If Sonny Liston didn't die after his fight with Chuck Wepner

:good

 

Well, several of his close friends thought he was 5 - 10 years older than that "official" age.
I think it's pretty much accepted that Liston didn't even know his own age, so all we can do is speculate.

I take the testimony of the people who knew him and were around him.
You seem to have a problem with the idea that he was close to 50 when he died, I don't know why.

 

i have no problem, but i am pretty sure that he was not more than 40(you can see his face and body during his career),the liston fans are using his supposed age to give him more merit, and it is a lie, simply.

 

and liston was not george foreman.. liston had some more skill,better jab and some stamina extra .foreman was bigger, stronger,harder puncher with both hands , he had better chin and FOREMAN DID SHOW MORE HEART BY A MILE. he never left a fight.
in my opinion foreman would ko any version of liston always. and prime joe frazier would beat him as well.

 

Well, I'm 37 and I know some 30 year olds that look a lot older than me, and I know some 40+ year olds who look younger. And my physical shape is same as it was when I was 22. So I don't think its easy to tell someone's age, but I do believe you get a better judgment if you meet someone for real rather than base your opinion on black-and-white photos and old black-and-white TV.
And many people who met and KNEW Liston reckoned him to be considerably older.

Writers of the time were talking about Liston's age long before he lost the title, even before he won it, and even Cassius Clay reckoned Liston was about 40 when they fought, so it's not just some lie told by his fans.
I think it likely that he was in his late-20s when he turned pro, and was late-30s when he became champion, and was 45-50 when he died.

 

ali was clearly exaggerating, he was joking about anything.
in my opinion he could be 40-42 when he faced wepner, not more.you can be in very good physical shape, but nobody in this world in his 37 have the same shape of his 22. it is law of life

 

Just from appearances, I'm in better shape now at 37 than I was at 22, but about the same.
I mean, you can't necessarily tell someone's age from their body as you seem to suggest.
Appearance of body is no indication whatsoever of age.

Liston could easily have been 47 or 48 when he fought Wepner.
Holyfield is 47 in his last fight, Hopkins is about 45.

 

you can not compare the modern era with the time of liston in the late 60s.... modern supplements, moderns trainings, advantages in every aspect, anyway you can see the age of evander or bernard in their faces. i know that the genetics is very important. but i would say that liston was closer to the be 40 than 50

 

I don't think staying in good appearance, or maintaining a good physique into your 40s has much to do with "modern" supplements and training. It's a case of correct exercising and the right diet.
People don't need to be out of shape in their 30s and 40s, not now, not then, it's just a result of lifestyle.

Wepner looked in Liston's face and thought he looked 50. He had a better look at him than you or I.

 

wrong, it is a factor, i saw a 65 years old bodybuilder and his body did look like 30. It was obviously because he trained weights, and he took roids and supplements..
THE BOXERS OF THE ERA OF SONNY DID NOT HAVE THE SAME ADVANTAGES THAN MODERN BOXERS LIKE HOLYFIELD OR HOPKINS. YOU CAN NOT COMPARE THE BODYES OF THE BOXERS IN THE 60s WITH THE BOXERS IN THE 90s

 

Suppliments making todays fighters supperior physically? Aside from the roids you mentioned and their entire negative conotations, what specifially by item are you referring too? Jack Lalayne has lived through these decades of fighters since before Dempsey and in his nineties could still pull the boats, etc. handcuffed if his wife allowed him and he disagrees with you entirely. Suppliments are essential in a diet that has become void of normal minerals and vitamins or has a protein base not enough for the individual. A diet containing all of these and enzymes from live foods, which was more available due in prior generations not having soil compounds so stripped, is always superior to supplimenting a diet devoid of them. What training specifically today results in a superior result in conditioning, speed, and endurance then Robinson, Louis, Pep, etc. had? Specifically what? The only addition in recent years that has any difference in results is the use of lighter weights at a even quick cadence.

 

From what I can gather he was well on the slide as a fighter when he died.He won a lot of fights after the 2nd Ali fight but people did not want to see him fight for the title again.And by the time of his death he was just too old to be a serious contender.

 

anyway the motive is not matter(roids,weights,supplements,...), the facts are you can notice the visual difference between the boxers in the 90s and 60s,50s,30s..

 

The heavies boxing for sure have a differance, many past top big men would be on the small end compared today, but aside from this lets just go to the fifties and sixties, what visual differance do you see from fighters? Remember you insisted several times we can't compare these fighters at all with todays as their suppliments and training is so superior now,,,I just don't see it or any examples from you. How about say five examples?

 

mike tyson-joe louis

schmeling-frank bruno

marciano-vitali klitschko

holyfield - walcott

bruce seldon- eddie machen.

i am not saying who was better boxer, simply the difference in their bodies