Convince me about Sonny Lston

First of all, Wills did all he could but was denied a shot because he was too dangerous/black/whatever. It was beyond his control.

Liston had trouble getting fights because no promoter was going to risk putting a man who twice quit on his card. And when he did fight someone rated, he got knocked out.

He was, but the difference isn't all that. Let's be honest here: if Marshall hadn't beaten Liston, he'd be a journeyman lightheavyweight and completely unknown. Summerlin was a borderline contender but according to most sources, Liston didn't deserve the verdict in either fight.

The first ranked heavyweight he fights is in 1959, which is six years after turning pro. Lewis fought the first ranked contender one and a half year after turning pro. Now, this is a bit deceiving because Lewis had a longer amateur career and didn't spend a year and half in prison, but the point stands.


As for beating a great fighter in his prime, no one within his right mind gives Patterson as much as a chance against Lewis. Lewis wasn't fortunate enough to have him around to make a legacy out of, and was ducked by the champion that should've made his legacy, though he did beat him in the amateurs.

Hard one to call. I don't mean to re-iterate this point, but i think it's important that Lewis convincingly avenged both losses, which of course doesn't erase them, but does mean a lot about his championship heart. Liston quit blatantly and will always be troubled badly, in a stylistic sense. Lewis adapted and won. Easily, i daresay. Plus, the weakness he showed (susceptibility to a hard punch) has been proven wrong by beating more and bigger punchers than perhaps any other champion in history, while Liston didn't do exactly that against slicksters. The only slickster with a chin he fought, Machen, gave him a close fight although he did win.

 

Just expand on this further. What I mean here is that Liston's matchmaker would have been looking to put him in with what was suitable for him and available. A fighter with a winning record will more than likely be a better than one with a losing one, the vast majority of the time. Depending on what the quality of the content is within those records. A fighter might well be 17-0, yet all of them are cardboard cutouts. On the other hand another might well have a record of 20-19, but when averaging things out, the quality of his wins are better than the previously mentioned with 17-0. Matchmakers and promoters back in Liston's day weren't all about looking at an opponents unblemished record and saying to themsleves "yeah he's 20-0, we'll fight him" unlike how they do things today.

Liston was thrown to the Wolves, but it was irrelevant if those Wolves had unbeaten records, winning records or losing records. It's just a coincidence that he happened to fight many fighters with "winning records". However those records alone don't emphasize the high level of competition Liston was matched with early.


I was meant to make this an entirely new post. Yet Ive went into my post that was here that I followed up with to McGrain and completley erased everything and put the above in instead. What a complete tosser I'am. I was happy with the content and Conteth has quoted part of it below.

 

Well i don't think we're going to agree on any of those points. My position simply is that Lewis had significantly better longetivity, more quality wins, lost less often, and avenged his losses. I don't think his career is comparable to Liston's.

If the question is: what is worse, losing to Rahman and McCall or to Ali twice, of course that's a no-brainer. But humiliating, disgraceful way in which Liston lost makes it a close one for me. Especially considering he came off his career best win & performance.

 

Clark was rated Top 10 in Ring and the WBA. He was a very valid opponent. I'd say Liston was at the top from early 1959 to late 69, almost 11 years. But lacking in top shelf opponents for a three year period perhaps.

 

In fairness to Robbi, I saw his point with this one...

...anyway, it's a good debate this chaps. Carry on. :good

 

By the way, on Liston being ducked by Patterson, i think that's highly exaggerated. He got knocked out by Johansson in '59, when Liston just started beating contenders, then Johansson gave a rematch (boxing tradition and nothing wrong with that), and after another spectacular outing, a third match was proposed to settle it for once and for all. We're talking '61 now. Then Patterson had one easy defence, which i think he had a right to after taking 3 fights against the #1 contender/champion. Then he took on Liston.

It was more a matter of inconvenient events for Liston than the champion fighting weak opposition while ducking the deserving contender.

 

Sonny was one of the best ever. But he and George Foreman have one thing in common; both men lost to Muhammad Ali and lost their "invincible" status forever. After Sonny lost to Ali, it seemed that suddenly all of his knockouts and victories didn't matter anymore. :verysad

 

What you are saying is plausible on paper but the facts on the ground and contemporary testimony would lead you to conclude that DaMatto wanted nothing to do with Liston.

This scene from Rocky III prety much sums it up.

Rocky: I want to fight this guy.

Mickey: Then you do it without me.

 

I don't see why Floyd has one easy defence after beating Johannson 'again' as he'd fudged his way through his whole title tenure, the boxing world had seen enough. Also, there had never be three fights in a row for the heavyweight title before with the same combatants, under queensberry rules, so why then? Well, Liston mainly, who at the latest, should have received his title shot late 1961, but realistically after Floyd had regained the crown (considering his team's reputation when they held it). Rematches may be a boxing tradition and rubber matches are often commonplace but very seldom in all succession (I don't even agree with immediate rematches for the record). If there was any champ who didn't deserve an 'easy fight' it was Patterson, who'd spent his world title career filling his 'W' column with them.


Liston had been #1 since late 1960- in terms of NBA rankings & Ring. It speaks volumes that when Ingemar beat Floyd, Boxing Illustrated stated that they "wanted the crown to return to the US but by another American, not Floyd". Many other publications were more tactful due to Patterson's popularity but BI told it like most experts and even public felt inside.

 

So, in summary, Liston at most got his shot a grand total of one year too late. Hardly world breaking stuff, there's tons of fighters who had to wait longer or never got one at all.

Maybe i'm overreacting, but i'm just annoyed by the fact that so often people cry murder when talking about Liston's one year late title shot, while guys like Wills (comparable in greatness, mind you) never got one at all, Foreman never received his 2nd shot during his first career, Thomas never got one, as did Dokes, Lewis (with Bowe), Schmeling's 2nd shot in '36, Valdes, etc etc.

 

Look at what was happening on the ground at the time.

Not all wisdom comes via boxrec and the annual rankings.

 

To me, he got his shot two years too late. There's other fighters in this position, like Bob Foster, Hagler, Napoles. That's why we hear about them. When Liston beat Williams in early 1960, he was widely regarded as the best in the world. I think D'Amato was a contender for the worst thing that ever happened to the world heavyweight title (up until that time).

Yeah, fair enough mate. It's up to you to fight their corner then.