BoxRec

Goodnight, Irene wrote: If, hypothetically, Liston threw it, he has to make it look at least moderately respectable, does he not?

He didn't in the second fight. He threw only jabs and then went down on a half assed punch two minutes into the fight. In the first fight he was throwing and landing power shots, getting hit with punches that were opening up cuts and busting up his face, and he didn't stop until he dislocated his shoulder. Quite a stark difference in Liston's willingness to make the fight look good between fight number one and fight number two. Again, to me the second fight shows why the first fight was not a fix... Liston was not a bright guy, not a great actor, and he didn't know how to make a fix look good.

To me it just seems that we're taking the controversy over the second fight, which is legitimate, and falsely using that to cast doubts on the first fight. The second fight, Liston may or may not have been paid off. Maybe he was afraid of snipers so he went down early to get out of the ring ASAP. But the first time I think he felt he was in there with a nobody and underestimated an opponent who he should not have underestimated, and he got beat in a competitive fight.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:He surely did take Liston more seriously. However, we're still talking about the same inexperienced kid in the ring. He performs better against a better opponent, absolutely, but it's still the same guy at the end of the day.

Lets just use Jones as an example. Jones lost a decision to Zora Folley. A few months later he knocks Folley out. Same two fighters, only the difference of a few months... but a different outcome. What happened? I would say that's just how boxing is. One night you're on, the next night you're not.

Larry Merchant had a nice quote, that "If you don't take an opponent seriously you make him a serious opponent." Ali was clearly a much better fighter than Jones, but he didn't take Jones seriously, thought it would be a fourth round knock out, and he ended up winning only by a close decision. Liston, who had fought three rounds in three years, didn't train too hard for this fight, was a bit overweight, thought he would stop Clay in one round... while Clay, on the other hand, was 150% more serious for Liston than he was for Jones and Cooper (who were only set up fights for his real goal of getting Liston), and Clay was also developing as a fighter... and he scored the upset. A year later as Ali he put on a beautiful show against Patterson. In that fight he looked like Ali, he had all the tools we would attribute to a prime Ali. And he was only 23 in that fight. He was a young fighter who was getting better fight by fight... I don't see why that's hard too understand.

And there are so many upsets in boxing history... to act like there are no surprises in boxing is foolish.

I'll say it again, but Ali's career is very badly over analyzed.

That's if he threw the second fight, though. I stated previously I suspect that not to be the case. I think he just quit, but it's only a suspicion.

Well that doesn't matter. If he threw the fight because he was paid off or if he quit and tried to make it look like he was legitimately knocked out... point is he did a bad acting job there, he wasn't really bright enough to know that no one would buy it... while in the first fight he suffered real injuries and threw and landed real punches... his acting in the first fight was pretty flawless in comparison to what he did the second time, wouldn't you say?

Liston wasn't exactly a briliant guy, after all. And I'm not saying that Ali was physically at his peak at that point; but neither was Liston, and Ali was obviously maturing and getting better.

Liston wasn't a bright guy (few are in this sport) but how bright do you have to be to make a fix work? You go out there, you make sure you lose, but you look reasonable in doing so. If he could tie his shoelaces, he could get his head around that. He wasn't a troglodyte.

There's been all kinds of controversy surrounding that bout for decades. That sort of thing just doesn't materialise out of nowhere, & fail to ever fully go away. It is too facile to attribute it to conspiracy theorists or haters, considering the figures involved in boxing in general at the time, & in both men's careers specifically. Liston in particular had a career managed by the last kind of people you'd want to associate with, lest you had no other option as Liston did. They were capable of anything, didn't give a damn about him or his career, & had a proven track of match-fixing. To say nothing of the NOI.

Btw - Larry Merchant said that? Someone quoted him also as saying, "One guy is a mile wide & a mile deep, the other guy is a mile wide & a foot deep" (referring to Frazier & Tyson). He always seems to me to try too hard in coming up with a big quote ("Vargas had a six pack in his stomach, but not a six pack in his chin, etc."), but it seems like the guy has it in him somewhere to be impressive. He just seems drunk during interviews. Strange guy.

Well, quickly, the quote; I think Merchant said it during a Barrera fight, might have been the Peden fight, but I don't really remember. It was Merchant, though.

