How "Past It '' Was Sonny Liston Defending Against Ali?

Don't think so

He was a plodding stalker heavyweight who needed to set his feet ... He had no answer for Ali's movement ... He even blinded him for two rounds and still couldn't beat him


The more I watch of Liston the more that becomes clear ... He couldn't cope with that style at all

 

yes, with hindsight, the success of Sonny blasting fighters out so easily, had softened him up. He didn’t have enough rounds. And it hurt him. Ultimately it was not enough seasoning going into a fight with somebody like a young Cassius Clay... but nobody could really predict that. The odds were based on face value. Like Frazier against Foreman. Or Tyson versus Douglas. Afterwards factors or events can be used to explain what was not previously explainable. But on face value, which is what the odds were set on, Sonny is still the best fighter in the world at that point and Clay has to show more than he has shown before to win it.

 

Maybe. And maybe Ali fought Norton too close to Bugner (only six weeks). So should we start the excuse train for Ali against Norton (and, yeah, if anyone wondered why the rematch was close, it was because Ali overtrained and then hurt his hand - and in the third fight Ali was obviously shot against an peaking Norton, so let's do away with that whole trilogy, shall we)?

We can excuse away most results if we just put out some effort, but the effort is mainly done on behalf of certain fighters it seems.

Liston gets a good helping, for sure. But if you are going to rank him nr 3 amongst ATG HWs (as some making the excuses in this thread feel is reasonable), then you do need these excuses, plus some fantasy.

 

You are correct on this.

Any Fighter is only as good as the opponent lets them look. On his best night a guy is only as good as the other man let’s him be.

Clay fought like he was destined to win..and it’s hard to look so good against a guy who believes it that much.

Sonny Liston who lost to Clay in their first fight beats anyone else in the top ten that same evening. Let’s face it, if a fighter is only as good as his last fight, Sonny Liston could not have done any better in his last 3 fights in no other part of his career.

 

Cue the line "it was even on the cards", with no mention of Ali's overall control of the fight or that he was blinded in the 5th without Sonny really managing to exploit it.

So what have we so far:

• Liston was really 40 and way past it
• The fight was fixed
• Liston was injured
• He didn't train properly
• He hadn't had enought rounds in recent years (and apparently not a recent enough fight, despite having had one more recently than Ali)

That's only five. I think we can do better than that. His drinking and being scared of an assasination attempt by the NOI haven't even been mentioned yet (they have in other similar threads, though)

 

Let's not play stupid, how things are viewed concurrently are viewed very different retrospectively when new information comes to light.

For example, going into Tyson-Douglas. Tyson was an unstoppable machine who had demolished everyone in his path. Only after the fight happened, did we find out about him dumping Rooney for a bunch of yes men, him ****ing Japanese hookers instead of training to defend his belt, him getting dropped by an elderly Page "hadn't looked that good in years", and getting handled by the same Berbick he demolished.

Going into Frazier-Foreman, Frazier had beaten Ali, and was coming off two title defenses and still in his 20s. Only after the demolition (actually their were some people who noticed prior to Foreman, Frazier was declining but they were far are few), did we know just how much TFOTC took out of Frazier (though Frazier likely wouldn't have beaten Foreman no matter what shape he was in regardless).

Same with Liston. He was coming off the two best wins of his career. But those were the only fights he'd had, along with Westphal and King in a 3 year period. A mere 6 rounds. Actually if you do the math it was 13 minutes which roughly equates to just over 4 rounds in over 3 years which is hardly adequate preparation for the Greatest Of All Time. On top of that, he was in his mid 30s at the youngest, likely much older.

 

You won't really convince me with the Tyson-Douglas since that for me mostly is BS excuses with little to back them up (guess what, Tyson's opponents have them too, so let's discount his wins as well, shall we?). Sure, he wasn't in absolute top shape (don't think Liston was for Ali either, and Ali wasn't for several of his losses), but this whole silly thing like he was some past prime fighter that realistically could lose to Leon Spinks... Lordy, lordy, grant me strength.

And as for Frazier against Foreman, who exactly do you mean comes with revisionist BS that a peak Frazier would beat that Foreman?

And what you state about Liston is nothing new. It was of course well known at the time how many (or few) rds he'd gone in recent years.

Maybe this whole "he was really 67" speculation has come since, but, hey, if you're going to rank him the third greatest HW you have to have something, for his resume as it stands sure doesn't get you there.

