BoxRec

raylwa said "I guess we will have to agree to disagree as to the quality of these opponents. I have actually seen a couple of them live and in action. And all of them were known fighters in the late 60s. Not world beaters; not contenders; but fighters who were known by those involved in the game in the late 60s and early 70s, and boxers known as a good quality opponents for anyone. Not a fighter to be taken lightly - particularly at the time Liston met them.

Why didn't up-and-comers want Liston? In 1968, Liston did not have the reputation of being, as you put it, a "fading ex-champ." He was regarding as an experienced and dangerous a**-kicking machine.

You put in a young up-and-comer with Liston and, yes, he might win. But, on the otherhand, something very nasty could happen too. There were easier ways to get a reputation than to fight Sonny Liston.

Added 9/25: I see on the Hall of Fame thread where you wrote, "but we all know how in boxing that win/loss records can be deceiving." Yet, you relied mostly on the win-loss record of Liston's 1968 opponents to rate them. Hmmmm . . .[/quote]

-Yes we will have to strongly disagree about the quality of Liston's opponents. Maybe the fact that you did see couple live makes you think that they much better than they actually were. I simply don't believe that people in the fight game thought they were quality opponents.

-Somehow I don't think that guys like Bonavena,Chuvalo,Quarry,Martin etc. were afraid of an old Sonny Liston. When a fighter goes a long time without fighting contenders it's much more likely that he doesn't want to, rather than everyone is afraid of him. Especially an old fighter like Liston. His reputation as an "a** kicking machine" wasn't what it once was.

-My point about win/loss records is that a fighter who isn't really that good can pile up a good win/loss record by beating weak competition. Surely you have seen this many times. If a young fighter coming up fought the exact opponents that Liston fought between Ali and Martin, we wouldn't know how good he was because he was untested.

If on the other hand, if a fighter has a bad win/loss record, it's almost always because he simply isn't very good. (Unless he fought extremely tough competiton and was usually competitive. This isn't the case for Liston's opponents.) Liston's opponents were consistently beaten by ordinary fighters. Therefore, it's not a big deal at all that Liston would beat these guys. They were carefully chosen opponents. This isn't exactly rocket science.[/b]

Suit yourself. But I suggest that you go back and read the Ring magazines and BIs of the late 1960s up to the Martin fight and find out how Liston was regarded.

I have to go with Frazier, assuming it's 1968 or onward. His punch output was such that I think Liston (who was beginning to lose his punch) would have been cut down in nine or ten rounds. Any earlier in the decade, or prime-for-prime, the result is drastically different.

Ambling Alp wrote:It's a little difficult guessing how much Liston had left by 1968. He hadn't been fighting high level in his last several fights. However, we do know how he fought against Leotis Martin in 1969; decent until he was ko'd. He probably wouldn't have been much better in 1968. Remember Liston turned 35 in 1968 and hadn't been fighting world class competition (with the possible exception of Henry Clark) for a few years.
Frazier was very close to his best by then. Certainly much closer to his prime than Liston was to his. Might be competitive for awhile, but Frazier is going to stop him eventually.

liston turned 36 in 1968.

he was born in 1932.

"liston turned 36 in 1968.

he was born in 1932." - Goon

Almost certainly incorrect. Official, but it holds little real weight. He was older.

Liston wins by tko in the 5th rd

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"liston turned 36 in 1968.

he was born in 1932." - Goon

Almost certainly incorrect. Official, but it holds little real weight. He was older.

Liston was not yet born at the time of the 1930 census, so 1932 is likely pretty close - if not correct.

I thought Id bump this thread because Ive gotten a lot of interesting footage on Liston lately from this period which sheds a lot of light on this subject.

First off, Liston was injury prone during this period. He had suffered an injury during the first Ali bout, he suffered a hand injury during one these comeback bouts (I cant remember which) and suffered another shoulder injury against Joiner in St. Louis.

Second, Liston definately was not being avoided by the top guys. An example is Jerry Quarry who was still pretty wet behind the ears and was dying for a fight with Liston. Liston wanted no part of it. More to the point in all of these interviews after these comeback fights Liston is asked when he will be ready to take on the top contenders. Almost every time he answers "after about five more fights." That pretty much says all you need to know. He was not looking for anyone too threatening, he was simply trying to keep the gravy train rolling.

