Ingemar Johansson vs Sonny Liston 1959

Valdes was 33 and top ten ring ranked.Liston was not cut in their fight.

Milwaukee Sentinel, August 6, 1959:

Sonny Liston, his right eye clamped tight after the first round, exploded with a furious punching onslaught to flatten the veteran Cuban Nino Valdes in 47 seconds of the third round of their scheduled 10-rounder here Wednesday night. A tremendous left hook, followed by a whistling right, dumped the trial horse against the ropes shortly after the third opened. Valdes sat there, one arm draped over the ropes until seven, then rolled to his knees where he took the full ten count. He finally staggered to his feet at 12—too late, of course. It was the third ranking heavyweight's 18th straight victory—he's lost only one in 26—and further embellished his already bright reputation among the big guys. Liston, who claimed Valdes had thumbed him in the late moments of the opening round, was still a tamed tiger in the second round, although he was getting to Valdes with his jarring left jab. But it was a different tale once the third got under way. The 25-year-old Philadelphian marched right out and started banging away. He did get hit with a stunning left hook but bounced right back with a two-fisted attack that backed his huge opponent into the ropes. Then came his dynamiting left-right combination that brought Sonny Boy his knockout. It was an impressive finish by an impressive heavyweight. The usual cry from the winner's camp was heard—a challenge to Ingemar Johansson—but he can forget about it for the time being, although other so-called challengers like Eddie Machen and Zora Folley better beware of this latest threat on the heavyweight horizon.

 

Thanks for finding and printing these articles. It is obvious reading them that Liston's eye injury was much worse than I remember. My recollection is Drees did mention Liston was in danger of having the fight stopped.

Liston seems to have felt the same way. "I had a hard time seeing out of it. I had to go out and find him and end it in a hurry."

Truthfully, it seems Valdes was actually doing better than I remembered. He was not only competitive, but going into the third round seemed to be on his way to a win due to the eye injury.

"Competitive?"

Here is the quote from one of your sources. "Two officials, Referee Bernie Weissman and Judge Frank Clark, called the first round even. The other judge, Howard Walsh, gave the first found to Valdes, 5-4. The second round appeared a toss-up, but Weissman and Clark gave it to Liston, 5-4, While Walsh called it even 5-5."

So it hardly seems a Liston domination, and no question Valdes had gotten the best of it physically with Liston having suffered a severe eye injury.

As for the cut, I stick with it as my memory. Not only that, I remember a photo in the True Magazine Boxing Yearbook which was shot from behind Valdes, there was a trickle of blood coming from the side of the eye to the cheekbone. Obviously, that was not the critical injury.
For me, this is a case of focusing on a sapling rather than the forest. I should have written "severe eye injury" rather than "cut" to prevent the discussion going down a rabbit hole.

"Thumbed"

Liston's claim. Valdes' camp denied it. Either way, so what if the referee didn't catch it.

The only third party opinion I saw was this, "The Cuban did score with a left to the head which started his right eye closing."

As for Liston's quote that Williams and Summerlin were tougher than Valdes, it was convenient with Williams as he never fought Valdes. Summerlin did and was stopped by Valdes in five.

I want to make the point that it was an impressive KO in the third by Liston.

 

"his right eye clamped tight after the first round"

Okay. It was a worse injury than I remembered. Thanks for posting this. I just remembered Drees saying there was some blood coming down and a later photo taken from behind Valdes showed that. But clearly that was a minor part of the eye injury.

As I said in an earlier post, this was my memory from 64 years ago, and such a memory is shaky.

 

I have given it some thought. The best two opponents they beat are the same two guys. Floyd and Machen.

Ingos best ten wins after Floyd and Machen were Richardson, Erskine,Cooper, cavicchi, Neuhaus, Hein Ten Hoff and Brian London.

sonny’s best opponents after Floyd and Machen were Roy Harris, Zora Folley, Williams, Henry Clark, Valdes, DeJohn, Wayne Bethea, Roger Rischer and Howard King.

