One of boxing legends is that Liston threw a fight against young Cassius Clay. I don't belive that. I watched this fight couple of times. Liston was there to hurt Clay. He landed very hard blows on him. In the 1st he landed with big right under the heart. In second he connected powerful left to Clay's jaw. He was serious. Joe Pollino admitted that he laid burning mixture on Liston's gloves and liston ordered him to do it. Why he would go on to such things if he didn't want to win? When Clay was blinded Liston started raging attack and looked like he wanted to kill him. Clay survived the assault, God knows how. His durability, chin and movement were remarkable. I think that Liston's metal jacket was empty in 5th and when Clay regained his vision, he was tired and easy to hit. I was looking for signs of left shoulder injury in that round. His left jab wasn't very sharp at that time. But it isn't easy to say if he was badly hurt because of Liston's fatigue in that round. What bothers me. Liston blinded Clay yes. But he also landed some shots after Clay regained his vision and his gloves weren't causing another burning in Clay's eyes. Strange. Maybe this formula run down from the leather later? I don't know. Liston's purse was frozed when it came to light that his quiet menagers from East Coast put there money on Clay and bought out his contract for $50,000 and rights to his next fight (or more fights?). He was payed after the doctor admitted that his left arm was injured. Any views on that fight are welcomed. I also would appreciated the backstage info on their rematch in Lewiston. I think that this one was indeed a fix. But I don't know was it about money or about threats to Liston's life from The Black Muslims - or both.
Has anyone actually been able to produce a source for the Pollino thing yet? So far all there seems to be is Dundee saying that Pollino was supposed to have said it, whilst also disagreeing that it had ever happened. I'd be grateful if anyone could shed some light on the matter. The circumstantial evidence indicates a fix in my opinion. The film of the fight probably nullifies that evidence. I'm nothing like as confident as you though jaffay. At all. Several doctos testified to the fact that Liston had a nasty injury to his shoulder.
From SI "Burning Question": Q In Muhammad Ali's first bout with Sonny Liston, in 1964, did Liston doctor his gloves in order to blind Ali, as depicted in the movie Ali? A That Ali temporarily lost his vision in the fourth round is well documented; Ali returned to his corner after the round and told trainer Angelo Dundee that "dirty work [was] afoot." But Liston, who died in 1970, never admitted cheating. Dundee believes the blinding was accidental and that either medication applied to a cut on Liston's cheek or liniment rubbed on Liston's shoulder got into Ali's eyes. Conspiracy theorists are plentiful, however. "There's a general belief that doctoring did happen," says boxing historian Bert Sugar. In David Remnick's 1998 Ali biography, King of the World, Philadelphia Daily News reporter Jack McKinney says Liston's cornerman Joe Pollino admitted applying something—Pollino never said what—to his boxer's gloves. "Immediately after the fight Joe, who was very close to me, unburdened himself to me," McKinney says in the book. "He told me Sonny had told him to juice the gloves, and he went ahead and did it." What is evident, at least, is that Ali's eyes cleared in the fifth round, and two rounds later he was heavyweight champion of the world. Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1024653/index.htm#ixzz15RN8tP1h
That appears to be fourth hand, but it's actually quite nice - i've read some McKinney stuff before and he certainly doesn't strike me as someone who would flat out make something up. That would be my opinion anyway.
It's highly unlikely that the first Liston-Ali fight was a fix. The second fight may have been, although I again think it wasn't exactly "fixed", Liston just packed it in after getting caught early.
It gets taken a bit too much as a given that the fight was a fix. There is none the less compeling evidence.
The Pollino "testimony" is the clearest indication that anything wasn't level in the fight, third hand information as it is. Ps. I have a memory of Pollino saying the same thing at a show on ESPN Classic, but it's a bit vague.
Personally I think there's almost no chance of the first fight being a fix, never say never though, but you're right if talking about the second fight. In the first fight Liston landed some hard blows which would have taken out a Floyd Patterson for example. But Ali was taller, had the reflexes to always move away from the punches and went onto prove he had a great chin as well.
Well, McKinney was close to Liston (if we can say that about any journalist when we talk about Liston) or at least very insightful. As I recall. He was on that plane to Philla with Sonny after he took the title from Patterson and told about new champions reaction when there was no one to greet him at the airport.
Liston said he threw it, but that information is third hand. He indicated to other friends that something had not been on the level. He was owned by the mob to the hilt and the two principles were in money trouble and the mob's involvement was under heavy investigation - the mob was basically stepping out of boxing at the time. The odds against an Ali victory were huge. Mark Kram claims that Liston was seen crying on his way to the ring. There are other bits and pieces. I give the idea that Liston threw the fight about as much credence as the idea that he deliberately blinded Ali, which is to say it was possible but it's not generally backed by film.
It's interesting actually. I'd say the evidence that Liston deliberately blinded Ali and that Liston threw the fight are pretty evenly balanced but you actually only end up choosing what to believe. You can't really draw any conclusions based upon what you know that are concrete.
This is news to me. What sources? These are all bits an pieces, but not really evidence. Just like Liston asking for the smelling salt afterwards or telling Torres he had been hurt by the that right, also directly afterwards, aren't evidence either. The most telling evidence is that he actually got up, and would have continued the fight had Walcott not totally botched the refereeing.
The first fight almost certainly wasn't fixed. With regard to the second fight, an irregular betting pattern did emerge before the event. The fight was held in a high school gymnasium because none of the big venues would touch it.
KO magazine, off the top of my head. I opened an entire thread about it about 8 months back. Circumstantial evidence, all of it. That's the second fight. All of this relates to the first fight.