BoxRec

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

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...

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...

-raylawpc

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 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.

ThatOne wrote:It's ironic. You could have been describing George Foreman's mindset when he faced Muhammad Ali. However, Joe Frazier and Ken Norton were very much for real.

Ambling Alp wrote:

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 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.

Well in 1958, Liston didn't fight anyone worth noting. What impresses people about the 1958 Liston. Was it the knockout of the legendary Wayne Bethea? He had not proven himself at all.We really don't know how good he was at this point. He had less experience in 1958 than Clay had in 1964.

In 1960, he fought Machen, who had good speed and was good defensively. Liston had a lot of trouble with him. At times liston looked slow and awkward in this fight. Clay was much faster and better defensively than Machen.

Floyd Patterson was regarded as the 2nd best heavyweight in the world when Liston fought him. He knocked him out in the 1st round both times. If the 2nd best fighter in th world can't offer resistance, than clearly Liston was not declining. Liston was that much better than the next best fighter in 1962 and 1963.

True, Liston had not actually been in the ring in a fight that many rounds in the last few years. However, if that was such a big factor he would have had more trouble with Patterson in 1963. Going into that fight, he only had 5 rounds in the last
couple of years. A fight might only go one round, but a fighter trains to go the distance. So he was not going to rusty.

Yes, Liston looked slow and outclassed against Clay. guess what, a young Clay did that people.

In anything the evidence shows that Liston was getting better going into 1964 than he was in say 1960.

It makes no sense for a guy to be considered far above anyone else going into a fight and after the fight all of sudden he is way past it.

The Great John L wrote:

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

Actually I think George was "damaged goods" after the first Peralta fight. when the old, fat former LH contender was able to stand in with the young lion and make it a close fight. George was never the same.

Ambling Alp wrote:I do. Way too often people say a guy is "past his prime" when it's not really the case.
Of course, often fighters do enter the ring when they are really past their prime.
However, to say that a fighter is "post prime", you should have a good case to make the claim.

Normally, there should be evidence from a previous fight that the fighter is starting to slip. It seldom happens overnight.(There was no signs with Liston leading up the Clay fight.)

If not, then there should some other strong indications. ie-Coming off a long layoff, serious injuries, took a lot of punishment in recent fights etc. -Again there is none of that with Liston.

I think you need to have a better case than "he didn't look the same as he did when he beat all those guys who weren't nearly as good."

Ambling Alp wrote:Lets be honest-If Liston would have had a lot of trouble with Patterson, then people would be saying that Liston was declining. Since Liston blows him out, people have to come up with some bizarre theory that somehow Liston was slipping anyway.
He just didn't look the same in 1964 as he did in "circa" 1958? Shocking. He doesn't look the same when fighting guys that stand right in front of him as he does against Clay. (Ali) Clay made people that were faster than Liston look slow.

Had Liston been fighting Clevelnad Williams, Zora Folley, or Floyd Patterson in 1964, he would have blown them out like he did before.

Still waiting to hear why Liston couldn't blow out Eddie Machen in 1960. If he can't even do that, how is going to beat Clay would was even better defensively, and much better offensively than Machen? He isn't going to knock Clay out. Do people seriously think Liston is going to outpoint Clay over 15 rounds?
He was faster against Machen than he was against Clay.

As for James Jeffries, I'm sure some "experts" picked Jeffries and he was actually a favorite with the betting public. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if I was around in 1910, I would have not expected Jeffries to be as good he once was since he not fought in 5 years. This hardly the same as Liston who had been beating people for years and looked invincible.

It's not like Clay won some razor thin decision or something like that. Liston could only go 6 rounds. If Liston was so much better at an earlier point in his career and was now declining, there would have been some signs before he fought Clay. There were none.

How about we all get down to the real crux of the matter?
Sonny Liston was a great fighter. Clay was much better than Liston. So instead of just stating the obvious, that Clay was already a phenom, people have to come up with bizarre reasoning that takes away the credit that should go to Clay.

The Great John L wrote:A couple of comments.

While I think Ali was a "better" fighter than Liston, that's not what's really at play here. I think it's more a matter of styles than it is one fighter being better than another. For example, I think Ali was a "better" fighter than Sonny, but I think Sonny would have had an easier time with Joe Frazier than Ali did. And I believe that even the younger Ali would have struggled mightily with Joe.

As far as the Liston Machen fight; I don't recall that fight as being a particularly close fight, but using Sonn'y's comment about Machen not wanting to fight isn't relevant. After all, I'm sure he felt the same way after Ali spanked him, and I'm sure George Foreman thought the same thing about Jimmy Young.

raylawpc wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Lets be honest-If Liston would have had a lot of trouble with Patterson, then people would be saying that Liston was declining. Since Liston blows him out, people have to come up with some bizarre theory that somehow Liston was slipping anyway.
He just didn't look the same in 1964 as he did in "circa" 1958? Shocking. He doesn't look the same when fighting guys that stand right in front of him as he does against Clay. (Ali) Clay made people that were faster than Liston look slow.

