BoxRec

Posted: **26 Apr 2023, 15:18**

I realize there may have been some weaker era's in history. But this seems like one of the worst.

When i combined every era against each other in simulation & I made a Top 60 boxer's.
This era had some struggles.

First off I just knock off some of the top guy's for the moment. Patterson/Liston/Terrell.

Because ultimately what I'm most interested in is how DEEP the division is in an era.

For a modern era like the 60's this is "home" of the undersized Heavyweights for the most part.

Zora Folley 6' 1" 195
Eddie machen 6'0" 195
Henry Cooper 6'1" 190
Karl Mildenberger 6'1" 195
Robert Cleroux 6 1" 205
Inge Johanson 6'0" 202
Floyd Patterson 6'0" 195
Doug Jones 6'0" 185

and finally a big fighter
Cleveland William's 6'2" 215

This group (later 60's aside) has a terrible time in simulation tournament making top 60 all time heavyweights.

With a cutoff range of around Elmer Ray#61 and Gerry Cooney #62

Only Cleveland Williams #55 and Inge #58 manage to get inside the top 60. Patterson does at #43

Again i'm taking early 60's so not counting Ernie Terrell.

None of these others are able to get in.

I just find it really suspect that some view Sonny Liston as a top flight boxer making his mark against such an undersized group of boxers.

I don't have much esteem for Machen or Folley, many of the better fighter's he just missed (terrell, Inge) could he have beaten them. Sure.

But for a top flight heavyweight who's biggest claim is a quick non competitive fight's against Patterson (the only top 50) win.

I just am under the impression he was made to look better than he actually was by beating up on very inferior competition level.

Of course many other heavyweight's can fall into this problem (Dempsey).

But quality win's over a Cleveland Williams & a destruction of a Floyd Patterson is in no way the resume for a top flight heavyweight to me.

People seem too rate him on what he was capable of...
many people are capable of many thing's.
To me his resume is not very impressive.
Sure he was avoided by some, and has every excuse in the book applied to him in the Ali fights.
But he quit on his stool as champion.
But if that's his best win's
It's not very much to me.

Basing his rating on "potential" seems rather pointless.

I realize simulation isn't any kind of exact science but it's still a tool that can be utilized.
Neither Folley or Machen rank out as good as Elmer Ray.
The guy's before the early 60's era can beat them and most of their peers
You would think as humans developed the boxer of the 60's would appear much bigger than say a Jack Sharkey
but that's not the case...
Sharkey & Schmeling are far far better than Folley & machen in simulation. All similar size.

Posted: **26 Apr 2023, 21:18**

It was a decent era. Folley, Williams, and Machen and obviously Patterson were quality fighters. He beat them all. Johannson was very good as well. He also beat Valdes and DeJohn a little earlier who weren't bad. Cleroux was an underrated fighter. And of course, Liston himself was a great fighter. You would be hard pressed to find may heavyweight champions who better competition before getting a title shot.

Forget about the weights. Doesn't mean anything. At all.
Wouldn't put much stock in a Simulation Tournament either.
At a certain point, we have to watch the fights that happened in real life.

It wasn't the one of the best. However, it certainly wasn't weak.

Posted: **26 Apr 2023, 21:35**

It's a comparably weak era indeed, there were many better.

Posted: **27 Apr 2023, 01:14**

The Heavyweight division in the early 60's was about the same as it was in the 1950's. About the late 1960's it started heating up, and of course became a roaring blaze in the 1970's.

Posted: **27 Apr 2023, 04:45**

DrDuke wrote: ↑26 Apr 2023, 21:35 It's a comparably weak era indeed, there were many better.

Exactly. Let me say again. Regardless of your thoughts on simulation. Most heavyweight's have a top 40 Win (in simulation rankings).

Liston does not.

Simulation also has his best win's as Patterson (who many beat)
and Cleveland William's.
I would think most would agree with these terms.