But anyway, in regards to the question of "how bright do you have to be to make a fix work?"... well, again, Liston didn't look like he was very capable of making it look good the second time around. He didn't throw any serious punches to make it look good, he went down only in the first round when everyone knew he had a good/great chin and that Ali was not much of a puncher, and he didn't go down on a particularly hard punch. That was Liston's idea of making a fix look good. And yet, considering the acting job of the second fight, he was a good enough actor a year earlier to be able to choreograph the first fight? I don't really see it. Did he get lazy the second time? As opposed to the possibility that he was an old, overweight, undertrained, rusty fighter who took the future greatest Heavyweight of all time lightly, got out boxed, cut, injured his shoulder, and out of frustration quit in a fight that he was still only losing by a round or two? The first story is more believable?

I'm not sure if you're giving Liston too much credit or if you're giving Ali too little. Are you denying that Ali was improving as a fighter, fight by fight? Are you really saying that focus and physical conditioning are not important factors in what happens in a fight... considering all the upsets in boxing history and what the causes of them usually were? Ali thought Jones was going to get knocked out in four rounds... he only took that fight to stay busy for Liston... and he won a close decision. Liston was his goal, Liston was supposed to be the fight of his life. Ali trained his ass off for Liston, while Liston on the other hand thought Ali was a joke and he thought he would win in another first round knock out. Why is it so hard to believe that Ali could pull this off?

"Are you saying focus & physical conditioning aren't important?"

No.

"Are you denying Ali was improving fight-by-fight?"

No. In fact I specifically stated Ali looked better when he met Liston & Patterson in '65. Looked better & was better.

"Why is it so hard to believe Ali could have pulled this off?"

It isn't. Take another look at my original post that kickstarted this debate --- I actually literally wrote down I didn't think it was too hard to believe Ali could've legitimately beaten Liston, see it? What I've said all along is this - I have a hard time completely eliminating all possibility the match was fixed. Then I proceeded to outline my reasons for wondering about it. Never, ever said Ali couldn't possibly have beaten Liston or anything even close to that.

Just to clarify once more - I would not be stunned or staggered if the fight was on the level, or if it was a fix. Can you say the same?

The Joe Gans/Terry McGovern bout in Chicago killed off boxing in that town for over 20 years. The district attorney investigated that fight and had enough evidence that convinced them it was a dive. If you look at the fight on YouTube,McGovern is coming in low with his hands down. Ol' Joe could have easily delivered a right hand. When Joe starts going down it looks like pushing,shoving. After the fight,Gans is alert congradulating McGovern in the middle of the ring. The same guys who got to the White Sox(Rothstein,et al) in 1919 told Joe what to do that night.

Was this the same Gans that went 42 rounds with Battling Nelson vomiting through the ring ropes in the hot Goldfield,Nevada sun finally tiring out the very durable Nelson? By the way Gans was in the early stages of TB.

It wasn't the first time Joe did what he was told what to do like that night in Chicago.

George Siler,the referee,said that Gans wasn't trying and the mayor of Chicago said that gamblers had gotten to Gans. He banned boxing in Chicago into the next decade.

Gans and Nelson never fought a 6 rounder. In 1907 they fought for the title. Nelson losing in 42 rds. on a DQ. In 1908 Nelson stopped Gans twice in 17 and 21 rds.

Decagon wrote:

dagosd2000 wrote:George Siler,the referee,said that Gans wasn't trying and the mayor of Chicago said that gamblers had gotten to Gans. He banned boxing in Chicago into the next decade.

Did he make this statement based on any evidence?

Just before the fight the betting shifted heavily on McGovern. Everone who knows the history of boxing knows that fight was a fix. As far as hard evidence,the mayor knew that he could never get a conviction on the mob in Chicago. He did the smart thing by banning fights in that city.

OK now we're in a pissing contest. Sometimes I wonder where you get your sources. You've alluded that Dundee and Ali were in on some shady deals,Holyfield used roids,Johnson is full of shit,sometimes I agree sometimes I don't. But now you're going to hold my feet to the fire on this Gans/McGovern fight.

OK here's some sources for starters:
University of Illinois Newspaper Library
Private Correspondence,Steinberg,1989
Inside Facts on Pugilism,Siler,1907
In This Corner, Heller,1994
Champions and Challengers,Haldane,1967
Black Dynamite,Fleischer,1938
50 Years at Ringside,Fleischer
Article#83 IBRU Boxing,Cox
Private Correspondence,Tracy Callis
Boxing illustrated,"This Was Joe Gans"
20 Greatest Fighters of All Time,Detloff,2000

Look John L,none of us were around in 1900. I only know what I read. You're the only one I've ever come across making such a federal case that this fight was on the level.