 

The fact is that Ali has the most viable excuse for that fight. He was blind for a whole round. There is absolutley no dispute about that. Guess what, he still kicked Sonny's behind.

 

Please show me the post where I said he could realistically lose to Spinks? I just object to the notion that he was in his prime when their are several indications that disprove this.

Perhaps you missed this part of my post? "though Frazier likely wouldn't have beaten Foreman no matter what shape he was in regardless" I've bolded just so you don't miss it this time.

Did anyone know he had a recorded shoulder injury going into the bout?

I said he was likely much older than his given age, which itself was still seriously old compared to other heavyweights, particularly ATG heavys.. You're exaggerating my points to create a straw man which is rather disgraceful. I expected better from you. Shame on you.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, but since you ask my top ten lists are based on a combination of both ATG and H2H ability. If you don't link it, tough ****.

 

For anyone here thinking Liston was in his prime against Ali, he was at the youngest 34 years old being born in 1930 (going by the 1930 census). Without taking into account, he was likely born earlier, his injuries, and lack of ring action, can anyone here seriously name a substantial number of ATGs (particularly fighters not of the modern era who greatly benefit from nutrition, and medicine which weren't available until recently that greatly enhance longevity. Who was still in their prime at 34 years old? Ali? Tyson? Marciano? Louis? Dempsey? Foreman? Frazier? Langford? Anyone????

 

That wasn't directed at you. Just at a general discussion.

Again, wasn't directed at you. Unless you think what you see as the best version of Liston beats Ali. My point was, even though Frazier is generally accepted to not have been at his best against Foreman (or ever again after FOTC), it hasn't gone as far as to suggest that Frazier would have beaten Foreman at his best.

And I don't even really know if it's revisionist to claim that Frazier was past his best. He was still seen as the man in the division, of course, and Foreman wasn't thought to be as dangerous as he was, but was it really news that Frazier wasn't quite the same after FOTC? His defences in between hadn't really been that impressive, I think.

Surely you must have understood I was joking when I said that Liston is claimed to have been 67? But I do think that the narrative that he was a past it old man seven months after his best filmed performance is very revisionist and unsubstantiated (some revisionism might be correct, as you say, but I don't see the case to believe so here).

I'll leave it at that.

 

I don't think any version of Liston beats Ali, (a prime Ali anyways) though I still don't think Liston was in top condition when he fought Ali. Obviously he was still formidable though, as I don't believe anyone in that era could've exposed the weaknesses of even that version of Liston.

Granted. I guess people knew Frazier wasn't the same after the beating he endured but imo it was just rumors that he was slipping.

Right in this article here https://news.google.com/newspapers?...b9QAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4V8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6176,2571228 prior to the Foreman fight, the caption itself reads "Frazier washed up?" And says his two recent bouts prior to facing Foreman "suggested to some people that the champion might be slipping a bit"

I was able to find some more links pointing to Frazier's decline prior to Foreman but they were and few. It wasn't as well known at the time, as say Ali prior to Spinks. People could clearly see something was wrong.

I think the fact that Patterson was such a stylistically easy fighter for Liston made him look much better on film and didn't really allow us to assess any weaknesses as the fight (s) didn't go pass the first round. Fast Hands also bought up a very good point regarding these performances earlier; "1) Inactivity; "you just can't have 6 rounds of action in 3 years and be at your sharpest; especially against a sharp, young, unorthodox non-textbook guy with the unique skill-set that Ali possessed. Especially when those 6 rounds largely consisted of the same work required to hit the heavy bag or pad-work; little reflexes required, just throw your combinations and watch your opponents fall down." Small nitpick but those 6 rounds were actually a combined 13 minutes so that's just over 4 minutes a year which as stated, is hardly adequate preparation for the GOAT.

That went right over my head! I apologize for accusing you of fracturing a straw man. You are one of our better posters.

 

I'd say we're basically agreed. I also think he took Ali lightly and didn't prepare as he should have. "Hard to get up for a run at 5 am when you're sleeping in silk sheets" and all that.

Thanks! Nice of you to say.

 

Dempsey, Tyson, Louis, and Liston were all totally inactive when they lost.

 

It's not really excuses to say Liston could have done with some more rounds under his belt and was getting a bit old and wasn't training right.
It's just likely that he wasn't absolute prime, and Clay turned out to be FAR better than anyone thought anyway.

I'm not sure what the disagreement is.