Liston vs Frazier 1971

[them_apples]

i agree with these guys, liston isn't that much bigger than frazier and he fought in a more conventional style than fo'man. in 1971 liston was in his late 40's and joe was just at the end of his prime, i think joe has a chance at stopping the old liston late

yeah the old Liston, but they are claiming "Liston doesn't have the movement to keep Joe off" no he doesn't be he has the strength to keep him at bay, Liston was sort of build like a shorter Foreman, very heavy boned and strong.

[QueensburyRules]

he bounced qawi around because qawi was a 5 ft 7 LHW, but not before qawi landed about 20 flush punches on Foremans dome. I don't know where we are going with this but if that was a prime Frazier in there with a 40 year old Foreman, the speed difference would have been too great - and people forget Frazier still got up 6 times. Thats a serious downplay of Frazier abilities if you think that old version of george would do the same number on him.

Liston was certainly better in 61. Fraziers resume is only Marginally better than Listons because of the W he picked up over Ali. But Liston faced the deadliest version of Ali in his first bout, and actually wasn't doing too bad for the first half. That version of Ali was probably impossible to beat.

--- 22 yr old Ali went hysteric and failed the medical at the weighin.

Special dispensations occurred to get him calmed down. Looked like caca against Jones and almost KOed by 'enery who had to wear lead weights to make the weight.

At any rate, Sonny was training on whiskey for a 4-6 rd fight because young Clay was considered to be a joke.

tubby Qawi almost killed Field in their first fight, but George used him to get back into fighting shape after a decade retirement.

End of the day, when Sonny got his place in the sun after Patterson, he got soft to lose his edge.

Always picked Joe over Sonny who never came close to beating such a good heavy. Sonny filled the vacuum with Floyd after Rocky, Ez, and Walcott retired, a poor era for heavys that Ali, George, Joe and Kenny rearranged for a golden age of heavies.

Btw, I'd pick 61 Sonny over any version of Norton if that's any consolation.

[johnbook]

It is interesting that Ali never gave Jones a rematch.

[billeau2]

yeah the old Liston, but they are claiming "Liston doesn't have the movement to keep Joe off" no he doesn't be he has the strength to keep him at bay, Liston was sort of build like a shorter Foreman, very heavy boned and strong.

A couple of points and one is directed towards the bold above: the other and first is a general comment.

When we compare fighters I am assuming a best versus best. Otherwise it gets silly imo.

Regarding Liston: weight is not the only factor regarding size. This comes up a lot and the best example I can think of is to look at size objectively. First, weight is indiscriminate. It could relate to fat, bones and muscle. Second we have density, which is the weight of something per the amount of actual material...lets come back to that in a second. Finally we have size itself... So something like reach, the size of a person's legs, wrists, hands, etc... All of these involve size.

So what part of size are integral to making one fighter "big" and another "not as big?" Here are some factors

1) bone density. When I was studying karate and had an Xray I was told the Xray was no good because my leg bone was too thick. That meant that per its size, my leg bone contained more material than another leg bone that could even weigh more than mine. So, when we look at Liston, he was a big man. His legs are obviously very dense. His wrists and neck are also very strong.

2) Extension of matter into space and time. The primary way to see this in fighting is reach. Liston had one of, if not the longest reach of any heavyweight. Reach is a component of size because in order to apply mass it has to extend. Now if I had bird arms that were long, or bird legs that were strong, these would be signs that I was not a big individual. Liston had strong arms and shoulders that also had extension. Making him BIG!

3) Muscle mass. This is the final one really. We cannot look at someone Who weights 250 and is carrying 20 extra pounds and call them bigger than a man who weighs 235 and is carrying five extra pounds. When we figure this in, the size variation is not so great among heavyweights. What we do see is more heavyweights that are very big.

By any measure Foreman and Liston are big heavyweights. Liston had a bigger wingspan than Foreman.

Now lets look at your bolded statement: Yes, in fact Foreman had legs that were longer than Liston's but, when we look at actual size, both men had dense legs. Forman had more length, Liston more width. Two big heavyweights. Both had wingspan, big hands, shoulders, neck, etc and both fought similar style. liston was a better combo puncher, and had a better jab, Foreman had heavier hands. thats just my opinion.

[OctoberRed]

A couple of points and one is directed towards the bold above: the other and first is a general comment.

When we compare fighters I am assuming a best versus best. Otherwise it gets silly imo.