As far as club fighting in Chicago that continued. but there wasn't a championship fight in the 2nd largest city in America until Dempsey/Tunney II(source:Ring Record book) not to mention a fight of any major significanse (my opinion)

Now do me a favor and follow someone else around on this forum and play "gotcha" with them.

The flow? Like Liston constantly swarming in looking to land big punches, pumping his jab and landing quite often, and throwing and landing big left hooks that would have knocked out Floyd Patterson five times over?

That's another thing. Its easy to say that Liston performed badly because he lost, but perhaps that was his opponent causing that? If Trinidad had been fighting Joppy or Mayorga instead of Hopkins or Wright he would have looked a bit better on those nights as well. Liston had no idea what kind of chin Ali had. Coming off the Cooper fight, Liston might have suspected that Clay had a weak chin. Liston predicted a 1st round KO. Yet, if the fight was fixed, Liston still saw fit to blast Clay with some big left hooks, notably in the second or third round. If he had been told, hypothetically, to take a dive against Patterson, would he have swung for the fences against Floyd? If he had, he would have had a lot of explaining to do to the mob, because Patterson wouldn't have taken some of the left hooks Clay took in that fight. And, as far as Liston knew, Clay's chin was no better than Patterson's. To me its clear that if Liston had been fighting Patterson or Williams or Machen he would likely have beaten them, but he was in against another type of fighter against Clay.

As to irene's reply... yes, I understood that you were just saying that you wouldn't be surprised if the fight was a fix. But I myself would be surprised. I would also be surprised if Marciano-Moore had been fixed, and there have been allegations about that fight as well. I would suspect that since Moore had been KO'd early before, and since Rocky was a big puncher, that Moore would have gone down early rather than allowing Rocky to batter him round after round, and there would have been little suspicion. And to me it also seems clear that if Liston wasn't smart enough to make the second fight look good, there's no reason to suspect he would have known any better the first time, or would have even been capable of making it look realistic. It also ignores that he did throw and land some big shots. There may be allegations, but there were also allegations that Clay would fly to South America to escape the Liston fight. Point being, I recognize that we can never really know what fight is fixed or isn't fixed, but I see no more reason to suspect Clay-Liston I than I do any other fight. If you want to talk Ali-Liston II, that's another story.

& the irony is I consider the second one more likely to be legit than the first (though obviously I can see why people would & often do see it your way). I suspect Liston just wanted to take away from Ali in the rematch. If people were prone to rumours the original was a fix, then Liston could at least keep people thinking Ali couldn't beat him by totally laying down. If he goes out there in 65 & tries, I bet he loses. Maybe he even bet on himself. You know Liston was a 3-1 favourite for that rematch, which may have partially rested upon the public perception of a fix in the first fight.

Typically, you're right in stating it's easy to say a fighter looked bad when in fact it was the opponent that caused it. However, in this case, Ali's legend is so big that I think the reverse is true --- it's easy to say Liston was made to look bad because his opponent turned out to be so great. But I digress on that subjective point...

Can't say I've heard about Marciano-Moore possibly being a fix. Heard the rumours about the Ali-Spinks affairs being set-up so Ali could be the first three-time champ, but nothing more solid than that. One last point - flirting with the risk though I may be, please find another abbreviation for my admittedly long handle - GI, or Goodnight etc. as I'm not female :)

Well obviously this is all subjective. We can all come up with any conclusion we like. I'm not sure what happened in the second fight, whether Liston just quit, as you said, or was paid off. I wouldn't be surprised either way with that fight.

I'm not sure where the Marciano-Moore rumors come from either. But I have heard it come up a few times before, in different places and from different people.

I think considering Ali's condition at the time, including how he trained for the fight, that its not unlikely that Spinks could beat him at that stage. To my understanding Ali was quite embarrassed that he had lost to Spinks. But again, obviously we'll come to whatever conclusion we wish to.

And yes, I suspected that you weren't female... which was why I found it amusing to call you Irene.. jokingly, of course. But I'll call you goodnight, if you like.

Marciano/Moore is hard to believe. Ol' Arch took a dreadful beating. I knew him a little. He had a boy's club in San Diego. When he talked about Marciano to me he said the ref(I think it was Al Berle) gave Marciano too long to recuperate after he was knocked down.I believe that fight went 9 rounds. If you're going in the tank,you wouldn't get the crap kicked out of you like that.

Something along the lines of Ali/Liston II is more believable. I heard Dick Saddler say the Black Muslims payed Sonny a visit before the fight. Those guys didn't mess around. I used to work as a teacher in the probation department and the Black Muslims were more feared than the bloods or crips. Ali was a poster child for Islam and they didn't want him to lose.

