Ingemar Johansson vs Sonny Liston 1959

Yeah, based on his May 1932 DOB he was supposed to be 30 yo in this clip. Hard to say but I could accept 33-34 yo based just on how he appears in the clip.

Obviously there were strong rumours that Sonny was born earlier than 1932 - and whether he believed or not, Ali comments rode on the back of those rumours going around.

Of course Sonny wasn’t ugly - that was just Ali’s usual, insulting cr*p. I will say Sonny looked very healthy and in tremendous shape as at the time of the IV.

 

All indications were he was born before 1932 If I remember correctly, the only source for him being born in '32 is his own words. It's not backed up by any official data, or census records, which seem to indicated he was born anywhere from 1922 to 1930.

 

Not the census record.

"His family, but not one Charles Liston, can be found in the 1930 census, and in the 1940 census he was listed as 10 years old."

So the census record gives no support to Liston being born before 1930.

At the time of this filmed interview, he would have been 30 to 32 off the census evidence and his own beliefs about his age. Reasonable.

The idea that he was born years earlier is not supported by his appearance in my judgment.

 

I meant records plural. 1950 census gives an age of 27, indicating a birth year of 1922 or 1923.

His doctor estimated his age to be 38-41 at the time of the first Ali fight https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-philadelphia-inquirer/98505474/ which falls in line with the 1950 census.

Upon his arrest in 1950, his age was listed at 22 indicating a birth year of 1927. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-st-louis-star-and-times/98275755/

 

Re the info we have, exactly right Swag.

This has been chewed over in several previous threads - the last of which was this thread I think when @SolomonDeedes kindly provided us with the details of the 1950 census.

Don’t know if @Jason Thomas has seen the thread below but it might be of interest to him -
unfortunately there is no agreement between any of the censuses -

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/sonny-listons-age.684427/

 

"I was referring to Ruddock and Bruno who failed to floor or KO Tyson."

Which is my point. Douglas did floor and KO Tyson.

"I agree 'hitting an opponent clean and often is more important than raw power' which contradicts your method of assessing power by 'who knocks you down or out.'"

There is no contradiction. Hitting a man and knocking him down or out is the measure of punching ability. Perhaps ability is a better word for being able to punch than power.

"judging by 'who knocks you down or out' is a very flawed method of assessing power."

This is just silly. If "power" isn't about knocking someone down or out it becomes such an abstraction it is useless. This is the only real and valid measure of punching ability.

"You stated Machen failed to beat his best opponents and listed Williams among them. Why was Valdes excluded?"

Because in my original post I specified the years 1958 to 1965. Machen KO'd Valdes in 1956.

"So did he regress as a puncher, or had he 'now turned tiger' and become more aggressive?"

Both are true. One does not exclude the other. Machen KO'd 14 of his first 18 opponents. He then didn't score very many KO's until he abruptly scored five straight KO's leading into the Patterson fight. I didn't see those five fights, but reporters who did wrote about a new and more aggressive Eddie.

"I'm of the opinion"

Fair enough.

"(and so was the general public)"

So you speak for the general public of 1963 and 1964? What exactly is your proof? As I pointed out, Machen was ranked the #2 contender going into the Patterson fight and the #3 contender going into the Terrell fight. This isn't exactly the general public, but it is the NBA, and I would wonder how many of the general public had even seen any of Eddie's last five fights. The folks doing the ratings still took him seriously as a top contender.

 

A bit contrived? Machen had 25 fights before he faced Johansson, why only mention the first 18? Is it because in those next 7 fights he only had 2 stoppages, culminating in a dull draw with Zora Folley? This doesn't really support the idea that he suddenly because a less dangerous puncher after the Johansson fight.

 

You're literally contradicting yourself.

You say knocking someone down or out is "the only real and valid measure of punching ability" but also say "hitting an opponent clean and often is more important".

Aside from my comparisons with Tyson.

Shavers, Foreman, and Liston, the consensus hardest punchers in boxing history, all failed to knock Ali down. Sonny Banks didn't fail.

