BoxRec

theone wrote:

hich "bullies" told Liston he had to lose?

No one needed to tell Liston to lose. The ass kicking Ali was laying on him was enough to convince him he wasnt going to win.

I take it you have vast experience with the Nation of Islam bunch than handled Ali's business

and of course also with the mob.

granberry wrote:

theone wrote:

hich "bullies" told Liston he had to lose?

No one needed to tell Liston to lose. The ass kicking Ali was laying on him was enough to convince him he wasnt going to win.

I take it you have vast experience with the Nation of Islam bunch than handled Ali's business

and of course also with the mob.

Maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. But from his comment he's probably seen the fight.

I take it you have vast experience with the Nation of Islam bunch than handled Ali's business

and of course also with the mob.

What I have is vast experience watching fights, Ive been doing it for thirty years. I have watched Clay/Liston I many times on tape and what should be obivious to anyone whose watch a few fights in their lifetime is that both fighters were doing their very best to win the fight.

What happened in the second fight could have been one of many things.

Liston figured there was no way he could win the fight, and wanted to get out of there as soon as possible.

Liston was confused by Walcotts mishandling of the count.

Ali's "Anchor Punch" really did the job.

Or maybe the outlandish conspiricy theories you suscribe to..who knows?

But what should be evident among all else, at least going by the first fight, is that Ali was the vastly superior fighter. Period.

theone wrote:But what should be evident among all else, at least going by the first fight, is that Ali was the vastly superior fighter. Period.

Bingo! Ali was a terrible matchup for Liston, whose sub par foot speed and average (at best) hand speed made it very difficult to effectively pressure Ali.

In the second fight, Liston got caught by a solid counter right that dropped him, and then Walcott took over with some pretty poor officiating. I guess there’s a chance that it could have been a tank job, but it seems unlikely.

theone wrote:

I take it you have vast experience with the Nation of Islam bunch than handled Ali's business

and of course also with the mob.

What I have is vast experience watching fights, Ive been doing it for thirty years. .

As you just admitted, you don't have a clue about the murderous muslims who ran Ali

or what the mob that ran Liston was.

Your "watching of fights " apparently does not include seeing Liston in any of his other fights

since Liston never fought like he did in the the Ali "fights" in any other fights he had.

They were obvious fixes.

George Chuvalo (who sat in the 3rd row) said of the 2nd Liston-Ali "fight":

"It was a phoney."

granberry wrote:Your "watching of fights " apparently does not include seeing Liston in any of his other fights

since Liston never fought like he did in the the Ali "fights" in any other fights he had.

Perhaps it's because he never fought a 6-3 guy with great hand and foot speed and great reflexes.

Your "watching of fights " apparently does not include seeing Liston in any of his other fights

since Liston never fought like he did in the the Ali "fights" in any other fights he had.

No offense but this is a very silly statement. Of coarse he didnt fight the way he against Ali in his other fights, he never fought anyone remotely as good as Ali before.

And if the first fight was fixed why did Liston try to ruin the deal by going after Ali they way he did when Ali was blinded? He sensed his chance to gain an advantage and went all out.

If Liston took a 'dive' in the second fight why was he on his feet fighting back when the fight was stopped by a 'confused' Wallcott?

KOJOE90 wrote:If Liston took a 'dive' in the second fight why was he on his feet fighting back when the fight was stopped by a 'confused' Wallcott?

Ask George Chuvalo.

Chuvalo, who fought Ali twice, said:

"It was a phoney."

KOJOE90 wrote:If Liston took a 'dive' in the second fight why was he on his feet fighting back when the fight was stopped by a 'confused' Wallcott?

Ask George Chuvalo.

Chuvalo, who fought Ali twice, said:

"It was a phoney."

granberry wrote:

KOJOE90 wrote:If Liston took a 'dive' in the second fight why was he on his feet fighting back when the fight was stopped by a 'confused' Wallcott?

Ask George Chuvalo.

Chuvalo, who fought Ali twice, said:

"It was a phoney."

Of course Chuvalo didn't get hit with that right hand either.