Machen & Folley both rank below ingemar johansson (liston missed) and Terrell (liston missed also) but sparred.
Machen & Folley rank around the Tommy "hurricane" Jackson level (top 70) there's a ton of boxers in history.

The gap between the Jersey Joe' s & Archie Moore & Ezzard Charles is relatively significant compared with Foley & Machen & Hurricane Jackson type of fighter's.

I do believe the simulation data.

The Mike Dejohn's, Henry cooper, Doug Jones are not in a top 100 or even close. Cleroux would be top 70.

There's a massive red flag with Sonny Liston

Even Carnera has a couple top 40 wins in Uzcudan & Sharkey.

Liston's best wins #43 Patterson & #55 Cleveland his win's are worst than Carnera (in retrospect).

I have a big issue in ranking Liston whose best win's is Patterson (who everyone like to beat up on)
and next best win wasn't even a champion in Cleveland Williams.

The other heavyweights aren't this bad. At the very least he was probably at the right time/ right place and made to look better than he was by facing a inferior competition level.

In my mind the Boxing competition level dropped off dramatically after Charles/walcott/moore all exited out.
That's the way I see it.

Of Course Folley & Machen had some quality wins in simulation. I'm not trying to pick on them. I'm just pointing out Liston has one of the worse resume's of the champion's.

I feel like it would have been a matter of time he would of been exposed if Ali didn't do it.

Watching Sonny Liston's fight's none of the short arm guy's he was facing has any kind of jab to me, the two he faced that had an effective jab Ali & Leotis Martin he looked dreadful against both of them. I think it was an indication of future results, but i could be wrong.

As far as simulation it has Liston ranked inside the top 12. He is not top 10.
But the level of wins in simulation
comparing Marciano (just before liston) & Liston is dramatic. Liston is far behind him, as I stated Walcott/charles are far superior to anyone Liston beat by a large gap.

Posted: **27 Apr 2023, 05:37**

I think a lot of things helped to add to Liston's mystique.

He was denied a title fight for a long time and many considered him an uncrowned champ. Then when he got his shot he won in devastating fashion. He was also a big man for the era.

When he lost to Ali he had fought 13 minutes in three and a half years. He took his reputation into that fight but it was proven to be over-inflated.

I think you make a good case.

Posted: **27 Apr 2023, 05:53**

Much as I love computers no machine can emulate the human condition. Data and statistics can never determine the outcome of fights. Oh BTW, today is the day Rocky Marciano retired as champion.

That being said I agree the early 1960s was not much different than the mid to late 1950s, and was arguably slightly weaker.

Posted: **27 Apr 2023, 10:36**

Just remember, Henry, the bookies usually win. They've got the computers.

Posted: **27 Apr 2023, 13:27**

Ezzard wrote: ↑27 Apr 2023, 10:36 Just remember, Henry, the bookies usually win. They've got the computers.

A computer is only as intelligent as the information it's given. All of those bookies base their knowledge off of the opinions of knowledgeable sports fans. Even then, unexpected outcomes occur because (again) the human condition is unpredictable.

No amount of data or statistics or knowledge can predict a torn tendon, a broken rib, a broken hand, the common cold, etc or the proverbial "lucky punch" landing on the favorite.

Especially when a large numbers of knowledgeable fans, or casual fans, have an inflated view of the favorite when in reality the favorite has weaknesses or limitations people don't want to acknowledge is there.

Posted: **27 Apr 2023, 13:28**

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑27 Apr 2023, 05:53 Much as I love computers no machine can emulate the human condition. Data and statistics can never determine the outcome of fights.

It's the the end all. But it's certainly just as accurate as speculation which has no scientific fact. At least the data is used equally across spectrum based on a fighter's actually accomplishments. Distributed equally based on Box rec facts. I created it myself I'm not relying on a comp to tell me who should be good. It's pretty accurate i do believe.
It has Muhammad Ali #1 which most have.

But the biggest advantage to using analytics is you have no human bias which is very present in people's option's. Simulation doesn't care what anyone's Reputation is or what Title they hold. And having used simulation a boxer can certainly "lose his confidence" if not managed correctly. Liston was one of those boxer's that would tend to lose confidence in rematches.