Listons ten best wins are admittedly better. But two of the best three Sonny Fought were former Ingo victims Sonny was getting after Johansson had snuffed them out. Sure Floyd beat Ingo in the rematch and in the rubber match..but that doesn’t take away the fact that Ingo walloped these two first.

Whilst I give Folley the edge over say Richardson, Cavicchi, Neuhaus and Ten Hoff, is he really better than London and Cooper who did both beat him?

Harris lost to Cooper yet London lost to Valdes whilst Williams beat Richardson. I don’t see that huge a gulf.

The Europeans Ingo fought are far less celebrated than better known Americans who really, once you get past Machen, Folley and at a push perhaps even Williams are not really much better. It’s the same kind of ball park. Howard king? Wayne Bethea? Versus Neuhaus and Ten Hoff?

Richardson, having beat Brian London and won the European title in Germany from Hans kalbfel, was rated December 1960 by Ring. By 1961 he was still rated by the NBA. In 1962 Richardson scored his biggest win when he defended the European title knocking out 30-1 Karl mildenburger in one round before 14,000 screaming Germans. In his next fight, Richardson defended his title against Ingo in Sweden. Ingo beat Richardson in front of 42,000 by decisive kayo.

Erskine was newly crowned double champion of British and Commonwealth titles having beaten Joe Bygraves and Henry cooper. Within a year of being knocked out by Ingo, Erskine would beat NBA #6 rated Willie Pastrano and later go on to beat George Chuvalo. This is a good win.

Cooper was albeit months away from turning his career around when Ingo beat him but it’s still a great win because henry had already beat rival prospects Joe bygraves, Brian London and Dick Richardson. Cooper came up in the same Euro generation as Ingo. All told, Henry was world rated for about 10 years.

cavicchi was Ingos 15th fight. They fought in 1956 in Italy in front of 33,000 for the European title. 42-3-2 Cavicchi was rated Jan to April 1956 by the NBA because he was a champion over so many geographically significant regions. Ingo kayoed him.

Brian London in 1963 was the last opponent Ingo beat..and whilst he was almost knocked out in the last moments of the fight, Ingo legitimately won decisively on the cards.

heinz Neuhaus was a tune up for Machen but still as ex Euro champ, a decent opponent who had been rated for much of the decade up until just a year or so earlier. He lasted two whole rounds longer than #1 rated Machen did. So how bad was he?

In 1955 Hein Ten Hoff was a veteran step opponent for Ingo in just his 12th pro fight…yet incredibly an official eliminatior for the Euro title. Hoff was an ex euro champ himself and probably the weakest of Ingos best wins…yet at a similar stage of Sonny’s career Liston would lose to Marshall.

 

The best way to make the comparison is to compare their respective best wins, their respective 2nd best wins, 3rd best wins, etc. Here is what I posted earlier in the thread:

1) SL = Patterson; Ingo = Patterson; Verdict = Draw (I could have been pedantic & gone for Liston as he stopped Patterson earlier, but I won't split hairs)
2) SL = Patterson; Ingo = Machen; verdict = Liston
3) SL = Machen; Ingo = Inexperienced Cooper; Verdict = Liston
4) SL = Folley; Ingo = Erskine; Verdict = Liston
5) SL = Valdes; Ingo = London; Verdict = Liston
6) SL = Williams; Ingo = Bygraves; Verdict = Liston
7) SL = Williams; Ingo = Bygraves; Verdict = Liston
8) SL = DeJohn; Ingo = Neuhaus; Verdict = Liston
9) SL = Harris; Ingo = Cavichhi; Verdict = Liston
10) SL = Wepner; Ingo = Richardson; Verdict = Liston

You can tally the totals as 1 for each better win, 9-0-1 to Liston in this case, or what I often do, to give extra recognition to the best wins, is assign 10 x points to the fighter with the superior best win, 9 x points to the superior of the 2nd best win & so on until 1 x point for the better 10th best win. In this case, assuming we split the 10 points on offer for their respective best win as 5 points each, Liston would have 50 points & Ingo 5.

I appreciate we can't make something inherently subjective, objective, but this is the most effective way of objectively assessing & contrasting their respective win resumes. Do you care to have a go at it? It took me less than 5-minutes.

