective at cornering their prey.

This is one of those fundamental facts about Boxing that you should know. And illustrates the limitation imparted by relying solely on RING Magazine articles and Coxs Corner for your information.

[billeau2]

Looks like you need to watch Jerry Quarry's fights.

Jerry Quarry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leotis Martin.

Your making assumptions and wrong ones at that.

[billeau2]

His inability to cut off the ring absolutely was an inhibitor to his overall success. I don't know any one who believes otherwise, at least not anyone who's Boxed and has watched Liston's fights and reviewed his record.

Louis was slower and lacked the same power. Foreman's technique, comparatively, was abysmal and he tended to punch himself out. Dempsey was small and crude. Frazier was smaller and less powerful. But all were much more effective offensively, and ultimately far more successful professionally, because they were far more effective at cornering their prey.

This is one of those fundamental facts about Boxing that you should know. And illustrates the limitation imparted by relying solely on RING Magazine articles and Coxs Corner for your information.

You need to understand what cutting the ring down is Rusty. It is a technique and it is specific while not being specific to western boxing. Thai boxers do it well at times.

Your doing something you accuse others of: Your reading what others say about cutting the ring off, and assuming it is correct. It is in fact a technique and I could describe where it comes from, as it was not part of early fighting... But you don't really want to listen do you?

[_Rexy_]

Extremely underrated boxing IQ, freakish reach, sharp, piston jab, phenomenal power in both hands, great work rate.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Your making assumptions and wrong ones at that.

Hahahahahahahhaha!



That's awesome.



Actually, Martin KO'd Quarry, right?

Tell us about that one! Was it as brutal as Basillio's KO of Fullmer? Or Garcia's trouncing of Conn?