Liston should get A lot more stick for being a cheat

kirk · Jun 11, 2026

swagdelfadeel said: ↑

The key issue isn’t merely that the “hot gloves” allegations surfaced decades later — it’s that they were attributed to a secondary source who had conveniently already passed away. Even if the timing would still be questionable coming from a primary source, that’s a far cry from “this dead guy supposedly confessed this to me years ago and I’m only mentioning it now.” As for Dundee's comments, being decades later, here's a press report after the fight. "Angelo Dundee acknowledged has asked the referee to check Liston's gloves but was inclined to regard the entire thing as an unfortunate accident. "I don't think there was any mish-mash," Dundee said. Unfortunate Thing "I honestly feel nothing was wrong. Just an unfortunate thing. I know those guys. They wouldn't pull such stuff It might have been sweat or it might have come from dirt on Liston's glove"

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-beaumont-enterprise/198156718/

And what exactly would Dundee’s incentive have been to downplay cheating if he truly believed Liston intentionally blinded Ali? If anything, it would’ve enhanced Ali’s legend to say his fighter overcame dirty tactics from the heavyweight champion.

As for the glove inspection, this idea that liniment or Monsel’s solution could’ve been secretly applied and gone unnoticed doesn’t make much sense. Liniment has an overwhelmingly strong odor that would’ve been immediately obvious to the referee, the commission, and everyone ringside. Monsel’s solution would’ve left a visible stain on the gloves. These aren’t invisible substances.

The “the referee would cover for himself” argument is weak. If he had found something illegal, disqualifying Liston wouldn’t have embarrassed him — it would’ve reinforced his authority. He was known as a no-nonsense referee, not someone afraid to act.

Ali himself was conflicted afterward and admitted he didn’t know whether anything had actually been on Liston’s gloves. That uncertainty matters, because if substances like liniment or Monsel’s solution had really been involved, there likely wouldn’t have been much ambiguity about it at all. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-beaumont-enterprise/198224434/

At the end of the day, the reason the evidence favors “nothing happened” isn’t because the burden of proof is impossibly high. It’s because there’s no physical evidence, no contemporaneous confirmation, no referee finding, no commission finding, no visible residue, no detectable smell, and no account that survives more than mild scrutiny without collapsing into speculation or retrospective storytelling.

This isn’t really “impartial” analysis so much as selective skepticism dressed up as neutrality. You’re claiming to be “on the fence,” yet you’re constantly reaching for hypotheticals that keep the possibility of wrongdoing alive — even when there’s no physical evidence supporting it — while simultaneously minimizing the much more straightforward indicators that nothing improper was found.

Every time the evidence points toward nothing being found — referee inspection, lack of odor or staining, absence of immediate protest, and even Ali’s own uncertainty — it gets softened or reinterpreted to keep the door open for wrongdoing. Meanwhile, every hypothetical that preserves the cheating theory gets elevated as if it meaningfully balances things out.

That’s the contradiction: presenting yourself as neutral while systematically privileging one side of uncertainty. Real impartiality would mean giving proportionate weight to what is actually evidenced, not continually stretching for ways to keep a discredited possibility alive.
Click to expand...

Youre a great educator on this topic and very well spoken.

You have convinced me lol.

Thanks for the information.

swagdelfadeel · Jun 11, 2026

kirk said: ↑

Youre a great educator on this topic and very well spoken.

You have convinced me lol.

Thanks for the information.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I appreciate that. I'm a private investigator and a historian, so digging into research and evaluating sources comes pretty naturally to me. I'm glad the information was helpful and that I could provide a different perspective.

mcvey · Jun 12, 2026

swagdelfadeel said: ↑

You kind of gave the game away with that response.

I said there was no evidence Liston intentionally did anything. Your reply was: “The evidence is the man running around blind for a round.”

That directly contradicts the whole “I don’t really have an opinion either way” posture. Someone who was genuinely neutral would treat Ali’s temporary blindness as an unexplained event requiring evidence to connect it to intentional cheating — not as evidence of the cheating itself.

You keep rhetorically distancing yourself from a conclusion while consistently reasoning as though Liston’s guilt is the default assumption.

Aside from that, Ali having vision issues isn’t evidence of cheating — it’s evidence that Ali’s eyes were irritated. The entire dispute is over what caused it. Treating the symptom itself as proof of foul play is already assuming the conclusion you claim not to hold.

That’s not neutrality. That’s framing the incident from the outset as evidence against Liston while downplaying every contemporaneous indication that no foreign substance was found.

Something unusual happening does not automatically point to cheating. That’s the leap you keep making.

Ali having impaired vision for a round is evidence that his eyes were irritated — not evidence of how they were irritated. You’re treating the symptom itself as proof of foul play while dismissing the complete lack of supporting physical evidence for the cheating theory.