But the most useful tool is to try and get piers from different era's. You can agree or disagree with the data. But just using your imagination to find how James Corbett does against Jack Sharkey I don't find very accurate. The simulation will give you key tip's in this regardless of what you think of the data. It's a very useful tool.

100% accurate of course not. But just boasting an option of a fighter has no merit either and is complicated by inherit bias of a human element. Having that element removed is value upon itself.

I've seen Boxer's in simulation completely swing a series. After suffering a 0-3 in the first 3 matches.
The one thing simulation teaches you is who won the first fight's isn't always the most superior fighter..
and I DO BELIEVE History is filled with these tricks and deception by boxer's meeting each other out of a particular boxer's prime. again a very useful tool for analytics data of simulation. All of this is more valuable than just speculation (to me).

Posted: **27 Apr 2023, 13:38**

Benny The Kid wrote: ↑27 Apr 2023, 13:28
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑27 Apr 2023, 05:53 Much as I love computers no machine can emulate the human condition. Data and statistics can never determine the outcome of fights.
It's the the end all. But it's certainly just as accurate as speculation which has no scientific fact. At least the data is used equally across spectrum based on a fighter's actually accomplishments.

But the biggest advantage to using analytics is you have no human bias which is very present in people's option's. Simulation doesn't care what anyone's Reputation is. And having used simulation a boxer can certainly "lose his confidence" if not managed correctly. Liston was one of those boxer's that would tend to lose confidence in rematches.

But the most useful tool is to try and get piers from different era's. You can agree or disagree with the data. But just using your imagination to find how James Corbett does against Jack Sharkey I don't find very accurate. The simulation will give you key tip's in this regardless of what you think of the data. It's a very useful tool.

100% accurate of course not. But just boasting an option of a fighter has no merit either and is complicated by inherit bias of a human element. Having that element removed is value upon itself.

Well the best way to test it all out is to predict 100 upcoming matches. I have no doubt that a computer simulation can determine the likelihood of a winner. Say 100 or even 1,000 simulations to give a percentile of the likelihood of who would win.

But, I have never seen a simulation ever determine a fight punch-for-punch. Maybe in the future they could use films and use those films to predict exact movements and potential punches being thrown, but as of now that doesn't exist.

Even then, though, I don't believe a computer would ever be 100% accurate. Again, human beings are unpredictable. I'm reminded of years ago when EA SPORTS used their simulation software to predict the Manny Pacquiao vs Ricky Hatton fight. The computer accurately predicted that Manny would win but the computer was way off in rounds, predicting it would take Manny 10 or 11 rounds to do the job. In reality it took Manny only 2 rounds.

Posted: **27 Apr 2023, 13:54**

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑27 Apr 2023, 13:38
Benny The Kid wrote: ↑27 Apr 2023, 13:28
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑27 Apr 2023, 05:53 Much as I love computers no machine can emulate the human condition. Data and statistics can never determine the outcome of fights.
It's the the end all. But it's certainly just as accurate as speculation which has no scientific fact. At least the data is used equally across spectrum based on a fighter's actually accomplishments.

But the biggest advantage to using analytics is you have no human bias which is very present in people's option's. Simulation doesn't care what anyone's Reputation is. And having used simulation a boxer can certainly "lose his confidence" if not managed correctly. Liston was one of those boxer's that would tend to lose confidence in rematches.

But the most useful tool is to try and get piers from different era's. You can agree or disagree with the data. But just using your imagination to find how James Corbett does against Jack Sharkey I don't find very accurate. The simulation will give you key tip's in this regardless of what you think of the data. It's a very useful tool.

100% accurate of course not. But just boasting an option of a fighter has no merit either and is complicated by inherit bias of a human element. Having that element removed is value upon itself.
Well the best way to test it all out is to predict 100 upcoming matches. I have no doubt that a computer simulation can determine the likelihood of a winner. Say 100 or even 1,000 simulations to give a percentile of the likelihood of who would win.

