Where does Sonny Liston really rank with the great heavyweight champions?

Key word being champions.

I was thinking about it today. He has a 2-2 record in title fights.

When you look a little closer, however, there's a stat I can't ignore for whatever reason.

Sonny Liston competed in nine heavyweight championship rounds. He won two of them.

Discuss!

 

Top 5.

 

Yeah?

That would be rating him above at least a handful of fighters with more success in fights when the title was on the line.

Obviously, Liston had a great record before he won the title. Also, the circumstances that prevented him from getting a shot for years.

Is a win in a non-title fight as valuable as one for the title?

I've been pondering it all day. ::

 

The guy was a killer, Andrew.

The record does not always tell the true story.

Look at what it took to knock him off the throne.

Before the Clay fight, he was considered to be one of the greatest ever.

He cleaned out the division BEFORE he won the title from a Champion that was afraid to fight him, and fought basically none of the contenders.

No other heavyweight has ever done that, before or since.

 

He ranks at the bottom of great heavyweight champions.
He might rank at the bottom of good heavyweight champions.

 

All good points. And they all stack up when comparing him as a fighter... he'd be live in there with a lot of greats, favored to beat many.

There's no question he was a killer at his peak. A fantastic heavyweight.

But where do non-title wins rate compared to title-fights. Are they on the same level?

How many other great heavyweights are rated on what they did before/after their reign?

 

The guy was probably nearing or at least 50 when he lost to Clay, Andrew.

There was no record of his birth as his father carved the date on a tree and the tree was chopped down later.

Look at how old he looked in the Clay fight, particularly the footage that showed the back of his head.

 

It has never seemed fair me to downgrade Liston because Patterson spent years avoiding him. And he was so dominant in defeating all of the top contenders that it seems unlikely that the fight being a title fight would matter. It's not like Liston lost a big fight that knocked him out of the title picture or he lost a title challenge. He was unjustly denied a title shot

I think there's more to it than just looking at numbers when assessing a fighter's career.

 

I guess if you're wanting us to say his time spent in the ring as a champion or title challenger isn't so great, well, he did KO Patterson twice in one round each. That's more impressive than history tends to believe. He lost the two fights to Ali, whatever many sources may say about those bouts.

I don't think it's a terrible ledger through four fights, though it certainly isn't a great one. Difficult to judge him without giving due consideration to his decimating a pretty deep pool of HW talent prior to taking the throne, though.

 

Where do you rank Liston all-time?

 

All things considered?

I would place him around seventh or eighth all-time. I have a lot of time for Liston's abilities.

 

I have him right there myself. Liston had the size and strength edge over most of his timers but that should not count against a fighter. Results matter and Liston beat the best opposition around for about five years without being close of losing.

I do not believe he was 50 against Clay btw. nor was he 55 when he ought Wepner

 

Thirty-five or thirty-six, as opposed to the official thirty-two, is closer to the mark. Fifty? Not a chance.

 

more hyperbole from smegman

 

I had Sonny in my pfp top 20 of all time, but with the recent and very timely demise of Edwin Valero, Sonny slips to #21, with Edwin coming in at #4 and everyone else except Ali, Ray Robinson and Joe Louis moving down a notch accordingly.

 

Agenda alert! ::

 

I think Karl raises a genuine point about Listons age.

If it's true that he was a lot older than he claimed/was said to be, then we have to take that into account.

Consider how people back then always looked their age and felt their age more than today, where people are generally better nourished and age better......and it's safe to say that Liston could have been fighting Clay/Ali when his prime was well past him.

I never thought much of Liston's speed though it is safe to say he was probably a bit quicker than he looked.

 

Damn, I got caught::

 

::

 

Let's consider George Foreman's record as "champion"

In championship fights, in a total of 47 rounds, he only won 18 of them.


So where do you rank Foreman, homie? :kidcool:

 

Yes, Foreman's actual championship reign is pretty weak. So was Holyfield's for the matter. Liston, George and Evander lose to Tommy Burns in that category for example. However that is only one aspect of ranking fighters greatness

 

That's 16 more rounds than Sonny. :dunno:

What's that? 800% more rounds? Come on Sly!

 

If you're talking Western World, people aren't better-nourished today. General population health has actually plummeted.

 

Where do you get that he only won two rounds, though?

The scores of the first Ali-Liston fight at the time of the stoppage were 57-57 even, 58-56 (Liston's favor) and 58-56 (Clay's favor). In other words, the fight was even after six on the cards.

That means in nine heavyweight championship rounds, Liston won five rounds (more than half), not two. And he scored four knockdowns in those five rounds that he won.

Right?

 

Yes but because people are eating too much calories and junk and what-not...its an excess of foods, as opposed to plain shortage of them. Back in the day, people aged faster, due to a generally harder life and humbler beginnings. I mean, Liston must have been born in the 19-teens or the the 1920's, which would mean it is unlikely he had it easy. I mean, southern white trash had it hard, southern black folk most likely had it harder. He was actually a massive man, considering his upbringing.