irregardless, he still looked dynamite. We have nothing else to judge him on other than how he looked in his previous fights. I do see your point and its a fair one, but what else can we do? We cant guess, well, we could but that would be conjecture. We can only go on what we see and how he performed, in my opinion
Apologies for going over old ground here but ive seen a few posts mentioning the 1930 census. I was of the impression that sonny was not mentioned in it. Am i mistaken or has something happened im unaware of?
The lack of rounds is obviously a factor. And Clay wasn't expected to last more than 2 anyway, so it's pretty easy to see why Liston wouldn't have been in the same kind of shape he was in 5 years earlier. Which is, of course, his fault, but still worth noting.
How was it a factor when it was fixed, as you say it was? Would he have sold the fix better with more rds under his belt? Was that the factor you refer to?
For sake of argument, let's agree it was not fixed. Don't you think the lack of rounds would make Liston of Feb. 1964 a lesser fighter than he was say 4 years earlier ?
My short answer would be that with good training and good camps it shouldn't make much of a difference (not saying Liston necessarily had that, but theoretically speaking). Ali had had only 1 rd in nearly two years when facing Floyd in 1965 and I don't think he ever looked better. Yes, in a gruelling 15 rounder I don't think it would be ideal with so few pro fight rds in the bank over the last few years. But then hardly any schedule is ideal, that's the point of the word. And as for Liston, the schedule he had 58-60 probably wouldn't be ideal for a gruelling 15 rounder either since there wasn't much rest between fights. Close to ideal would perhaps be if he had had a fight in between the Patterson fights, and that the rematch with Floyd played out along the lines of the fight with Machen. A tactical fight that went the distance, but without much punishment. That would probably be pretty ideal, but reality rarely looks like that. I don't think it was ideal either for Ali coming off a fight where he was badly hurt by a much lighter puncher. Going into the fight, I would probably have thought Liston came from the better place overall looking at their last couple of fights. Very hard to say, of course, since you never know exactly how fighters are going to react, but that would probably have been my guess. So that's my answer to the purely theoretical question from one who thinks the fight was fixed. Might seem like much ado about nothing, but apparently it's interesting to to you what I think the difference Liston's few recent rds would have made had the fight not had been fixed, so that's my take.
The point is, Liston's absence from the 1930 census means he cannot have been born earlier than April 1930, when the census was taken. In fact, since his elder brother Curtis is listed as being just 6 months old, he can't have been born until several months later. For years, when the 1940 census wasn't publicly available, people used to say that Charles not being listed in 1930 wasn't proof of anything - it could easily just be an omission. But then the 1940 census came along, and there he was (actually looks more like Charlis, as though the enumerator couldn't quite decide whether to go for Charles or Charlie). The 1940 census says he was 10 years old, but must actually have been no more than 9 and a half. Particularly as Curtis - who we know from his entry in 1930 was only 10 and a half - is listed here as being 11. https://pasteboard.co/JIQCh9V.jpg https://pasteboard.co/JIQCGVL.jpg https://pasteboard.co/JIQD1El.jpg
I'm really very surprised by this given that every fighter i've ever heard speak on the subject, ever, with no exception, disagrees. I've never heard a fighter go "he's had three rounds in the last 14 months but that doesn't matter because he had a good camp." Instead, every fighter i've ever heard discuss the subject says stuff like, "he hasn't had the rounds it might take some time to shake off the rust", "he hasn't been this deep in a fight for more than two years, how will that affect him", "you can see his timing;s off, all the sparirng in the world can't prepare you for a big night like this" or "i would have like to see him take a tune up before making this fight, get some rounds under his belt." You've heard that too. So i'm wondering why you disagree with all of them, what it's based on?
Can't say I have heard it when they've had camps actually. Those that come to mind for me is Keith Thurman who wanted another tune-up after being out for nearly two years, with surgery in that period I think, before facing the very best like Crawford or Spence. He never did have that, but instead faced Pac after only one. Ward did have two tune-ups (from memory) before facing Kova, after being out for s similar time with injury also involved. Then of course it was a question how ready Fury was for the first Wilder fights, with two tune-ups after not having a fight for 2,5 years and reportedly blowing up to 400 lbs in that period. EDIT: And then were also some question marks regarding Spence going in against Garcia, with the accident and more than a year since the prior fight. But those are the ones I can remember. If, for example, it was a concern for Ali going into the first Patterson fight, then I haven't heard it. And I've never seen it mentioned on this board. Never heard that it was voiced as a concern going into Ali-Liston either, as I can remember.
I don't understand what you mean. You've never head, in commentary a professional or former professional fighter express concern about ring rust on a part of one of the contestants if they've "had camps"? What fights have you watched where one of the fighters hasn't "had camps"? Can you think of an occasion in your life where you've heard ring rust described on television, and what was the context?
No, I can't come to think of any rightly comparable example. Have you seen it voiced as a concern going into Ali-Liston? And how much of a difference do you think it made? Fo me, as I said, in a tough, tight 15 rounder, it could have made a difference down the stretch (edit: as could having two tough fights in the space of a year, as Ali had had). In Ali-Liston, as it actually played out I don't think it did. I gathered you didn't either, so where is our disagreement?