OK fair enough.

Nonsense. Before the Ingo fight, his only KOs of note were Valdez, and Holman. Afterwards he had stoppages of London, Whitehurst, Dejohn, McMurty, and Hunter who was coming off two wins over Miteff.

I see zero evidence he'd regressed as a puncher.

Also why are his other 7 pre-Ingo fights excluded?

I certainly haven't seen any reporters speak of a "new and more aggressive Eddie" at all. It's obvious to me at least he wasn't the same upon his return from the mental institution. I see zero decline prior. As a matter of fact, one could argue his career best performance was against Liston.

I've already provided to you, what one reporter said regarding Machen being not even 25% of the old Machen.

Literally the first article in a cursory search. The headline reads "burned out Machen fought Patterson 7 years too late"

"Machen had style then but it was always defaced by caution. That was before the trouble and he became so mixed up he wanted to shoot himself in the head."

"The skills were hurt beyond repair. It was all out of him. It wasn't Patterson's punches alone that defeated him Sunday. Despair took good care of Eddie Machen."

"He'll never know what he could have done with Patterson 7 years ago when he had more than most. Maybe Patterson wonders, too."

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-miami-herald/123108108/


Ernie Terrell, Machen's next opponent, literally admitted Machen was washed. "Patterson beats a washed-up Eddie Machen and then starts hollering for another title fight."

https://www.newspapers.com/article/oakland-tribune/123108976/

As I stated previously, Machen being number 2 contender was for the work he'd done prior to being institutionalized, similar to Williams laughably retaining his rating when he faced Ali in '66.

If you can show me, what he'd done upon returning to earn a number 2 rating, I'll concede the point. Out of interest, what was his WBA and Ring rating if you know?

 

One reason is he was scoring his most impressive KO's in his first 18, or for that matter 25 fights. That is where the KO's of Valdes, Holman, and Jackson fall.

In the original post I mentioned 16 KO's in his first 24 fights, but let's go to 25 fights. That is 16 KO's in 25 fights for a KO percentage of 64%. The rest of his career was 13 KO's in 40 fights for a KO percentage of 32.5%. Discounting the five KO's between the Williams and Patterson fight leaves 8 KO's in 35 fights for a KO percentage of about 23%.

This is not a new insight by me. It was widely discussed at the time by blow-by-blow men like Johnny Powers and Jack Drees during his fights. "What happened to Eddie's punch?" was often used for filler.

By the way, this is quote from my post at 8:19 last Wednesday:

"But I don't know if the regression if there is one, begins with Ingo. Going into the Ingo fight Machen was coming off an unimpressive draw with Folley."

"As for Machen, the real problem is other than the Quarry victory, at a time everyone agrees Machen was past it and Quarry was green, when is the last time he had a win over a top tier heavy? Doug Jones was probably his best scalp, but he was still a light-heavy without much experience against good heavies. Jones would come in at 172 in his next fight while losing a one-sided decision to Harold Johnson."

 

Probably something to do with the fact that those 39 (not 40) fights include all the ones where he was fighting when years past his prime, and also that he was facing an exceptional line-up of opponents including Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, Jerry Quarry, Ernie Terrell, Floyd Patterson, Zora Folley, Cleveland Williams and of course Ingemar Johansson.

 

And look who fought the best version of Machen and scored the most emphatic win…Ingo.

 

You're right about 39. I switched from his winning streak to include the Folley fight and failed to adjust the other percentages.

16 KO's in 24 fights is actually a 67% KO ratio. Thank you.

The bottom line here is that Machen was overrated in 1956 and 1957 when many thought him a future champion. You listed Folley, Johansson, Liston, Williams, Patterson, and Terrell from 1958 to 1965 (and left out Harold Johnson). Eddie was not able to beat any of these men ever. He later fought a green Quarry and Frazier, and managed a surprise win over Quarry. But everyone thought by that time he was way past it.