And the “there’s no benign explanation unless Ali was hysterical” framing is false. Fighters get sweat, ointment, debris, glove residue, cut compounds, and other irritants in their eyes all the time to varying degrees. The fact that this instance was dramatic doesn’t suddenly override the referee inspection, the lack of odor or stains, Dundee initially saying he didn’t think anything improper happened, and Ali himself admitting he wasn’t sure.

But yes keep playing the neutral card, while simultaneously interpreting every uncertainty in the direction of “maybe Liston cheated,” while every contemporaneous finding against that theory gets minimized.

My apologies — those were your exact words: “I don’t claim to know what actually happened that night, or to really have an opinion either way.”

But that stance doesn’t line up with the way you’re analyzing the evidence. You repeatedly interpret uncertainty in the direction of possible cheating while downplaying or rationalizing away the contemporaneous evidence against it.

When no foreign substance is found, the referee “might’ve missed it.” When Dundee initially says he doesn’t think anything improper happened, that gets brushed aside. When Ali himself admits he doesn’t know whether anything was on the gloves, that uncertainty gets minimized. Yet Ali temporarily losing vision is treated as inherently suspicious and almost self-evidently indicative of foul play.

That isn’t “having no opinion either way.” It’s clearly leaning toward one explanation while avoiding fully committing to it outright. If someone consistently bends every ambiguity in favor of one theory, it’s fair to say they’re not actually neutral on the subject.

And that double standard is really the core issue here.

Every piece of contemporaneous evidence that cuts against the cheating theory gets treated as weak, incomplete, or potentially flawed. The referee inspection? Maybe he missed it. No smell? Maybe it was cleaned off. No stain? Maybe it somehow didn’t leave one. Dundee initially dismissing foul play? Just “spitballing.” Ali admitting uncertainty? Doesn’t matter.

But then a decades-later story attributed to a dead cornerman through multiple layers of retelling suddenly gets treated with immense deference because “well, maybe the writer waited until he died to protect him.” Notice how the burden of proof completely changes depending on which direction the evidence points.

You’re effectively demanding near-perfect certainty from the evidence against cheating while accepting speculation and untestable hearsay as sufficient to keep the accusation alive indefinitely.

And again, the Pollino connection makes this even worse. We’re not talking about some source with a spotless record of sober, verifiable disclosures. This is the same orbit of storytelling tied to bizarre myths like the “Liston’s brother was the real Charles Liston” rumor — another claim supposedly linked back to Pollino only after he was dead and unable to confirm or deny it himself.

At some point, you have to ask whether these are genuine revelations or simply the kind of legendary boxing folklore that grows more dramatic, conspiratorial, and impossible to verify as the decades pass.

You’re being pretty disingenuous here by flattening Ali’s position into “Ali thought they cheated” while completely ignoring the evidence I already provided showing that Ali himself admitted uncertainty afterward about what actually caused the eye issue. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-beaumont-enterprise/198224434/

That uncertainty matters. You can’t cite Ali as though he definitively confirmed foul play while brushing aside the fact that he also acknowledged he didn’t know whether anything was actually on the gloves. You’re selectively presenting the parts that support suspicion while omitting the parts that contradict it.

And the “maybe they washed it away” explanation honestly borders on absurd once you actually look at the substances being alleged. Liniment has an extremely strong, unmistakable odor. You don’t secretly smear it on a fighter’s gloves, have it affect someone badly enough to allegedly blind them, then casually “wash it away” in the middle of a heavyweight title fight without the referee, commission, ringside officials, or Ali’s own corner noticing anything.

Monsel’s solution is even worse for the theory because it leaves visible staining. These aren’t invisible, odorless substances from a spy movie. The idea that they could’ve been heavily applied, caused dramatic symptoms, and then vanished without a trace stretches credibility past the breaking point.

So yes, the referee not finding anything matters — and it matters even more when the alleged substances would’ve left obvious signs behind.
Click to expand...

Absolutely brilliant!

mcvey · Jun 12, 2026

Homericlegend03 said: ↑

Yeah this is a fair point, he definitely had loaded gloves against Willard. Dempsey was a puncher but the total eradication he committed again Willard just bogles the mind and while he did beat people up he never did some **** like that again.
Click to expand...

No he didnt. Dempsey's hands were taped by Jimmy Deforest in front of Walter Monaghan one of Willard's seconds, and they gloved up in the ring.Dempsey broke the jaw in 2 places of a 7ft 290lbs sparring partner with 1 punch,and he broke the ribs of George Godfrey in sparring.

mcvey · Jun 12, 2026

clum said: ↑

That's not really what I meant by that. What I meant is that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary explanations. Yes, boxers get sweat and grime in their eyes all the time. Has any of them ever run around blinded for as long as Ali? It strikes me as much more likely that it was something out of the ordinary that got in his eye. That's the part that needs to be explained.