The Great John L wrote:

granberry wrote:

KOJOE90 wrote:If Liston took a 'dive' in the second fight why was he on his feet fighting back when the fight was stopped by a 'confused' Wallcott?

Ask George Chuvalo.

Chuvalo, who fought Ali twice, said:

"It was a phoney."

Of course Chuvalo didn't get hit with that right hand either.

That is a classic comment..

Someone should inform you that Chuvalo fought Ali for 27 rounds.

By the way, did YOU get hit with that right hand?

Were you sitting in the 3rd row for that fight as Chuvalo was?

.

Decagon wrote: Mel Turnbaugh

Is he related to Ossie Oscano?

Liston was just outmatched. It happens.

The question was the Clay of 1964 vs. the Liston of 1958. In that context, I'd pick Liston.

Clay/Ali was one of the few heavyweight champions who actually became a better fighter during his reign. I don 't think he was good enough, and hadn't development the mental toughness, to stay with a prime Sonny Liston in 1964.

By 1958 Liston still had beaten virtually nobody of note. He was a relatively inexperienced fighter coming off almost a two year layoff. He wasn't nearly as good as he was in 1964.

Clay was already a great fighter; better than Liston ever was. Clay wins this in an easy mismatch.

Ambling Alp wrote:By 1958 Liston still had beaten virtually nobody of note. He was a relatively inexperienced fighter coming off almost a two year layoff. He wasn't nearly as good as he was in 1964.

Clay was already a great fighter; better than Liston ever was. Clay wins this in an easy mismatch.

Alp, you're right. He really didn't start cleaning out the division until '59, which culminated a few years later with the blitz of Floyd. It is hard to imagine that Sonny didn't improve over those few years. Of course, Ali wasn't at his peak in '64 either, so maybe that was the intent of the OP, both being pre-prime.

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:By 1958 Liston still had beaten virtually nobody of note. He was a relatively inexperienced fighter coming off almost a two year layoff. He wasn't nearly as good as he was in 1964.

Clay was already a great fighter; better than Liston ever was. Clay wins this in an easy mismatch.

Alp, you're right. He really didn't start cleaning out the division until '59, which culminated a few years later with the blitz of Floyd. It is hard to imagine that Sonny didn't improve over those few years. Of course, Ali wasn't at his peak in '64 either, so maybe that was the intent of the OP, both being pre-prime.

The text of the original question referred to Liston of 58 to 60, and he beat plenty of top guys in that period. Alp is right that the 58 version of Liston probably wasn't there yet, but I think the 59-60 edition of Liston - especially the 1960 edition - would have defeated the 1964 Clay.

I don't believe the 1964 Clay was a great fighter - but he became great as the years progressed. But not in 1964.

I'm with Ray on the thoughtlessly-repeated, "Ali 64-67" as if he magically entered his peak the minute he beat Liston. Watch him in that fight, & watch him around 1966-67. Better fighter. No doubt.

Well, Ali was better by 1967. Still in 1964 he was already a great fighter. He had the phenomenal reflexes, speed, combination punches. He was much better than Liston.

Where is the evidence that Liston was not as good in 1964 as he was at any other time? He was steamrolling everyone else until he fought Clay.

Ambling Alp wrote:Well, Ali was better by 1967. Still in 1964 he was already a great fighter. He had the phenomenal reflexes, speed, combination punches. He was much better than Liston.

Where is the evidence that Liston was not as good in 1964 as he was at any other time? He was steamrolling everyone else until he fought Clay.

Good point Alp. We all have excuses for our favorites' losses, like they were past their prime, they had a cold that day, etc. With Liston it seems that everyone wants to believe he was really 75 years old when he fought Ali, Tyson was shot at 22, Foreman was "damaged goods" after Zaire. We never want to even consider that maybe our guy just didn't quite have the right skills or style to beat somebody.

IMO, the younger Ali just had the right physical skills and confidence to make him a nightmare for someone like Liston. While I've changed my opinion on this one slightly over the years, I still think in a prime vs prime that Ali would probably take 4 out of 5.