But, I have never seen a simulation ever determine a fight punch-for-punch. Maybe in the future they could use films and use those films to predict exact movements and potential punches being thrown, but as of now that doesn't exist.

Even then, though, I don't believe a computer would ever be 100% accurate. Again, human beings are unpredictable. I'm reminded of years ago when EA SPORTS used their simulation software to predict the Manny Pacquiao vs Ricky Hatton fight. The computer accurately predicted that Manny would win but the computer was way off in rounds, predicting it would take Manny 10 or 11 rounds to do the job. In reality it took Manny only 2 rounds.

I agree with everything you say. I just you it as a tool in the toolchest. It's not the end all. But I do value the unbiased data it provides.

As i was trying to say. It's nice to see which boxers competition level is where. instead of just how a boxer does in simulation. I like to think outside the box. Liston's accomplishment's (in real life) are basically red flagged by simulation. Although he has a competitor did very well.

Posted: **27 Apr 2023, 14:05**

Benny The Kid wrote: ↑27 Apr 2023, 13:28
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑27 Apr 2023, 05:53 Much as I love computers no machine can emulate the human condition. Data and statistics can never determine the outcome of fights.
It's the the end all. But it's certainly just as accurate as speculation which has no scientific fact. At least the data is used equally across spectrum based on a fighter's actually accomplishments.

But the biggest advantage to using analytics is you have no human bias which is very present in people's option's. Simulation doesn't care what anyone's Reputation is. And having used simulation a boxer can certainly "lose his confidence" if not managed correctly. Liston was one of those boxer's that would tend to lose confidence in rematches.

But the most useful tool is to try and get piers from different era's. You can agree or disagree with the data. But just using your imagination to find how James Corbett does against Jack Sharkey I don't find very accurate. The simulation will give you key tip's in this regardless of what you think of the data. It's a very useful tool.

100% accurate of course not. But just boasting an option of a fighter has no merit either and is complicated by inherit bias of a human element. Having that element removed is value upon itself.

I've seen Boxer's in simulation completely swing a series. After suffering a 0-3 in the first 3 matches.
The one thing simulation teaches you is who won the first fight's isn't always the most superior fighter..
and I DO BELIEVE History is filled with these tricks and deception by boxer's meeting each other out of a particular boxer's prime. again a very useful tool for analytics data of simulation. All of this is more valuable than just speculation (to me).

Is this software you have created and how accurate are the predictions on fights that have already happened? Or does it know what these result are because the software is already preloaded with that info so it just repeats what actually happened? And does it repeat the same result each time you ask or change?

Although I get it can be interesting I'd be surprised it it were anymore accurate about up and coming fights than a prediction from a human and these can be completely different depending who you ask. The sport is full of upsets, shocks and surprises.

Posted: **27 Apr 2023, 19:03**

Most of us agree that the late '60's early '70's heralded a golden era of heavyweights so the following is interesting, if we believe the late '50's, early 60's were so inferior. Old Cooper was in a close/controversial loss to Joe Bugner, ditto Doug Jones v's Clay/Ali. Liston beat Wepner and Clark, Cleroux bested Chuvalo, Patterson was unlucky v Ellis and beat Bonavena, Williams bested Terrell, Machen beat Quarry, Folley beat Bonavena, Peralta troubled Foreman...and so forth. I accept that most of the '70's guys were in their early days but can anybody name another era where young prospects had as much trouble with fading veterans...bar the early 1900's maybe? heights/weights are irrelevant when discussing actual fights that happened.

Posted: **28 Apr 2023, 02:43**

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑27 Apr 2023, 13:27
Ezzard wrote: ↑27 Apr 2023, 10:36 Just remember, Henry, the bookies usually win. They've got the computers.
A computer is only as intelligent as the information it's given. All of those bookies base their knowledge off of the opinions of knowledgeable sports fans. Even then, unexpected outcomes occur because (again) the human condition is unpredictable.

