According to the revisionists and corrupt judges, the Ali-Liston 1 bout was even before Liston quit. I cannot take that claim seriously when we have clear video evidence that Ali dominated that bout. There seems to be a strand of revisionism that says the fight was 3-3 and a lot closer than previously thought. However, anyone who studies the bout and watches it in slow motion can clearly see that Ali controlled the bout the whole way. Liston only had 1 clear round win, round 5, where Ali was blind. Even in that round Liston barely got a clean shot in. At best, you can give Liston one other round if you are generous. All of the rounds that Ali won were convincing. Liston got 2 good shots in the whole fight while Ali probably got 50 clean head shots on the nose or jaw. If the fight was really even, why would Liston quit on his stool in the 6th round? When in history has a Heavyweight Champion ever quit on his stool because of an alleged injury in a fight that was even? That's never happened before. If the video wasn't convincing you, you can look at the state of Liston's face vs Ali's face at the end of the fight. Liston's face was completely bruised. He looked like he went through a meat grinder. Ali OTOH didn't have a scratch on his face. This content is protected This content is protected
I don't think 3-3 is a bad card really, but since rds 1, 3 and 6 were significantly clearer in Ali's favour than 2 and 4 were for Liston (if you indeed even score both for him) and Ali was blind in rd 5, it might be a said that such a card doesn't tell the whole story. I think the fact that Liston couldn't even KO, or even really hurt, a blind Ali says more about the fight than the fact that it was even on the cards when it ended, but you rarely hear it put that way for some reason...
One way to describe the fight could also be that while Ali staggered Liston twice and marked him up, Liston could only get to Ali with some consistency and clearly win a round when Ali was blinded.
Yeah. No one can deny Ali was tagging Liston. The evidence is there looking at Liston's face and the fact that Liston was the first heavyweight champion in history to relinquish his belt by quitting on his stool.
Not the first. Willard sat down at the end of the third and didn't come out. Buuuuut, he was absolutely battered and I've no idea how he actually managed to come out for the second!
Au contraire, fellas. Liston couldn't have been the first heavyweight champion to quit on his stool, because the lineage ended with Tunney.
Because Tunney retired? But the claim was not about lineal champions, but HW champions. Still I never thought of the succession chain that way, as broken.
Probably, those who know what they are watching know facial damage does not always indicate who won a fight, eg FOTC Ali had a lump on his jaw whereas Frazier looked like he had stuck his head in a bee's nest.Usyk looked to have at least as much facial damage as Joshua yet he clearly won the fight.Marciano was a mess after the Louis bout but won by emphatic ko post fight pictures would indicate Louis won,but we know that was not the case.Ditto the first Marciano v Walcott fight.
If we're looking for direct chain breakers, Jeffries did that. Then we had Marvin Hart, followed by Tommy Burns, followed by Jack Johnson.
Bingo. And that adds Alis style by giving away rounds! Heared it more than once that the fight was even until Liston sat down - as a proove of prime Liston doing this and that
We get it. You made three separate threads saying the same thing. Ali dominated Liston. Liston didn't land a punch, never hurt Ali, all things not true. Can you PLEASE stfu about it already? Oh yeah. Here's 31 scorecards of the fight by various observers. https://eyeonthering.com/node/9745 Of those 31, 17 gave Liston three rounds. One of them gave him 4. So no, it's not "revisionist and corrupt judges" that hade the fight even at the time of the stoppage. Multiple objective individuals who watched the fight (maybe even the majority) had the fight even at the time of the stoppage. Not even going to address the non-sensical "facial bruises" argument. It's as laughable as it is pathetic.