Sonny Liston was robbed

I agree with this. But I think it was not just the doing of the contenders or even their managers. I think the WBA commissioners and the promoters who were risking their money in making the matches weren't interested in helping Sonny in his way back up the ladder. As you say, he was a pariah because of his underworld background and the lingering questions that people had about his performances against Ali. They figured the pull date on his shelf-life as a big-money attraction had expired, and they wanted to move on and develop new contenders. I agree with what Richard Murrieta suggested previously. Sonny made his own bed previously in his career and to a certain extent he had to lie in it.

I also think that Sonny wasn't all that eager to participate in the tournament. I thinjk he wanted to maintain control over choosing his opponents rather than having to fight his way through seven tough challengers who were younger than he was.

 

Also if I recall correctly, Sonny won almost every round against Martin and Clark except maybe... round 2 against Martin and obviously the round Liston was knocked out. I'm quite not sure if it was indeed round 2 which I scored for Martin or if it was round 3. Anyway, I find that impressive considering Sonny's age.

 

He also, according to Foreman had the flu at the time of the bout which makes it even more impressive.

 

Yeah, I've heard the same, although I can't remember if I got it from Foreman or from somewhere else.

 

Sonny was making a living as an “ex-champ on tour”. He was making money.

At that point of his life, that was good enough for him.

I don’t think Sonny was truthfully interested in becoming a champion again either.

 

As upheld in this thread, people either know (real time) or have done their homework very well re Pattersons reign and surrounding contexts. Totally respected and appreciated.

I still have musings and questions though to put forward which may or may not be defendable on Floyd’s behalf because, at least intuitively, his reign appears very much protected IMO.

First, open question, do you think the NBA ratings legitimately reflected a fighter’s as and when rating and is there anything to suggest that those ratings could’ve been in anyway manipulated in any way (viz, e.g. suppression of Liston’s true ranking or anyone else’s).

It seems we have the tax justification for 2 fights per year max. which should’ve made soft defences inappropriate. Then we have Floyd actually having one fight per year in several instances without even an “excusing” tune up prior to a few other of his bigger fights (that includes periods when Floyd wasn’t holding the title).

With Machen # 1 and Folley # 2, why couldn’t Floyd have simply fought his number 1 contender - or at worst fight Machen (by default) after the draw with Folley?

Of course we have the Johansson trilogy - but that could be viewed as a further incompetency and muddling of the reign - lose, regain and then a rubber “because the public wanted it”. Meanwhile, more then eligible guys still waiting, twiddling their thumbs.

It seems there were some contenders ducking others, the latter being fighters whose resumes were arguably better but somehow still kept in the lower order and MADE to jump even more hoops not necessarily required of the others contenders. How long do you have your most eligible contenders fighting amongst each other before you, as champion, step up to the plate? Odds are they will trip.

Certainly Liston had to do no less than clean out the division (champion by proxy?) before getting his over due shot at the belt.

From 56 title win to 63 2nd loss to Liston, Floyd only had I think 10 fights over a period of over 6 1/2 years - involving an actual 7 different opponents and 6 successful title defences.

Williams may not have been screamingly eligible but gee, he along with Folley and Machen and a few others somehow didn’t cross paths with Floyd during the given time frame - and we know Liston was impossibly stalled until he could absolutely no longer be denied.

I really like Floyd but it seems to take a considerately formulated argument specifically designed to justify/defend the conduct of his reign - perhaps hugging the trees while ignoring the forest? I mean there’s often a way to technically “justify” that which common sense suggests isn’t true.

Does anyone really believe Floyd’s reign rolled out the way it did simply via as and when logistics as opposed to degrees of impropriety and avoidance being involved?

Maybe the lacking in Floyd’s reign is focused in on more partly due to shaky defences against lower tier guys and his being ultimately obliterated - twice - by the contender that his team most blatantly avoided but Floyd, to his credit, finally insisted on meeting - but really, could Liston have been left simmering on the back burner any longer?