No amount of data or statistics or knowledge can predict a torn tendon, a broken rib, a broken hand, the common cold, etc or the proverbial "lucky punch" landing on the favorite.

Especially when a large numbers of knowledgeable fans, or casual fans, have an inflated view of the favorite when in reality the favorite has weaknesses or limitations people don't want to acknowledge is there.

Hi Henry, hope all is well.

I agree that edge cases like the injuries you describe are never going to be predicted with any accuracy. But you have to accept the bookies have a statistical model that works, otherwise they'd be out of business.

Posted: **28 Apr 2023, 02:47**

My son just got his first job. He's straight out of University. He is working for an investment company as a football analyst.

He looks for alpha in the sports markets. Data analysis works. Of course it has to be good analysis. But if you find the right data and model you will win more than you lose.

Posted: **29 Apr 2023, 11:53**

The bookies go by what they think people will pick. They know a lot of people don't know enough and go by their heart more than their head. No need for bookies to use something a simulation system for something like boxing. I will paraphrase a wise person who has said something "like that it isn't a sport that lends it's well to numbers." Remember who has said that Ezzard?

Posted: **29 Apr 2023, 11:54**

Benny The Kid wrote: ↑27 Apr 2023, 04:45
DrDuke wrote: ↑26 Apr 2023, 21:35 It's a comparably weak era indeed, there were many better.
Exactly. Let me say again. Regardless of your thoughts on simulation. Most heavyweight's have a top 40 Win (in simulation rankings).

Liston does not.

Simulation also has his best win's as Patterson (who many beat)
and Cleveland William's.
I would think most would agree with these terms.

Machen & Folley both rank below ingemar johansson (liston missed) and Terrell (liston missed also) but sparred.
Machen & Folley rank around the Tommy "hurricane" Jackson level (top 70) there's a ton of boxers in history.

The gap between the Jersey Joe' s & Archie Moore & Ezzard Charles is relatively significant compared with Foley & Machen & Hurricane Jackson type of fighter's.

I do believe the simulation data.

Posted: **29 Apr 2023, 11:57**

I just don't get why you have so much faith in the simulation data.

You talk about red flags. Uzcudun is in the top 40? Thats a red flag.
Patterson isn't in the Top 40?that's a red flag.

Who really believes that?
Machen and Folley rank around the Tommy Hurricane Jackson level? Come on.

I have not seen the full Top 40 simulation list. Maybe you want to post it?

Hard to imagine that does Waldimir Klitschko had any wins over anyone in the top 40. If he does, that is certainly a red flag.

You also have to consider the stages of fighters careers.
for example, Lennox Lewis' win over Tyson and Holyfield were when they were way past it.

We often have way too much faith in statistical methods that we don't really even understand.
In the NFL, people take the passer ratings and or qbrs as gospel, even though nobody knows how they are figured.
In baseball it is WAR.

Look at boxrec's computer ratings. (They have constantly tweaked the system. joe Louis is #1 and Ali #2. Ali has been #1. For years Jimmy Bivins somehow was)

Floyd Patterson is #8. Liston is #14.

Posted: **29 Apr 2023, 16:31**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑26 Apr 2023, 21:18 It was a decent era. Folley, Williams, and Machen and obviously Patterson were quality fighters. He beat them all. Johannson was very good as well. He also beat Valdes and DeJohn a little earlier who weren't bad. Cleroux was an underrated fighter. And of course, Liston himself was a great fighter. You would be hard pressed to find may heavyweight champions who better competition before getting a title shot.

Forget about the weights. Doesn't mean anything. At all.
Wouldn't put much stock in a Simulation Tournament either.
At a certain point, we have to watch the fights that happened in real life.

It wasn't the one of the best. However, it certainly wasn't weak.

A lot of those guys were approximately the size of todays light heavyweights. It would be like calling the recent light heavyweight division a great heavyweight era

Posted: **29 Apr 2023, 19:25**

Like who?