However like I said before Liston didn't have the stomach for it any more. Clay broke his will in the first fight. You know the Liston of the late 50's and early 60's was a pretty good boxer. He could fight in the middle of the ring and fight at a fast pace.

After beating Patterson twice he didn't train like he used to.

Ali always said he knocked out Liston with the anchor punch(right hand lead). When he fought Foreman,he saw another Liston. He was nervous before that fight just like he was before fighting Liston. Count the number of right hand leads Ali threw against Foreman in the 1st round (the anchor punch). Something like 7 or 8. He was hoping Foreman would flop like Liston.

Moore v. Patterson

I've always wondered about that one myself. Like I said before I knew Ol' Arch. But I am sure of this:He was an honest,polite,giving individual. The reason he never got a shot at the title for so long is that he didn't associate with gangsters. Living in San Diego he worked with kids,tried to train Clay(who didn't like him trying to change his style),was with Foreman for a while,stayed active with his boy's club ABC(Any Boy Can) He was loved in this town and even a cynical Larry Merchant was brought to tears when spoke of the passing of The Mongoose.

I saw him once at the bull ring in Tijuana at a championship fight. When the Mexican announcer brought him into the ring10,000 fans rose as one and gave him a 10 minute ovation.I never even saw this kind of reaction for a Mexican fighter. I'm crying as I'm typing this.

once in a lifetime, an archie moore (if you are very very lucky)

dagosd2000 wrote:OK now we're in a pissing contest. Sometimes I wonder where you get your sources. You've alluded that Dundee and Ali were in on some shady deals,Holyfield used roids,Johnson is full of shit,sometimes I agree sometimes I don't. But now you're going to hold my feet to the fire on this Gans/McGovern fight.

OK here's some sources for starters:
University of Illinois Newspaper Library
Private Correspondence,Steinberg,1989
Inside Facts on Pugilism,Siler,1907
In This Corner, Heller,1994
Champions and Challengers,Haldane,1967
Black Dynamite,Fleischer,1938
50 Years at Ringside,Fleischer
Article#83 IBRU Boxing,Cox
Private Correspondence,Tracy Callis
Boxing illustrated,"This Was Joe Gans"
20 Greatest Fighters of All Time,Detloff,2000

Look John L,none of us were around in 1900. I only know what I read. You're the only one I've ever come across making such a federal case that this fight was on the level.

As far as club fighting in Chicago that continued. but there wasn't a championship fight in the 2nd largest city in America until Dempsey/Tunney II(source:Ring Record book) not to mention a fight of any major significanse (my opinion)

Now do me a favor and follow someone else around on this forum and play "gotcha" with them.

i have to say that was funny.
i feel the same way with a ton of posters
not just this forum but others as well.

dagosd2000 wrote:George Siler,the referee,said that Gans wasn't trying and the mayor of Chicago said that gamblers had gotten to Gans. He banned boxing in Chicago into the next decade.

Gans and Nelson never fought a 6 rounder. In 1907 they fought for the title. Nelson losing in 42 rds. on a DQ. In 1908 Nelson stopped Gans twice in 17 and 21 rds.

Siler was a former fighter and very hands on ref when the situation called for action.

I think Siler was helped Fitzsimons out a bit in his fight with Corbett, and he defiantly helped Gans out a bit vs McGovern. Siler is quick to break up the in-fighing which is going McGovern's way, and even escorts a woozy Gans back to his corner after a rough round one.

I have seen the Gans vs McGovern fight. It doesn't look like a fix to me. Gans starts out well. McGovern catches Gans with a shot near the ear region. His equilibrium goes, his knees shake, and then he falls forward. Gans tries to fight back, but McGovern's whirlwind style is too much for him. Gans goes down a few times. The fight is stopped in round two.

pound per pound wrote:

dagosd2000 wrote:George Siler,the referee,said that Gans wasn't trying and the mayor of Chicago said that gamblers had gotten to Gans. He banned boxing in Chicago into the next decade.

Gans and Nelson never fought a 6 rounder. In 1907 they fought for the title. Nelson losing in 42 rds. on a DQ. In 1908 Nelson stopped Gans twice in 17 and 21 rds.

Siler was a former fighter and very hands on ref when the situation called for action.

I think Siler was helped Fitzsimons out a bit in his fight with Corbett, and he defiantly helped Gans out a bit vs McGovern. Siler is quick to break up the in-fighing which is going McGovern's way, and even escorts a woozy Gans back to his corner after a rough round one.