Third, Liston definately was criticized after several of his performances against these fighters (and no, Moore and Earls were not even close to being good). Against Billy Joiner in LA Liston was called old and slow afterwards was pretty much written off as a threat to any of the top fighters. He was called unimpressive for taking seven rounds to defeat Zech who somehow managed to be the only man Dave Bailey could beat in six years of regular fighting between 1962 and 1968 (and by 2 round KO of all things). Jimmy Ellis won the WBA tournament in April of 1968 and one month later Liston fought Joiner. Afterwards the press stated in several papers that NONE of the participants in that tournament had anything to fear from Liston (which of course was proven when Liston was knocked out by one of the guys who lost in the first round bracket of the tourney).

The bottom line is that Liston wasnt beating Frazier in the late sixties, period. He was slow, his stamina wasnt great, and his heart wasnt in the training anymore. People here act like Frazier was going to walk in and just let Liston hit him (because all Liston had left was a punch). Lets get real, Frazier wasnt that one dimensional. He was damn good at making guys miss, fast guys, and Listons punches were not fast by any estimation at this point. Frazier would start out slow like he always did, he might even lose the first round or two (although I doubt it) and then in round three he would start smoking and pick up the pace with each round. By round six or seven Liston would be discouraged and looking for a soft spot to rest whether its on his stool or the canvas. Frazier is getting criticized for being outpointed early against Mathis (which Frazier often was outpointed early being a slow starter) but Id pick Mathis over Liston at this point as well. Id pick most of the real contenders over Liston at this point.

How do you see a younger Liston (say, 1958, instead of 68) doing with Frazier, Klompton?

Prime for prime I can see why some would favor Liston but I still dont. Those people compare Liston to Foreman but besides being punchers both had really different styles. Liston generally needed room to get leverage on his punches with those long arms. He liked to set guys up with that long jab. Frazier was very good at working his way inside, and staying right on a guys chest, which unless he gets caught with one of Liston's uppercuts on the way in is gonna give Sonny problems. If Frazier can get inside, which I think he would, the longer the fight goes the less chance Sonny has of winning. If Sonny doesnt get Frazier out of there in 3 I think Frazier wins by UD or TKO.

klompton wrote:Moore and Earls were not even close to being good.

And you would be wrong. I saw both of these guys. They were both good fighters . . . world-beaters? No. Good? Yes. Sonny was a tough old journeyman who was capable of giving any body a good fight. Willis Earls made the mistake of tying his wagon to a bad manager and trying to compete at heavyweight when he started his career. When he changed management and dropped down to light-heavyweight, he reeled off a string of wins and broke into the top ten of the division (and that wasn't a surprise to anyone who knew him.)

We can agree to disagree on this. When you lose to more people than you beat, even facing poor competition, you cant rightly call yourself good. It doesnt bode well for your argument that Ray Windmill White was arguably the best fighter he faced. Who pray tell did you see Moore and Earls against where they were so impressive?

klompton wrote:We can agree to disagree on this. When you lose to more people than you beat, even facing poor competition, you cant rightly call yourself good. It doesnt bode well for your argument that Ray Windmill White was arguably the best fighter he faced. Who pray tell did you see Moore and Earls against where they were so impressive?

I never said they were impressive. i said they were good fighters - not great, not impressive but good.

klompton wrote:Prime for prime I can see why some would favor Liston but I still dont. Those people compare Liston to Foreman but besides being punchers both had really different styles. Liston generally needed room to get leverage on his punches with those long arms. He liked to set guys up with that long jab. Frazier was very good at working his way inside, and staying right on a guys chest, which unless he gets caught with one of Liston's uppercuts on the way in is gonna give Sonny problems. If Frazier can get inside, which I think he would, the longer the fight goes the less chance Sonny has of winning. If Sonny doesnt get Frazier out of there in 3 I think Frazier wins by UD or TKO.

Summed up pretty well, imo.

Unbelievable to me that some seem to think this is always a slam dunk for Sonny.

Believe it