No, at most Liston was near 35 years old. The evidence is extensive & has been discussed on various threads, wikipedia has it about right. They were about even in the scorecards-when you include Ali fighting blind for a while, & when he regained his vision began to take over as Liston faded. I do believe the latter's injury is established as real. But Ali's skill & evasiveness contributed to it.
No sir, most experts do not believe he was born before 1929. Anyway he would have to have been born in 1919 to have been near or at 45 when he had the first fight with Ali, which is wildly implausible. You do not know if who of the possibly many people who edited the Wikipedia entry were casuals or experts. It is a fair point that anyone can edit it: thus to be fair & discern the truth one must examine the evidence & sources cited. Of which there are many references right there. It also includes whast Sonny & his own Mother said & believed in. First, Ali absolutely *was* blinded by whatever substance Liston had. Which happened with a few of his opponents. this did not impact his physical ability to move, & you should consider that "blinded" can & does in this case mean having very partial, blurry vision. From [url]Wikipedia[/url]: Date of birth There is no official record of Liston's birth. His family's home state of Arkansas did not make birth certificates mandatory until 1965.[url][9][/url] His family, but not one Charles (or Sonny) Liston, can be found in the 1930 census, and in the 1940 census he was listed as 10 years old.[url][9][/url][url][10][/url] It has been suggested Liston himself may not have known what year he was born, as he was not precise on the matter. Liston believed his date of birth to be May 8, 1932 and used this for official purposes[url][10][/url] but by the time he won the world title an aged appearance added credence to rumors that he was actually several years older.[url][10][/url][url][11][/url][url][9][/url][url][12][/url][url][13][/url] One writer concluded that Liston's most plausible date of birth was July 22, 1930, citing census records and statements from his mother during her lifetime.[url][13][/url]
Mercer was a world champion, that's more impressive than anything Layne did. You people need to stop with this resume crap. It doesn't mean **** when some of the wins you have are against big names, if/when those big names were not at their best.
Mercer was the WBO champ in the early nineties. That's akin to someone being the IBO champ now and saying they're world champ. It's bull****. And beating elite fighters is more impressive to me than anything else. Layne was good enough to beat the best guys in his era (Marciano aside, of course), and Mercer wasn't. It's that simple. Layne accomplished more, and amassed a better résumé as a result, in his era. Whether or not I think he'd do as well as Mercer in Mercer's era (I don't), or whether or not I think Mercer would win in a fight (I do) is irrelevant.
Agreed, but it was way harder in Mercer's era, way better competition. Fair enough. I'm glad that you are an honest man and admit Layne wouldn't do as good in Mercer's era. For me, H2H is still the main criteria.