There is a new book out about the Liston- Clay fights. The author is Paul Gallender, who claims to have spent 33 years writing it. I haven't read it but I've poked around on the web trying to find out what it says. Gallender writes that both fights were fixed, but his theory about the second fight will blow your mind. I won't ruin the book by stating it here, but you can do some searches and find it. I'll probably buy it and read the whole thing. [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]http://www.sonnyliston.net/[/FONT]
He should take his claims to the boxing authorities and seek to have the result overturned if he can prove it. Me personally, I'll stick with the simple answer that liston was knocked out, unless of course it can be proved otherwise.
This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected [/FONT] This content is protected This content is protected When the bell sounds, Im expectin for Clay to jump out of the ring. If he decides to fight, I figure I dont have to use much smartness with him. Ill just corner him and clobber him. This content is protected I knew that Liston, overconfident as he was, was never going to train to fight more than two rounds. Some of his handlers admitted after the fight that this was exactly what he did. He didnt have no respect for me as a fighter. He couldnt see nothing to me at all but mouth. He was a perfect setup. This content is protected One day you are the king. Your friends, or the guys you think are your friends, are all around you. They give you, Yes, champ; no, champ; you got no worries, champ. No one in this whole world can beat you champ Then all of a sudden youre not the champ and you are alone. The guys with the big mouths are out talking about you, not to you, and what they say isnt what they said the day before. Its a big price to pay.
No idea what the author is saying after so many years. Everyone needs to realize however that all professional writers search for new angles to write concerning old subjects. They search and search and if they find one little snippet that could even point to a new aspect looking at some historical event or character they go with it and then build a story around it. Does not mean the conclusion is valid or accurate...it's was way to sell books.
Yes...that's why everyone needs to be very-wary about the conclusions they draw from reading historical information. Typically rehashes of historical events that come to wild conclusions are indeed slants of the truth designed to sell books and make money. Again I don't know what the author here is writing about specifically but everyone always needs robe very wary when a book is written about new info concerning old events.
The author has no track record as a writer or journalist. Nothing in his background to lend him credence. But he has a theory!
A theory,,,,,,based upon his opinion. A good read though. Fails to touch upon, that Sonny Liston was a 'money man' first and foremost, and everything else was second.
I used the wrong word when I said Gallender has a "theory" about what happened around the second fight. He states it as fact. He claims it was independently sourced and verified by people who know. People who were there.