Had Liston been fighting Clevelnad Williams, Zora Folley, or Floyd Patterson in 1964, he would have blown them out like he did before.

Still waiting to hear why Liston couldn't blow out Eddie Machen in 1960. If he can't even do that, how is going to beat Clay would was even better defensively, and much better offensively than Machen? He isn't going to knock Clay out. Do people seriously think Liston is going to outpoint Clay over 15 rounds?
He was faster against Machen than he was against Clay.

As for James Jeffries, I'm sure some "experts" picked Jeffries and he was actually a favorite with the betting public. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if I was around in 1910, I would have not expected Jeffries to be as good he once was since he not fought in 5 years. This hardly the same as Liston who had been beating people for years and looked invincible.

It's not like Clay won some razor thin decision or something like that. Liston could only go 6 rounds. If Liston was so much better at an earlier point in his career and was now declining, there would have been some signs before he fought Clay. There were none.

How about we all get down to the real crux of the matter?
Sonny Liston was a great fighter. Clay was much better than Liston. So instead of just stating the obvious, that Clay was already a phenom, people have to come up with bizarre reasoning that takes away the credit that should go to Clay.

Suit yourself.

Regarding Machen, I'll let Sonny speak for himself: "Takes two to fight. Machen wouldn't." And yes, he was faster against Machen then against Clay - which was kind of my point. Thanks for at least conceding that.

Regarding Jeffries, you would have been in a distinct minority of the experts. Its easy to say you'd go out on a limb and pick Johnson when you already know the limb isn't going to snap on you.

Ambling Alp wrote:Lets be honest-If Liston would have had a lot of trouble with Patterson, then people would be saying that Liston was declining. Since Liston blows him out, people have to come up with some bizarre theory that somehow Liston was slipping anyway.
He just didn't look the same in 1964 as he did in "circa" 1958? Shocking. He doesn't look the same when fighting guys that stand right in front of him as he does against Clay. (Ali) Clay made people that were faster than Liston look slow.

Had Liston been fighting Clevelnad Williams, Zora Folley, or Floyd Patterson in 1964, he would have blown them out like he did before.

Still waiting to hear why Liston couldn't blow out Eddie Machen in 1960. If he can't even do that, how is going to beat Clay would was even better defensively, and much better offensively than Machen? He isn't going to knock Clay out. Do people seriously think Liston is going to outpoint Clay over 15 rounds?
He was faster against Machen than he was against Clay.

As for James Jeffries, I'm sure some "experts" picked Jeffries and he was actually a favorite with the betting public. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if I was around in 1910, I would have not expected Jeffries to be as good he once was since he not fought in 5 years. This hardly the same as Liston who had been beating people for years and looked invincible.

It's not like Clay won some razor thin decision or something like that. Liston could only go 6 rounds. If Liston was so much better at an earlier point in his career and was now declining, there would have been some signs before he fought Clay. There were none.

How about we all get down to the real crux of the matter?
Sonny Liston was a great fighter. Clay was much better than Liston. So instead of just stating the obvious, that Clay was already a phenom, people have to come up with bizarre reasoning that takes away the credit that should go to Clay.

granberry wrote:

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.

raylawpc wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Lets be honest-If Liston would have had a lot of trouble with Patterson, then people would be saying that Liston was declining. Since Liston blows him out, people have to come up with some bizarre theory that somehow Liston was slipping anyway.
He just didn't look the same in 1964 as he did in "circa" 1958? Shocking. He doesn't look the same when fighting guys that stand right in front of him as he does against Clay. (Ali) Clay made people that were faster than Liston look slow.

Had Liston been fighting Clevelnad Williams, Zora Folley, or Floyd Patterson in 1964, he would have blown them out like he did before.

Still waiting to hear why Liston couldn't blow out Eddie Machen in 1960. If he can't even do that, how is going to beat Clay would was even better defensively, and much better offensively than Machen? He isn't going to knock Clay out. Do people seriously think Liston is going to outpoint Clay over 15 rounds?
He was faster against Machen than he was against Clay.

As for James Jeffries, I'm sure some "experts" picked Jeffries and he was actually a favorite with the betting public. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if I was around in 1910, I would have not expected Jeffries to be as good he once was since he not fought in 5 years. This hardly the same as Liston who had been beating people for years and looked invincible.

It's not like Clay won some razor thin decision or something like that. Liston could only go 6 rounds. If Liston was so much better at an earlier point in his career and was now declining, there would have been some signs before he fought Clay. There were none.

How about we all get down to the real crux of the matter?
Sonny Liston was a great fighter. Clay was much better than Liston. So instead of just stating the obvious, that Clay was already a phenom, people have to come up with bizarre reasoning that takes away the credit that should go to Clay.