Vitali VS Sonny Liston

[Humean]

So what if he was winning. Neither fight went to the scorecards to determine a winner. So the scorecards are irrelevant.

He lost both fights to the best fighters he ever faced and that's the bottom line.

Your use of these two examples is to prove that Vitali Klitschko's abilities were not very high because he lost to the two best fighters he faced but even though both defeats were perfectly legitimate defeats neither of the fights actually prove what you want them to prove.

[joseph5620]

Your use of these two examples is to prove that Vitali Klitschko's abilities were not very high because he lost to the two best fighters he faced but even though both defeats were perfectly legitimate defeats neither of the fights actually prove what you want them to prove.

My examples are better than anything you have offered. Based on my examples I can make a much better case that Vitali would lose than you can make for him winning.

All you can come up with is a weight difference which is always a flimsy argument. Weight doesn't translate into better skills in the heavyweight division.

Maybe you should find a fight that Vitali actually won to make a case for him. The problem with that is that he doesn't have any on his resume.

[Panthershock]

I wasn't actually making a case that Liston was a cruiserweight although a number of today's cruiserweights might weigh on fight night about Liston's weight. Liston weighed in on the day, the comparison should be between Liston between 210-220 fight night and not heavier.

You can compare the differences in weight and I did so, you are just ignoring it.

yeah but if you do fighters from vastly different eras its also probably fair to adjust size accordingly

is it fair to say that Liston would be 10-15lbs heavier with todays nutrition and training, vice versa for Vitali?

id think so

id lean Liston, but to be fair Vitali was never sparked and if it got late he'd have the edge

[Humean]

My examples are better than anything you have offered. Based on my examples I can make a much better case that Vitali would lose than you can make for him winning.

All you can come up with is a weight difference which is always a flimsy argument. Weight doesn't translate into better skills in the heavyweight division.

Maybe you should find a fight that Vitali actually won to make a case for him. The problem with that is that he doesn't have any on his resume.

Your examples don't substatiate your claim about Vitali's quality. I never said nor implied that weight 'translates into better skills in the heavyweight division' but how could weight not be a factor when the weight difference is so pronounced? The point of the Provodnikov-Golovkin example was to illustrate that but you would rather pretend that that is not relevant because somehow when two fighters are fighting in the heavyweight division weight is suddenly of little or no importance.

Now if you think Sonny Liston's skills were just so far and away better than Vitali Klitschko's then I can see why you think Liston would win but I don't see it that way. You really don't think that Vitali Klitschko is pretty skilful? To me the two fights you want to show as revealing that he wasn't actually show the reverse, nevermind the rest of his career. The quality of his opponents have not always been impressive, the same goes for Liston and for most heavyweights champions in history. Indeed Liston's two best wins are probably against Floyd Patterson, a man he quite significantly outweighed and who was a very mediocre heavyweight champion to say the least. In fact Liston outweighed the vast majority of his opponents just like Vitali Klitschko.

[Humean]

yeah but if you do fighters from vastly different eras its also probably fair to adjust size accordingly

is it fair to say that Liston would be 10-15lbs heavier with todays nutrition and training, vice versa for Vitali?

id think so

id lean Liston, but to be fair Vitali was never sparked and if it got late he'd have the edge

Liston might be a completely different fighter altogether if around today. I think the only way to do these comparisons is to compare what they weighed on fight night and how they were conditioned then compared to guys now. That judgment might be unfair on older fighters, depending on your view but if you start spectulating on what weight they'd be now iwith today's nutrition, technology and such like then you are not going to be comparing that old fighter at all as he might have turned into a different fighter.

[joseph5620]

Your examples don't substatiate your claim about Vitali's quality. I never said nor implied that weight 'translates into better skills in the heavyweight division' but how could weight not be a factor when the weight difference is so pronounced? The point of the Provodnikov-Golovkin example was to illustrate that but you would rather pretend that that is not relevant because somehow when two fighters are fighting in the heavyweight division weight is suddenly of little or no importance.

Now if you think Sonny Liston's skills were just so far and away better than Vitali Klitschko's then I can see why you think Liston would win but I don't see it that way. You really don't think that Vitali Klitschko is pretty skilful? To me the two fights you want to show as revealing that he wasn't actually show the reverse, nevermind the rest of his career. The quality of his opponents have not always been impressive, the same goes for Liston and for most heavyweights champions in history. Indeed Liston's two best wins are probably against Floyd Patterson, a man he quite significantly outweighed and who was a very mediocre heavyweight champion to say the least. In fact Liston outweighed the vast majority of his opponents just like Vitali Klitschko.

Do I think Vitali has skills? Yes. Do I think he is a great heavyweight? Absolutely not. That's what it would take to beat a prime Liston. I'll leave it at that.