You seem to be saying that even entertaining the idea that Liston could have cheated is a sign of bias and tunnel vision. I am entertaining that idea, but I'm not arguing that he did. There's not enough evidence. I also don't think that there's enough evidence to determine that he couldn't possibly have cheated. You'd need, for example, some kind of explanation for what happened to Ali.It's one. It's one piece of evidence.Yes. Because I'm arguing that we don't know. You're arguing that we do. The burden of proof is a lot higher for what you're trying to argue.I'm not gonna call this disingenuous, but that's a very charitable reading of that section of that article. All Ali says is that he doesn't know from where on Liston's person the substance originated. He's not saying that maybe it got there innocently. Machen claimed that Liston put it on his shoulders rather than his gloves. I realize that you've disqualified Machen's opinion, but it is out there.It's a smoke-filled arena with thousands of fans in it. I don't trust anyone to pick out a single smell among all of those aromas wafting together. That said, the referee's judgment is still good evidence that Liston's gloves were clean. Not undeniable proof, but there's more evidence that they were than that they weren't.

Monsel's and liniment are just two substances. Liston-Ali was a long time ago, but not so long ago that all we had was those two and water.As opposed to what? The implication here is that the only way to be neutral is to agree with you. I stand by the two things I've argued in this thread: we don't know what happened, and these Liston threads are damn tedious. I double down on that last one, actually.
Click to expand...

Monsel's Solution sets like cement , if it gets into your eyes it can cause permanent damage,after it sets it has to be chiselled out,that's why its been outlawed for years,though it is still being used eg Saad Muhammad's corner used it in his 1st fight with Conteh.its not hard to detect since it turns black.
Dundee's explanation was liniment had been applied to Liston's damaged shoulder and Ali got it on his gloves which was then transferred to his face.Ali had a habit of saluting with one glove after he had been tagged.

Why would Polino throw the stuff under the ring?
Why not just put it back in his kit,there was no inspection ?

mcvey · Jun 12, 2026

BoxingFan2002 said: ↑

It was not only Machen and Alii, try better.
Click to expand...

No ,you try better, produce evidence to back up your claims!

mcvey · Jun 12, 2026

BoxingFan2002 said: ↑

Liston cheated against multiple opponents with that trick, Ali was not the only one who claimed it happened to him, it was Liston last chance to win against Ali but that trick failed.

Same happened to Marciano in his first fight with Walcott.
Click to expand...

You are making a lot of unsupported claims here.

For example the fact is Marciano unintentionally butted Walcott which caused a cut on Walcott's eye,it also caused a cut on Rocky;s forehead. Walcott's corner put liniment on the cut,some of which transferred itself to Rocky's face in the clinches, Al Weill, a total nuisance in a corner panicked between rounds and got Goldman all over the place,they applied a sponge to Rocky's cut and the liniment then got into Marciano's eyes.Sam Silverman the promoter was ringside,just below Rocky's corner,he stated ,"they hit the kid with a sponge,and caused the problem themselves."

Freddie Brown brought in on a fight by fight basis for a few bucks .actually saved Rocky's title,he washed his eyes out with cold water applied with little cotton pads , and after a couple of rounds the problem was solved, amazingly Rocky did not panic whilst this was happening.

Mike Cannon · Jun 12, 2026

mcvey said: ↑

You are making a lot of unsupported claims here.

For example the fact is Marciano unintentionally butted Walcott which caused a cut on Walcott's eye,it also cause a cut on Rocky;s forehead. Walcotts corner put liniment on the cut,some of which transferred itself to Rocky's face inthe climches, Al Weill a total nuisance in a corner panicked between rounds and got Goldman all over the place,they applied a sponge to Rockys cut and the liniment then got into Marciano's eyes.Sam Silverman the promoter was ringside,just below Rocky's corner,he stated ,"they hit the kid with a sponge,and caused the problem themselves."

Freddie Brown brought in on a fight by fight basis for a few bucks .actually saved Rocky's title,he washed his eyes out with cold water applied with little cotton pads , and after a couple of rounds the problem was solved, amazingly Rocky did not panic whilst this was happening.
Click to expand...

Agree on all counts, have read all the reports on the fight, and it happened excatly as you stated.

mcvey · Jun 12, 2026

Mike Cannon said: ↑

Agree on all counts, have read all the reports on the fight, and it happened excatly as you stated.
Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time to say so.

Mike Cannon · Jun 12, 2026

mcvey said: ↑

Thank you for taking the time to say so.
Click to expand...

Your welcome.

Log in or Sign up

Liston should get A lot more stick for being a cheat

kirk l l l Staff Member

swagdelfadeel Obsessed with Boxing

mcvey VIP Member

mcvey VIP Member

mcvey VIP Member

mcvey VIP Member

mcvey VIP Member

Mike Cannon Boxing Addict Full Member

mcvey VIP Member

Mike Cannon Boxing Addict Full Member