Ambling Alp wrote:Well, Ali was better by 1967. Still in 1964 he was already a great fighter. He had the phenomenal reflexes, speed, combination punches. He was much better than Liston.

Where is the evidence that Liston was not as good in 1964 as he was at any other time? He was steamrolling everyone else until he fought Clay.

In the three fights Liston had before the Clay fight in 1964, Liston had three cakewalks against Westphal and Patterson. In those three fights (spanning almost 3 years), he spent a total of just more than 6 minutes in action, and with guys who offered token resistence at best. These guys appeared scared to death of Liston. So I think it is hard to say from these performances whether he had lost any skills due to age. Had these guys offered any real resistence or carried him beyond the first round, maybe we would know. But I submit that we don't.

I do know what my eyes tell me. Against Clay, he looked a bit slower afoot, and his punches seemed to lack snap. His timing didn't seem to be what it was before he won the title. Was that due to the quality of his opponent? Perhaps. Was it because he hadn't had a fight in almost three years against an opponent who had offered serious opposition, and thus had lost his edge? Maybe. Did he start believing his own press clippings, and took Clay too lightly? Possibly. But to my eyes, he didn't look like the fighter who tore through the division in 59-60. I think he had gone back. I think the '59-'60 version was a superior fighter to the 64 edition.

However, I do believe the 67 Ali would have defeated any version of Sonny Liston. I think Clay/Ali was one of those rare fighters who got better after he won the title. But I don't think the 1964 version would have defeated the circa 58 version of Sonny Liston.

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Well, Ali was better by 1967. Still in 1964 he was already a great fighter. He had the phenomenal reflexes, speed, combination punches. He was much better than Liston.

Where is the evidence that Liston was not as good in 1964 as he was at any other time? He was steamrolling everyone else until he fought Clay.

Good point Alp. We all have excuses for our favorites' losses, like they were past their prime, they had a cold that day, etc. With Liston it seems that everyone wants to believe he was really 75 years old when he fought Ali, Tyson was shot at 22, Foreman was "damaged goods" after Zaire. We never want to even consider that maybe our guy just didn't quite have the right skills or style to beat somebody.

IMO, the younger Ali just had the right physical skills and confidence to make him a nightmare for someone like Liston. While I've changed my opinion on this one slightly over the years, I still think in a prime vs prime that Ali would probably take 4 out of 5.

Pretty confident you'll find much more than merely Foreman's, "fans" contending he wasn't the same force in the post-Zaire stage.

raylawpc wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Well, Ali was better by 1967. Still in 1964 he was already a great fighter. He had the phenomenal reflexes, speed, combination punches. He was much better than Liston.

Where is the evidence that Liston was not as good in 1964 as he was at any other time? He was steamrolling everyone else until he fought Clay.

In the three fights Liston had before the Clay fight in 1964, Liston had three cakewalks against Westphal and Patterson. In those three fights (spanning almost 3 years), he spent a total of just more than 6 minutes in action, and with guys who offered token resistence at best. These guys appeared scared to death by Liston. So I think it is hard to say from these performances whether he had lost any skills due to age. Had these guys offered any real resistence or carried him beyond the first round, maybe we would know. But I submit that we don't.

I do know what my eyes tell me. Against Clay, he looked a bit slower afoot, and his punches seemed to lack snap. His timing didn't seem to be what it was before he won the title. Was that due to the quality of his opponent? Perhaps. Was it because he hadn't had a fight in almost three years against an opponent who had offered serious opposition, and thus had lost his edge? Maybe. Did he start believing his own press clippings, and took Clay too lightly? Possibly. But to my eyes, he didn't look like the fighter who tore through the division in 59-60. I think he had gone back. I think the '59-'60 version was a superior fighter to the 64 edition.

However, I do believe the 67 Ali would have defeated any version of Sonny Liston. I think Clay/Ali was one of those rare fighters who got better after he won the title. But I don't think the 1964 version would have defeated the circa 58 version of Sonny Liston.

Can't disagree with a word of this. Excellent.