How much should Liston's quit job affect his standing ?

I think you've said it all in the last two sentences.

What you must keep in mind that going into the fight, Ali was a nobody. 8 to 1 was seen as doing Ali a favor. An average fighter in Banks knocked him down. That was a flash, but Cooper knocked him silly and he was arguably saved by the bell. Jones had a close fight with him.

Greatest of all time or not, an old, glass chinned Folley, Chuvalo, a one eyed Terrel and an injured back Patterson ALL gave a prime Ali a much better fight than Liston did. I think this should definitely count against him. Not so much the fact that he lost to Ali, but the way in which he blatantly quit. Indeed he is lucky to have been fighting against Ali and not Buster Douglas and have at least quit against a great fighter, but at the time he was definitely not seen that way (Clay) nor is it an excuse.

This, combined with his not-too-deep resume disqualifies him from the top5 in my opinion.

 

It seemingly doesn't have that much of an effect on his placement. Enough people rate him Top 5/Top 10 based on his accomplishments from 59-64, in which he was the best heavyweight in the world. That's a five year period. A decent tenure as the 'top' man (albeit unofficially for three of them). He'd have been higher in my personal rankings though (which is 9 or 10 with Frazier- who himself loses places for the Foreman mashing). :good


Again, much is made of Liston throwing both fights. The second one seems like the worst acting since John Wayne as Davy Crockett but the first, to me, is Liston turning old man and taking the easy way out (a pre-genitor to Duran 'no mas'). I've discussed this umpteen times against McGrain and Co, and, like Chris P, was always curious about what round Liston was meant to take his dive- because he can't have pleased the 'mafioso' if they gave him a round to take his fall, with his "was it the end of the 6th or beginning of the 7th" quit job.

 

The second fight with Ali is arguably a 'Buster Douglas' (vs Holy), not a dive in the classic sense just a case of '**** it, i'm done with this business'. But the fix could have been in of course. I think the delay in the rematch, Ali's hernia op, badly affected Sonny's chances and his mental and physical sharpness of late 64 (which contemporary reports suggest were at an optimum) were never quite the same. Even many reporters who'd predicted a Liston revenge, changed their minds after the postponement. Still, I don't think he'd have beaten Ali regardless.

 

It could've been a Douglas vs Holyfield in the second fight, although i think a fix is a bit more likely.

But when i said Buster Douglas, i didn't imply Douglas/Holyfield, but Douglas/Tyson in the sense that the right guy at the right time was a pretty bad fighter in terms of resume (sorry, had to use it:yep). For instance, Bowe was fighting an extremely adept opponent in Golota but his bad luck is that Golota's achievements are ****. The same goes for Douglas-Tyson: Douglas was great that night, but he was still a mediocre fighter to lose to.

Liston was "lucky" in the sense that the fighter who embarrassed him was at least a great fighter.

 

All excellent points. People pretend asif Patterson ducked Liston from 1958 to 1962. In reality, Liston hadn't beaten a single contender in 1958 and Patterson was having a rightful and exciting trilogy in 59-61. Some of Pattersons opponents were indeed pathetic, but him ducking Liston is somewhat exagarrated - Johnson, Dempsey and Bowe were much worse.

 

Great question Sonny, but unfortunately the enlightenment you are after will never be found. Why? We will never ever know the exact extent of the mafia involvement in both fights. IMO without this we cannot be certain of anything, which in turn means we can't be certain of how to suitably sum up and rank Sonny with any certainty at all.


Me? Personally i feel Sonny took him lightly in the first bout and took the easy option of **** this, i'll come back to fight another day. It's only an opinion tho. The second fight i truly believe to be a fix for various reasons which have been debated before. Given the fact that no other fighter in Heavyweight history IMO does what Ali did to Liston first fight i refrain from holding it against him head to head. Resume wise i just think well he lost to the guy i consider the greatest heavy ever, twice. Nothing to be ashamed of. I rate Liston quite highly. I don't see him quitting against anyone else in history.

 

once again not true. Liston flattened top 10 contender wayne bethea in 1 round in 1958. Liston also flattned Billy Hunter in 1958 who would make his way into the top 10 the following year.

 

LOL

I guess Old Fogey's schooling is being put into good use here, eh Suzie? I was ghosting that thread when he told you that Hunter wasn't ranked, and frankly, if it is indeed true that Hunter wasn't ranked until 1959, then we can't really count him as a ranked opponent when Liston took him in 1958 can we?

 

Good points SJ & CP, I'll say Liston was top man since 1960 then , depspite the Ingemar-Floyd trilogy. I have an early Boxing Illustrated where Ingo is asked if he'll give Patterson a rematch or fight "Liston or Moore?" So it's fair to say Charles was looming large like a heavyweight cancer. By 1960 he was #1 with almost everyone, except Cus.



ps. Kudos for BI as in their first year of publication they predicted challenger Johannsson would smash Floyd and win the title by KO- they even had the prediction of the front cover story. :good

 

Liston was far past his prime and extremely rusty when he fought ali. he was most likely 33-34 when he fought ali, and liston had fought just 8 rounds in the past 4 years entering the ali fight(2 rounds in the past 3 years!!). thats rust. especially for an aging man.


Larry Merchant claimed Willie Reddish told him that Liston had slowed down so much by this time that he had to tell listons sparring partners to slow it down make liston appear faster than he really was, to not hurt his confidence.



the 2nd fight was a fix




prime for prime the late 1950s liston has a very good chance of beating ali

 

looks like your the one who got schooled. Notice how I never said hunter was in the top 10 in 1958. I said "hunter would make his way into the rankings the following year". read before you write my friend.

 

The inexperienced version of Cassius Clay in 1964 perhaps. A more mature version of Muhammad Ali around 1967, I'm not so sure. Liston fought very few fighters who I think were capable of standing up to hi, and what's more, none of them had the baffling style that Ali had. While I agree that Liston was past his best in 1964, I simply don't think that he had the right set of tools to beat Ali even at his peak.