And Listons resume is far superior to Vitali's. If you want to debate that I'll be more than happy to oblige you.

[billeau2]

It is not debatable that weighing north of 210 is advantageous, it clearly is. You think all these cruiserweights would be fighting in that weight class if they could fight really successfully at heavyweight? At least this is the case in a heavyweight division with the Klitschko's at the top, perhaps in the post Klitschko era slightly smaller heavyweights will rule the roost.


The difference in weight between Liston and Vitali Klitschko is about equivalent to Provodnikov fighting Golovkin. The power of Vitali Klitschko would be something that Liston had never seen as well as Vitali's strength and force of weight in the clinches. Also Vitali has certainly not always had the reach advantage in fights, a number of his opponents have had about the same or longer reaches than him. Indeed Lennox Lewis is recorded as having the same reach as Liston.

i said "JUST North of 210" meaning that a heavyweight need not be considerably larger than maybe ten or so pounds above 210. And the point is when more weight JUSt North of the average size for a heavyweight champion (if we took a sample of all champs and did an average) is considered, two things happen: the advantages start to dissapear as the weight becomes greater and there are diminishing returns on the advantages. Otherwise Butterbean would become a champ....At a certain weight, even if it is muscle, the weight becomes unweildy. The added power must be balanced out against this diminished capacity. For example, if we take a power lifter with 3percent body fat he statistically has more muscle than a marathon runner. In fact, he should be capable of doing more work...yet it does not help in a distance race.

In Boxing, We know that if we put a 240 heavyweight against a 140 fighter the extra power given the weight will make the outcome obvious. But when we take a fighter like Tyson at 220 against this same 240 fighter, we can see that the footwork, speed and manuvearability of Tyson might nullify the weight of the 240 heavyweight... all other factors being hypothetically equal.

Liston had more skill in the clinques which molifies any percieved strength advantage....Remember that Liston was very strong as well. Also Ali knocked Liston out with speed and suprise. Lewis beat Vitali! so the reach certainly was a factor.

However it is a good point that Liston's height would give him a disadvantage because he would be punching upwards....this is true I concede this point.

[billeau2]

Liston had a longer reach so that shoots down your theory. Bigger doesn't always mean you punch harder when it comes to heavyweights. Who punched harder, Joe Frazier or Buster Mathis?


Vitali never took any punches from Liston so I don't understand why you would list him as an opponent. Also, you comparing Corrie Sanders to Liston is laugable. Corrie Sanders never beat, let alone KO, a single top 10 contender outside of Wlad. If you think Liston had a bad chin because of the Ali fight, that speaks for itself.

Taller fighters get hit by shorter fighters all the time. Liston would have no problems hitting Vitali. Your reasoning is not only inaccurate but ridiculous.


As I stated, Vitali lost to a past prime Lewis and Chris Byrd. The two best fighters he ever faced. He has nothing on his resume to suggest he beats Liston. Absolutely nothing.

Everytime you say "Vitali lost to the two best fighters he faced" I shudder for all the Klit fans!

[billeau2]

A cruiserweight of today who weighs in at 199 pounds could hydrate to be within Liston's fight weight should he go that route.

Typical Liston: 210-220 pounds
Typical Vitali Klitschko: 245-250 pounds

The difference in weight between Klitschko and Liston then is that Vitali Klitschko would be between about 11%-19% of Sonny Liston's own weight heavier than Liston.

Provodnikov: 150 pounds
Golovkin: 170 pounds

The difference in weight between Golovkin and Provodnikov then is that Golovkin would be about 13.33% of Provodnikov's own weight heavier than Provodnikov.

Therefore the likely weight difference between Klitschko and Liston would be almost exactly the difference between Golovkin and Provodnikov, or even bigger.

I don't know why people accept the importance of weight in the other divisions but pretend that it is of little importance with the heavyweights, does something magical happen once the fighters are over 200 pounds? I know the weight advantage can be subdued with skill but is the difference in skill level between Liston and Vitali Klitschko that great?

Thats a fair question. It is because the advantages of having more size tend to diminish as one gets bigger. Its why in virtually all combatives the heavyweight division is open past a minimum weight.

The mistake in thinking people often make is to assume that there is evidence that people are bigger and stronger to a degree that it is materially consequential now, where as before it was not....Nothing could be further from the truth. The proof is in the pudding: the average size of heavyweights has not changed over the years in any meaningful way. It might eventually.

[billeau2]

My examples are better than anything you have offered. Based on my examples I can make a much better case that Vitali would lose than you can make for him winning.

All you can come up with is a weight difference which is always a flimsy argument. Weight doesn't translate into better skills in the heavyweight division.

Maybe you should find a fight that Vitali actually won to make a case for him. The problem with that is that he doesn't have any on his resume.

That is what the statistics tell us.