 

This is a terrible way to compare two fighters.

 

And Ingo punched harder than Liston according to Patterson. Could he hurt Liston? Surely. If not, Liston could not have been such a big puncher himself.

 

It's a terrible way to compare Liston and Ingo if you're attempting to demonstrate their resumes are close in quality.

If you're objectively trying to contrast the win resumes of 2 x fighters, comparing their respective best wins is a reasonable indicator as to their relative quality. I really should not need to explain that on the classic forum.

 

Your score difference of 50-5 seems excessive as the gap wasn't that enormous. Or do you mean his record was 10x as good? I think the previous post and breakdown by choklab is more balanced.

To rank fighters you would also need to look at their losses, right? How good did a fighter need to be to beat a boxer?

In Ingo's case it took Floyd Patterson. A great heavyweight.
In Liston's case it took Marshall and Martin.

No shame in losing to Clay/Ali of course so that can not be used against him. Ali would have beaten Johansson too.
The way in which Liston lost was not impressive though. He quit in the first fight and was knocked out in the first round in the second fight.

Perhaps Liston was a bit overrated and hyped like Tyson was until he lost against Buster Douglas? That aura of invincibility (although the Marshall L) and being the baddest man can do a lot for a fighters reputation .

 

If each of Liston's best wins are superior to Ingo's corresponding best wins, it indicates Liston has a substantially better win resume. Something that the vast majority understand without needing it explaining to them so clearly.

Prime losses should be factored in, yes. Liston lost an 8 round SD to Marshall in his 8th fight, subsequently beat him twice and lost to Martin whilst shot. I don't hold it against his all time ranking the same way I don't hold Tysons loss to Danny Williams against his. Ingo lost during his prime, by stoppage, twice, to a guy who could not make the 2nd round vs Liston in his 2 attempts.

For the 2nd time, where do you rank Liston and Ingo all time at HW? Same question to Chok. I rank Liston #9 and Ingo isn't in my top 25, and ive not gone any lower that that, he'd likely be somewhere between 35 and 45 for me. I expect you to ignore or duck that question again, so surprise me.

 

To me this is not a thread about ranking the top xx heavyweights champions ever.
In any case, do you think that a higher ranked champion will comfortably beat any lower ranked champion?
Isn't it also about debating whether certain fighters have or don't have a decent chance against other fighters even though they may not be equal in rank?
Regarding Ingo, I think he is severely underrated and he is unfairly judged due to losing to one opponent as if Floyd Patterson was a bum.

 

How much are those lists worth anyway? I saw that Foreman's top 10 list has Patterson at 6th for whatever that is worth. Liston didn't make top 10.

The ring published a top 20 list ranking Quarry at 18th. Another list by them had Foreman at 7th and Frazier at 8th but Foreman annihilated Frazier so how can they even be close?

 

You've been debating their relative records throughout this thread. You've conceded Liston should be ranked higher, your argument seems to be that you see them closer than most. Quantifying it would be the best means of seeing how far apart you see them.

To answer your questions, I don't have a H2H list, only a list ordered by what they achieved in their era. If I did have a time machine orientated H2H list, it would be ordered differently to my actual rankings. That said, my actual rankings generally reflect how good I think fighters who competed in the same era, were relative to one another. Liston is my #9, Patterson my #21 and Ingo would likely be #35-45. Liston beat Patterson 2 out of 2 in comprehensive fashion and was clearly the better. Patterson beat Ingo 2 out of 3 and I think he was the better of the 2.

 

The rankings you refer to aren't credible.

I've completed hundreds of hours of research and documented data on multiple spreadsheets to support my rankings, but I wouldnt go so far as labelling myself as a boxing historian. Just a fan with a keen interest in boxing history.

McGrain, however, is most definitely a boxing historian. His lists are amongst the go to ones for me. I've just checked, he has Liston ranked #8 and Ingo #41, all time at HW. I don't agree with his exact ordering, but that seems a reasonable indicator to the gap between the 2, to me.

 

the best two opponents both beat are the same two guys.

you have to bare with me, I don’t understand “SL” can you explain?