Liston prime beats ali

I love how people move the "prime" thing to suit their agenda; i e to lessen the meaning of a loss for a fighter they liked. There's little to suggest he was removed from his prime; if nr of rds fought is a mesure you can basically make the same argument for Foreman and Tyson whenever you it suits you (which of course many do as well). Only seven months prior he had looked great against Patterson; once again demolishing him in a way no one would come close to ever again.

Liston was in his prime. Like Foreman was against Young, like Hearns was against Barkley, like Tyson was against Douglas, like Hopkins was (or at least very close to it) against Jones etc, etc. Like Foreman and Tyson he was overconfident and probably not as prepared as he should have been, but he was in his prime.

 

Liston was in his mid-thirties against Cassius Clay. He was not in his physical prime. He destroyed Patterson because it was stylistic mismatch.

Hearns was not in his prime against Barkley since he was not in his prime fighting at 160. His best weight was 154 and he was in is prime four years earlier against Duran and Hutchings ... he was never the same after he was crushed by Hagler. He barely survived the Roldan fight prior to Barkley.

A prime is a combination of physical and mental best ... Foreman and Tyson were in their physical primes against Young and Douglas but neither was at their mental best. Foreman never recovered from the Ali loss mentally .. anyone who has studied Foreman's career knows how he rediscovered himself in his layoff. Mentally he was very fragile . He could still crush guys that came to him like Frazier but against an elusive boxer like Young all his demons came out and he self-destructed. Tyson was clearly unprepared, under trained and no where near the Tyson who fought Spinks against Douglas. Once again physically he was o.k. but mentally not even close.

 

Ali is like the worst stylistic matchup for Liston possible. I really can't see him winning a decision or really being able to stop a primed Ali, who would be even stronger and faster then he was in 63 when they originally fought.

 

They weren't at their best that's the point. Liston was in his mid 30s against Ali and struggling to get into shape after the fight being delayed if i'm correct. Foreman having doubts about himself after the Ali loss, Tyson being over confident and probably not IN HIS BEST SHAPE, Hearns simply just not himself/ out of his weightclass, and Hopkins a little green.

Now to me, Liston looked alot slower and less sharp then he looked in previous bouts. I can't think of any other guys that would beat him at that point but Liston still wasn't at his best. That's the point. Liston from 59-61 would still get beat though.

 

But all this gets overstated, though. The other guy was just too good for them. And in Hearns case serious defensive flaws got exposed. But instead it's just these excuses, excuses... So ****ing tiring. Time could be spent for better discussions. Which is why I'm out of this one.

 

What fight were you watching?

 

No, what evidence prior to the Ali fights suggested that Sonny was so much past his best that he could have reversed 2 convincing Ali wins ?

Its not like he came close to beating Ali, Ali won both fights convincingly, theories & myths aside, if you go strictly by video evidence rather than any other non-provable **** then you have to favour Muhammad Ali over Liston at any point.

 

Basically. Ali had too much hand and foot speed for Liston to deal with.

If you're going to argue that Liston KOs him, then you have to show me how Liston could have done more damage, and done it more explosively, than Frazier, Foreman, Shavers, et all did on Ali. And about the only way Liston wins on points is if the judges either dislike Ali's trash talking and side with Liston, or are the type that figure that as long as you're moving forward you're automatically winning.

And in terms of strategy, tactics, manipulation and just the dimensions in which he can see the fight, Ali is in another league. Liston's only advantage here is being dirtier and more willing to cheat.

It's rare that I use absolutes when talking boxing, because anything can happen in the ring, but aside from an old Ali (say from the Spinks I fight) being put against a young Liston, I can't see Liston beating Ali.

 

Liston had a long reach, a great jab and one of the best left hooks ever. He had decent speed in his prime.
Along with the rest of his overall boxing skill, I think those are excellent attributes to beat Ali with.

I don't believe the Ali-Liston fights were on the level. Maybe Liston was injured and out of shape in the first one, if it wasn't outright fixed. The second one was obviously some sort of tank job.

 

I gave Liston rounds 3 & 5, Clay won the other 4 rounds.

 

Forget about speed, skills etc ... Ali had so much of a mental grip on Liston, he'd beat him up anytime, prime or not.

 

fact is that the only ali who beats sonny is the fast ali..always....
but when ali lost a lot of his speed he would not beat sonny..
liston wasn't a dumb fighter like foreman.. the ali from 74 would have lost to sonny.. an in shape liston had the stamina to go 15 rounds.. and he would not have gassed out..

 

Quarry II & Chuvalo II maybe as well.

 

Ali would always beat Liston because of styles.

 

How about Manila Ali vs Prime Liston... This is a bit closer. Maybe Ali guts it out. I doubt Liston would go as hard and take as much as Frazier took.