I have seen the Gans vs McGovern fight. It doesn't look like a fix to me. Gans starts out well. McGovern catches Gans with a shot near the ear region. His equilibrium goes, his knees shake, and then he falls forward. Gans tries to fight back, but McGovern's whirlwind style is too much for him. Gans goes down a few times. The fight is stopped in round two.

OK now I'm going to let you guys in on something that was passed down to me from my father from his father.
Just after the turn of the century my grandfather took over control of Chicago. His name was "Diamond Joe Esposito". He ran everything that was not on the up and up. He brought Capone out to Chicago from New York when Al was a kid. Sam Giancana,Frank Nitti,Paul"The Waiter Ricca", Tony Accardo were all in his debt. Joe Kennedy supplied my grandfather with sugar to make booze during prohibition. He was even connected with Calvin Coolidge guaranteeing him Chicago when voting time came around. He ran the Chicago mob. They were called "the Outfit"
They controlled gambling whether it was slot machines,horses,crap games,or boxing matches. My father didn't let me in on all this stuff until I was older. I heard him mention the Gans/McGovern fight when I was a kid. This was before he let me in on who my grandfather was. We were at Sam Giancana's house and I was playing cowboys and Indians with his kids.
My father,Giancana,and some other Outfit guys were reminiscing about the old days and were talking about how the mob could fix anything in town. I heard them talk about a fighter, a guy "Gans" and how he did what he was told against "The Mick" . I never put it together until after my father filled me in on who he was and who his father was. No wonder the FBI was always at our house.
I didn't want to bring this up with that other guy who was following me around on this forum,but you seem like a rational guy. You can't believe the stuff I was let in on. It was like hanging around the CIA. They tell me I should write a book.

i'm afraid you got it wrong, dagosd2000, it was my grandfather that ran chicago. 8)

harrygreb wrote:i'm afraid you got it wrong, dagosd2000, it was my grandfather that ran chicago. 8)

I'm curious to know his name?

Decagon wrote:

dagosd2000 wrote:Just after the turn of the century my grandfather took over control of Chicago. His name was "Diamond Joe Esposito". He ran everything that was not on the up and up. He brought Capone out to Chicago from New York when Al was a kid. Sam Giancana,Frank Nitti,Paul"The Waiter Ricca", Tony Accardo were all in his debt. Joe Kennedy supplied my grandfather with sugar to make booze during prohibition. He was even connected with Calvin Coolidge guaranteeing him Chicago when voting time came around. He ran the Chicago mob. They were called "the Outfit"
They controlled gambling whether it was slot machines,horses,crap games,or boxing matches. My father didn't let me in on all this stuff until I was older. I heard him mention the Gans/McGovern fight when I was a kid. This was before he let me in on who my grandfather was. We were at Sam Giancana's house and I was playing cowboys and Indians with his kids.
My father,Giancana,and some other Outfit guys were reminiscing about the old days and were talking about how the mob could fix anything in town. I heard them talk about a fighter, a guy "Gans" and how he did what he was told against "The Mick". I never put it together until after my father filled me in on who he was and who his father was. No wonder the FBI was always at our house.
I didn't want to bring this up with that other guy who was following me around on this forum,but you seem like a rational guy. You can't believe the stuff I was let in on. It was like hanging around the CIA. They tell me I should write a book.

I've heard this exact same story before. What other usernames have you used on different fora?

This is the first forum I've ever been on . My cousin is still alive but I don't think he knows the story of the Gans/McGovern fight.

he was known as "the man with no name" 8) 8) 8)

harrygreb wrote:he was known as "the man with no name" 8) 8) 8)

I wish you'd get to the point. A man with no name makes no sense to me.
I'd like to keep it in boxing so that's why I'm not going to go any further with this nonsense.

My aunt,her son(my cousin),and my uncle have been asked to contribute to various histories of organized crime in Chicago. Last year David Crichley used me for some information on a book he's writing about organized crime.

"Wicked City",by Curt Johnson(prefaced by Roger Ebert) will give you the goods on Diamond Joe. Another excellant source is "Double Cross",by Chuck Giancana.

Back to the thread. Carmen Basilio wasn't in on it. He had too much class.
But he wasn't supposed to win when he fought Johnny Saxton ifor the welter title the first time.Johnny De John and Al Netro hung around the wise guys and always had gambling debts . I think Carmen looks back on those two and realizes they weren't on the level with him. By the way the fight was in Chicago.