Machen fought to a certain level and no higher, and that level was not first tier.

His big stoppages in 1956 and 1957? Holman? Jackson? Valdes? Valdes is impressive not because Eddie could beat him. Most of the top men did, but that he was able to knock him out. He would never again score such an impressive KO over a durable opponent.

 

"What was his WBA & Ring rating"

The WBA is the same as the NBA over at boxrec. They changed their name somewhere along the line. I do not have the Ring's monthly ratings.

Machen drew with Williams on 7-10-1962. He would not fight again until the fall of 1963. Machen was rated the #1 contender by the NBA in September, October, and November of 1962, and then dropped totally out of the ratings in December when he was institutionalized.

Here is record from 1963 through 1965 after his return
9-16-1963--Ollie Wilson KO 6
10-12-1963--Alonzo Johnson KO 9
11-05-1963--Bill MacMurray KO 7
11-30-1963--Dave Bailey KO 8
02-17-1964--Duke Sabedong KO 1
7-5-1964--Floyd Patterson L 12
3-5-1965--Ernie Terrell L 15
5-10-1965--Elmer Rush D 10

Here are Machen's NBA ratings. He was out of the ratings from December 1962 through September 1963.

1963
October--#6
November--#4
December--#4

1964
January--#4
February--#4
March--#2
April--#2
May--#2
June--#2
July--#6
August--#5
September--#5
October--#4
November--#4
December--#4

1965
January--#3
February--#3
March--#4
April--#4
May--#6
June--#6
July--#6
August--#6
September--#7
October--#9
November--leaves ratings for good.

One can see that the KO string moved Machen up the ratings. They were over trial horse, journeymen types.

What I think these ratings show, and Machen staying in them so long, is how shallow the heavyweight division was at the time. There weren't that many good and up and coming fighters.

 

"You're literally contradicting yourself. You say knocking someone down or out is 'the only real and valid measure of punching ability' but also 'hitting an opponent clean and often is more important."

There is no contradiction. If a fighter hits an opponent clean and often and does not ever knock him down or out or put him in deep trouble, this would be an indication that this fighter is not much of a puncher. As for hitting him clean and often and knocking him down, this is how things are generally done. I haven't seen any legit fights in which a man scores a knockout without hitting his opponent.

"Shavers, Foreman, Liston"

"the consensus hardest punchers in boxing history"

They are? I didn't realize there is a consensus.

"all failed to knock Ali down. Sonny Banks didn't fail."

First, Banks didn't knock down Ali. He knocked down a just turned 20 green Cassius Clay. But what is the point? Foreman and Liston never really got in a clean shot. An inexperienced Clay took one flush on the jaw from Banks. Shows that actually hitting the guy is central to knocking him down. Which is my point. Banks was not able to keep hitting Clay and was subsequently taken apart. As for Shavers, I think he had Ali in deeper water than Banks did, and myself, and lots of others, think he did score a knockdown, but was not credited for it.

"Before the Ingo bout, his only KO's of note were Valdes and Holman."

He also stopped Jackson, who was one fight past being the #1 contender.

"Burned out Machen fought Patterson 7 years too late."

Okay. That is 1957. He also seems to agree that Machen was more impressive back in 1956 and 1957. Whatever, that is when he had his most impressive wins and KO's. Personally, though, I think Patterson was always better. It is interesting he did not refer to 1962 or two years back.

"Machen had style, but it was always defaced by caution."

Exactly. Except I am not certain about always. He doesn't seem that cautious against Valdes.

"Despair took good care of Eddie Machen."

I thought he tried his best, but Patterson was just too fast for him. Machen was close to 32. I can also do without armchair shrinks.

"I certainly haven't seen any reporters speak of a "new and more aggressive Eddie' at all."

So. I did because I was around then and reading a wide range of boxing mags of the time. At this point you are apparently just trying to be insulting. You not having heard about something is not exactly the standard for all that happened or did not happen in the past.

Let's agree to disagree.