Posted: **29 Apr 2023, 19:41**

s wehn

mattdonnellon wrote: ↑27 Apr 2023, 19:03 SMost of us agree that the late '60's early '70's heralded a golden era of heavyweights so the following is interesting, if we believe the late '50's, early 60's were so inferior. Old Cooper was in a close/controversial loss to Joe Bugner, ditto Doug Jones v's Clay/Ali. Liston beat Wepner and Clark, Cleroux bested Chuvalo, Patterson was unlucky v Ellis and beat Bonavena, Williams bested Terrell, Machen beat Quarry, Folley beat Bonavena, Peralta troubled Foreman...and so forth. I accept that most of the '70's guys were in their early days but can anybody name another era where young prospects had as much trouble with fading veterans...bar the early 1900's maybe? heights/weights are irrelevant when discussing actual fights that happened.

I get what you are saying. However, some of that is deceiving.

Cleroux and Chuvalo were really contemporaries. In fact, Chuvalo was a year older than Cleroux. Chuvalo was really a fighter from the 1960s as well. He just kept going and on before he retired.

Wepner and Clark were never really serious contenders. Not surprising that Liston would beat them.
Jones was only 26 and still his prime he fought Ali, who wasn't in his prime yet.

Williams was still in his prime when he beat Terrell. Terrell was really done after 1967.
Foreman was very inexperienced when he fought Peralta, who still had a lot left.

Holmes and Foreman had way more success than they should in the 1990s when they were way past it. Even Joe Bugner beat Greg Page.

For much of boxing history, It used to be common that a promising fighter on his way up would take on a quality veteran who was past his best but not totally shot. That might be a fair fight. Sometimes the younger fighter won, sometimes not.

However, over the last few decades, that has happened less and less. It became to risky for the prospect to lose that all important undefeated record which continues to fool many fans.

Agree that heights and weights are irrelevant in the real world of fights that actually happened.
If you taken any given "era" in boxing, there is always going to be some overlap of fighters. Everything from prospects to guys way over the hill. If a guy is over the hill and still beats a guy in his prime, that means something, at least that the old guy was probably a lot better.
However, when a prospect beats a guy that is clearly way past his best, that doesn't mean anything.

Posted: **29 Apr 2023, 20:03**

I agree with a lot you say but my point is, can you name another era where the vets held their own as good, against the new tyros?

Posted: **29 Apr 2023, 20:30**

I guess my question would be, what era exactly are talking about here? Specifically what years?

From the original thread, I was thinking from around 1959-1963, which was when Liston was beating top fighters. Are we counting guys who fought in that time and their wins not only during this time but also afterwards?

If that is the case, they had some success, but as I mentioned earlier, much of it is deceiving for various reasons. On the other hand, they did have some nice wins.

As mentioned earlier, you argue that some 1970s guys had some nice wins in the 1980s and 1990s.
Some rivals of Jack Johnson (and Johnson himself) had some success when they were older against younger guys.

This might be something worth digging into a lot further. You would have to look at several guys from a particular time span and see how they did against guys who were older but there was some overlap. and also against someone younger. The big thing would to be fair and not count fights where one guy was really inexperienced or (more likely) too much mileage.

Also, wouldn't put too much stock when a fading champ beats a younger stiff, or a young fighter beats a guy who might be in his "prime" but simply wasn't very good.
.ie. the losing fighter has to have some success in their career and it can't be way before or after their prime.

Posted: **29 Apr 2023, 21:42**

I think your sidetrack too much on the simulation.

Eddie machen & Zora Folley & Cleveland Williams & Floyd Patterson.

That's not a top 10 resume to me. plain & simple. The only champion there was beat by several individuals.

You're welcome to you're option but that's my option. Neither one are facts

I gave idea's outside of simulation why i think Liston seems overrated. I'm not the only one seeing it that way.

Stating this guy is better than that guy mean's nothing if they never fought, it's an option (with a bunch of human bias) mixed in.

My option isn't any kind of fact. I'm was attempting to get away from option's and use some data.

BoxRec

Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived