I still have trouble picking guys who aren't movers that are outsized by 6 inches and 45 pounds against the Klits, but with Wladimir's china chin, its certainly within the real of possibility that Liston knocks him the hell out P4P, Liston was clearly superior
Liston by KO..... Liston vs. Vitaly a different fight.... Wladimir is the more skilled brother...but Vitali is just a better fighter/boxer...
He's newer. Isn't that, "better," enough? Anyway, I definitely rate Wlad over Vitali as a fighter, but Liston is in another class, being a legitimate & bonafide top-10 great. He would struggle more than some of the old-timers' would probably like to believe, partly owing to Klitschko's size, & partly to his reticence to engage (I can envision Klitschko doing a lot of wrestling, & maximising the jab-and-grab technique to try & frustrate Liston), but he's too sluggish & fragile, in the end, to either negate Liston's considerable arsenal, or withstand the incoming. Liston stretches him in six.
Wlad easy. Too big too strong too powerful too skilled. Liston is just too limited too one dimensional just too black and white. Wlad KO 6
Even cdogg gave Wlad a good chance of winning. In boxing defeating a guy of your own weight class usually means the same as better
Lets talk about that weightclass then, and the state it is in now compared directly with the era Liston inhabited.
Own weight class? It's a huge difference, like saying Antonio tarver is better than Floyd mayweather because he'd kill him
Liston's 10 opponents prior to Ali had an average weight of under 200lb (198.3). You think those guys would do better against Wlad than they did against Liston?
In point of fact, I don't, but there is a lot to be said for how well your opposition prepares you, isn't there? Klitschko is flying in a crop-duster & he's being asked to man the spaceshuttle in fighting Liston. It's a much bigger step-up for Klitschko than it is for Liston, IMO. This is no easy fight, but I just cannot see any realistic way Liston wouldn't win it.
Of course it is a huge difference but since both are heavyweights I don't know if that can be counted in the same way. If Tarver beat PBF at light heavyweight, then yes I think we could say that Tarver is the better light-heavyweight of the two. If we give fighters a pass because of size in their own weight classes, I think it leads to a point where results don't matter at all anymore. What if Patterson had been as big and strong as Liston, what if Jimmy Young was the size of George Foreman and so on.
If there was a 40 lb difference between light heavyweights now and 50 years ago, I would say that to say one is "better" than the other, you would have to compare them P4P. But Liston knocks out Wlad either way. Wlad has never seen anything like that in his career.
So could we also say that Chris Byrd was p4p the heavyweight champion of the world, since being 6'7, 250lbs and being able to fight that way he would be pretty difficult to beat? Or do we again end up to the absurd idea that being quick, fast and technically sound is a correct way of being 'better' while being stronger and having more reach is not, it is just 'having an advantage' or whatever? And for the record, I rank Liston to top-10 heavyweights of all time, the fact that he wasn't good enough to beat Wlad doesn't take anything a way from that
Liston could do what Lamon Brewster did and more, mae no mistake. Offensively Wlad is better than even Liston, but that chinny chin chin of his would fail him at some point with Sonny who could and probably would finish was Sam Perter had started in his first fight with Wlad.
Worst analogy ever. First, nobody says "P4P champion of a division." Second, Chris Byrd was a 168 lb fighter who moved up to heavyweight for money fights, and relied heavily on speed and movement to pull it off. If Byrd had stayed in his natural weight class, would he be better at that weight class than Wlad? Almost certainly, I've actually stated many times that Byrd could've been a great fighter if he'd pursued legacy over money. Liston was a natural heavyweight in an era before boxers weight trained, used steroids, and had strength/conditioning coaches + nutritionists. I don't know how much bigger he'd be in the modern era, or if he'd be bigger at all. The point is that POUND FOR POUND, he is inarguably much better than Wlad. And again, even head to head he still knocks his ass out.
POUND FOR POUND is the biggest crock of shit in boxing debates, and making p4p comparisons inside the very same weight class is ludicrous. You can say Liston had better technique, more heart, better all-around skill or whatever is plausible, also picking Liston is plausible, but saying he would be better yet he would lose just does not work.
If they created a SHW division tomorrow for guys 240 lb+, would that change your perception of the argument? Because then they'd be in different divisions, so everything would change, right? Right!? Idiot.
No,, because I don't care about p4p arguments in the first place. ointlaugh: Why winning on being faster, more technical and better-conditioned is being better but winning on reach, power and strength is not? p4p argument works that way, but boxing does not.
So Hasim Rahman is a superior fighter to Juan Manuel Marquez, because he has superior reach, power and strength. Head to head, JMM wouldn't last a round with him, so Rahman is obviously much better.
As a heavyweight, Rahman is better. Skillwise, Marquez is better. Career-wise, Marquez is better (since he has achieved so much more). Who wins between them p4p, is nonsense
