And Liston himself. So what though? I'm not jumping on this sole point though. Can you prove Margarito knew about the tampering of his wrappings, or that it was his idea? In boxing controversies like this there is hardly ever any proof or evidence. There's suspicion, but nothing for us to ever really know. Was there any proof LaMotta took a dive against Fox? Well there was suspicion the fix was in and the fact his performance was awful gave suspicion. Was he wrongfully suspended? Should his purse have been withheld? What about with Lou Resto? They would be no proof Resto knew anything. No prove about the mixing of drinks or the plaster and torn gloves. But now we hear testimony. Any real proof of corrupted judges, or is it just incompetence? The fact is that Ali was blinded once in the 60 fights he had. Now, it doesn't prove Liston or his team blinded him but it raises suspicion. Just like Norton breaking Ali's jaw doesn't mean he had plaster in his gloves. In fact, thinking that would be silly. Ali had his mouth open and got caught. But Liston who was connected to the MOB and known to have done things for the MOB and has been involved with tons of controversy adds a little more credence to the suspicion. Let me ask you this. Do you think Liston took a dive or went down and quit against Ali. If so... based on what? There's no proof he wasn't legitimately hurt or that he really did have trouble getting up.
I've heard this too, but it just seems to have vanished, if it were ever out there. I mean what could you make of it even if it was true? Bit of a mystery, really. You'd have one crowd of people using it to exonorate Liston and one group of people using it to tire-iron him.
I never said it did. But Dundee was very unaware and surprised of this. I think he would have someone been aware if he accidentally blinded his own fighter. I don't know. I don't think he deemed it that. Unforgiven said one of Liston's cornerman confessed to it. That story is something I vaguely have heard too. All evidence, although lacking, seem to point to Dundee. Neither have I. Bert Sugar said Williams said he was blinded. I doubt it happened in both fights. I really have no idea. I'm just saying the man has an unsavory reputation. I don't know, I believe Liston or one of his corner-men did it to Ali. I really have no idea how many times he did but there are multiple stories. An accident that originated in Liston's corner? How convenient. Well next time the Liston vs Ali II fight comes up say that you have no proof or evidence and that we really don't know what happened. Okay. Margarito might not have known. Yet there's no witnesses that Resto was using less-padded gloves. Not until further examination. So how would someone examine how Ali got blinded?
Apparently Marciano thought it WAS deliberate. He never blamed Walcott, but blamed his handlers. It's natural for fighters to suspect foul play. Not sure it's always a case of foul play though.
I'm happy that Liston's personal invovlement with high-ranking mob-members was less personal than Sugar Ray Robinsons. It's one of the first thing that people generally reach for, one of the first things that you reached for, when trying to pin this blndness thing on Litson, and it's entirely irrelevant is my point, yeah, as irrelevant as Mendoza's barking about Louis's mob involvement and the supposed bad judging. The two things have no correlation. No. Do you know that Margarito was banned from boxing for his use of these illegal tools? And that Liston was not for "blinding opponents"? The differences in the two cases are so vast I can't believe you are even comparing them. That's the worst kind of circular logic there is. You don't have any proof but you don't need any because there never is any. Holy ****. For the record, there is proof in the Resto case, Sugar Shane's drug use, Evander Holyfield's drug use, Margarito's cheating, Oliver McCall's crack use, Don King's fixing of Ring rankings. Even Aaron Pryor's black bottle has more actual as opposed to circumstanial evidence than this one. Apart from the fact that he admitted it?! This idea that "the mob" blinded Ali...it's just bizarre. I think Liston took a dive, yeah. The evidence is thick and fruity and inconclusive. Most compelling is the KO itself, on film. What you are tyring to pass off as similar, just isn't, it would involve some FOOTAGE of someone APPEARING to put something on Liston's gloves/shoulders, just as there is FOOTAGE of Liston appearing to take a dive.
See that there in round 5? Thats Heart. Thats the stuff of legend. Ali had that innate sense of distance which cant be taught. Most guys would have gone from that eye burning. I would also state,if listons corner put some linoment or something on liston to blind clay,then there is the risk that the substance could also blind liston as well. I mean,liston could smother it to clay,then clay could inadvertantly smother it to sonny during close combat.
There are reports that Al Weil was screaming crazy and reporters talking about how he was going nuts and how an inexperienced corner probably accidentally blinded Rocky. If Walcott had past fighters jumping up that this happened to them. Or if Walcott was in deep with the MOB then maybe more suspicion would arise. But there's nothing to believe Walcott did.
Walcott was heavily mobbed-up as well, I think. Then again, so was Al Weill. Almost everyone in boxing was in 1952.