Regarding Liston: weight is not the only factor regarding size. This comes up a lot and the best example I can think of is to look at size objectively. First, weight is indiscriminate. It could relate to fat, bones and muscle. Second we have density, which is the weight of something per the amount of actual material...lets come back to that in a second. Finally we have size itself... So something like reach, the size of a person's legs, wrists, hands, etc... All of these involve size.

So what part of size are integral to making one fighter "big" and another "not as big?" Here are some factors

1) bone density. When I was studying karate and had an Xray I was told the Xray was no good because my leg bone was too thick. That meant that per its size, my leg bone contained more material than another leg bone that could even weigh more than mine. So, when we look at Liston, he was a big man. His legs are obviously very dense. His wrists and neck are also very strong.

2) Extension of matter into space and time. The primary way to see this in fighting is reach. Liston had one of, if not the longest reach of any heavyweight. Reach is a component of size because in order to apply mass it has to extend. Now if I had bird arms that were long, or bird legs that were strong, these would be signs that I was not a big individual. Liston had strong arms and shoulders that also had extension. Making him BIG!

3) Muscle mass. This is the final one really. We cannot look at someone Who weights 250 and is carrying 20 extra pounds and call them bigger than a man who weighs 235 and is carrying five extra pounds. When we figure this in, the size variation is not so great among heavyweights. What we do see is more heavyweights that are very big.

By any measure Foreman and Liston are big heavyweights. Liston had a bigger wingspan than Foreman.

Now lets look at your bolded statement: Yes, in fact Foreman had legs that were longer than Liston's but, when we look at actual size, both men had dense legs. Forman had more length, Liston more width. Two big heavyweights. Both had wingspan, big hands, shoulders, neck, etc and both fought similar style. liston was a better combo puncher, and had a better jab, Foreman had heavier hands. thats just my opinion.

Billeu brings up some solid info here.

[them_apples]

A couple of points and one is directed towards the bold above: the other and first is a general comment.

When we compare fighters I am assuming a best versus best. Otherwise it gets silly imo.

Regarding Liston: weight is not the only factor regarding size. This comes up a lot and the best example I can think of is to look at size objectively. First, weight is indiscriminate. It could relate to fat, bones and muscle. Second we have density, which is the weight of something per the amount of actual material...lets come back to that in a second. Finally we have size itself... So something like reach, the size of a person's legs, wrists, hands, etc... All of these involve size.

So what part of size are integral to making one fighter "big" and another "not as big?" Here are some factors

1) bone density. When I was studying karate and had an Xray I was told the Xray was no good because my leg bone was too thick. That meant that per its size, my leg bone contained more material than another leg bone that could even weigh more than mine. So, when we look at Liston, he was a big man. His legs are obviously very dense. His wrists and neck are also very strong.

2) Extension of matter into space and time. The primary way to see this in fighting is reach. Liston had one of, if not the longest reach of any heavyweight. Reach is a component of size because in order to apply mass it has to extend. Now if I had bird arms that were long, or bird legs that were strong, these would be signs that I was not a big individual. Liston had strong arms and shoulders that also had extension. Making him BIG!

3) Muscle mass. This is the final one really. We cannot look at someone Who weights 250 and is carrying 20 extra pounds and call them bigger than a man who weighs 235 and is carrying five extra pounds. When we figure this in, the size variation is not so great among heavyweights. What we do see is more heavyweights that are very big.

By any measure Foreman and Liston are big heavyweights. Liston had a bigger wingspan than Foreman.

Now lets look at your bolded statement: Yes, in fact Foreman had legs that were longer than Liston's but, when we look at actual size, both men had dense legs. Forman had more length, Liston more width. Two big heavyweights. Both had wingspan, big hands, shoulders, neck, etc and both fought similar style. liston was a better combo puncher, and had a better jab, Foreman had heavier hands. thats just my opinion.

great post. agree with everything. number 3 is actually bang on

[Ascended]

I used to but the Foreman/Kiston comparison. Not any more. Two completely different fighters. George was much more physical, larger, quicker. Liston more “technical”. Prime Liston was 6’1 and 212 pounds. Thus the size difference was not in any way overwhelming. Size in the hwt division is really the last thing to consider. Joe in his prime slipped jabs with ease. Note the high % of Ali’s jabs he slipped in 71. Well over 50%. Liston did not have movement to keep Joe off of him so once Frazier is inside he will do damage.

somebody who can see son was so slow and easy to read why pick him its odd