He did, i'm afraid. Angelo deemed it "one of those things". He's on the record. :huh I think it did not happen. If it did, there is absolutley no evidence for it on film. Well the convenience or otherwise really depends on his guilt or otherwise, doesn't it? But there is evidence. Chris Pontius, Stonehands and I have gone through pages and pages of threads on this forum, sifting it. Yeah, Margarito might not have known he had hardened plaster in his gloves but Liston is "dirty and a cheat" because something got in Ali's eyes. No witnesses exist is what I said, and there are none. Examine it?
Walcott, like most other fighters, did have a manager who was allegedly connected to the mob. http://books.google.fi/books?id=BH4...elix Bocchicchio&pg=PA118#v=onepage&q&f=false A quote from the book: "Or, most ominously, was Marciano blinded because of foul play and deliberate chemical warfare on the part of Walcott's corner (as Marciano later contended, fingering Bocchicchio as the prime culprit)?"
SRR didn't make deals with the MOB. He got calls and he said he didn't do business that way. Wasn't Liston a henchman and actual worker for the MOB? I'm not comparing but giving examples. You're not seeing the point because you're overtly literal that's it's nearly impossible to have a discussion with you. It's a fact of life. The fact is things happen and in boxing there's generally no proof unless proof is revealed. That proof is usually a testimony or something. Apparently, the testimony of 2 other fighters are irrelevant to you. That's fine. There is nothing far-fetched in thinking Liston blinded Ali though. You're starting to really miss my point. I'd like to hear the proof on the Aaron Pryor black bottle case actually. You're so obtuse. Obviously he admitted it. But before-hand was their any real proof it happened. No, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The idea that is what you got from my post is bizarre. There is no concrete evidence. That's called suspicion. Which is almost the equivalent if thinking Dirrell appeared to fake or exaggerate his injury against Abraham. Here's what we have. Previous opponents of Liston claiming their eyes were burning too (And more than one saying this. I guess they were all just jumping on the conspiracy then). And Ali being blinded. That's a lot of testimony. What does Machen gain from making this up?
I want a source on this. Testimony is evidence by the way. So there is evidence, not much. If Machen and others actually testified than Liston could get convicted (Partly because he was a hated black man seen as a thug and poor representation as an American HW Champ).
Well, Machen was an ex-con too, an armed robber like Liston if I remember rightly. And he had mental health issues. Hardly a star witness.
Sugar was on first name terms with Blinkey Palermo. There are stories that have him "carrying" opposition fighters until a given round or to a decision. There is one story that has Robinson apologisng to him for failing to make the agreed round. Palermo was supposedly philosophical about it. It's fine to say he "didn't make deals" with the mob, and that he "didn't do buisness that way" but if he didn't, nobody did, which is to say there is about as much evidence of his involvement as there is for any fighter outside of a guy like LaMotta. Opinions vary; he certainly was friendly with Barney Baker. NOT as friendly as Sugar was with Blinkey though. You always use this "overly literal" line when you seem pinned. If an example isn't literally comparable, what, exactly, is the use? The whole point of an example is to provide contradictary or supportig evidence for a given point, if an example doens't do this, it is literally useless. You raised the Margarito example as comparable to the Liston example. The reason you rare finding this difficult to justify in discussion with me is because it isn't, and that's been shown. There is ABSOLUTLEY nothing far-fetched in believing Liston blinded Ali, at all. Wht you want to do is see it as unequiviocal proof that he is a "dirty cheat". "Liston blinded Ali. Who does this not make him dirty or a cheat?" If you talk about any questionable position in such absolute tones you will be picked up on it. Panama was overheard in the corner asking for "the bottle I mixed earlier". Now before you venture off on one, yes, I know he could have been asking for Ribena or tea or lemonade, but this, alone represents more evidence for cheating than exists against Liston - my original quote, "EVEN Aaron Pryor's black bottle". This is true. There's nothing obtuse about replying to your asking for evidence of LaMotta's dive by pointing out he admitted it. At all. It's the obvious thing to say, I can't imagine another answer, actually. And who cares about "before-hand"? All it proves is that wrong-doing can happen without evidence existing. We all know that. So what? We also all know you can't go around hurling definitives without evidence either, at least if you expect to be taken seriously. It's inevitable that if you KEEP mentioning the mob in relation to Ali's blindness, people will think you are connecting the two, what with your connecting them both and all. There's more evidence for one than the other. Expet we have more than that. We have all three films where YOU are saying suspicion exists of their being blind and no signs on film that they were blinded at any stage. Contrast this with Ali's reaction, which doesn't prove wrong doing anyway and you see what kind of shakey ground you are on.