It's possible I suppose. But the mob could have also got a good price on the Patterson rematch. Why not take that?
Very good question. I would answer that the stink that the Ali win created at the time - which was not insignificant - would be nothing compared to the stink a Patterson win would have created. Minimalise the heat, max out the prophit.
Another good point. However, his team could've probably worked in a voluntary defence against a Top tenner, like, say, Brian London, and have gotten greater odds around 12-1 perhaps- then taken a dive.
I don't think that Foreman earned his shot at Frazier and I think that Ali was borderline to fight Liston. I would say that all the guys I have listed met trouble half way.
This is a good point, but London wouldn't have been the choice - these guys don't want to see the title leave the country. But in allowing the title to pass to Ali, the mob sees the title go to a fighter they will NEVER have a peice of. I'd speculate that the mob saw Ali holidng the title as a very temporary situation. Many did. As to why not a ringer, why not the #1 challenger? Bound to generate a lot more action, and Ali was highly, highly visible. "Good for business". But I agree, the choice doesn't add up all the way.
George probably didn't but most of the top 10 at the time had either been champ or had a title shot themselves. Foreman had also graced the cover of Ring with the headline: Is this the next champion of the world? Ali was the #1 by the time of the Liston fight also and a box-office hit. Who do you suggest should have received a title shot instead in Feb 1964 & Jan 1973?
The lunatic dive in the rematch is more easily explained in the light of the first fight being fixed, in my opinion. Having failed to take a proper dive in the sixth in the first fight Liston is told - in no uncertain terms - to hit the deck. So he does, makes a show of trying to get up, oh!, he'd down again. I can only imagine his heart was in his mouth - if i'm right about the first fight - when the fight was allowed to continue for those few seconds. Quitting on his stool was no longer an option. As to why the mob passed up a chance on - possibly - recelaiming the title, there was heat being generated on the mob and their boxing connections. Secondly, the odds were still through the roof. Finally, they may have been smart enough to know, that by that time, Ali may have been a reality favourite to beat Liston, or at the very least that Liston couldn't be expected to control the result without some help, as had previously been the case.
[FONT="]I beleive Jeffries was a slight betting favorite over Fitzsimons in the first fight. [/FONT]
You are correct, Foreman vs Frazier and Golota vs Bowe and Golota vs Byrd,Lyackovitch vs Brewster and Brewster/Meehan
I meant that i don't believe for a moment that the first fight was fixed. Liston tried his best to get Clay out of there - watch some HARD left hooks fail to take Clay's head off by just a few inches. Liston was helpless because he was too slow, undertrained and had no clue whatsoever on how to cut the ring off against a faster fighter. After the sixth he had thrown all his best shots, even when Clay was blind and they were to no effect. His lack of training started to kick in and he quit. The second fight, yeah, that was probably a phony. Why would they wanna throw the heavyweight championship anyway? And if the fight was fixed in the 6th, then they were tacking one hell of a risk. In hindsight we know that Ali was as close to knockout proof as one gets, but back then, Cooper nearly knocked him out, Banks dropped him, Jones had a close one with him, everyone expected Ali to be gone after a few rounds. Liston went at him with full force and didn't held back at all. Put it this way - one year ago, would you have let Audley Harrison go 6 rounds with Samuel Peter or Wladimir Klitschko going all out untill they quit on their stool in the 7th? Harrison and Ali both are olympic champions, both naturally gifted and both seemed to have chin problems at that point. Of course in hindsight there's a world of difference between them, but that's not the point. The point is that they made their decisions based on what was the consencus back then - which was that Clay was cannon fodder. 8 to 1 odds.
That is not my understanding. While I have not seen the odds I know that Fitzsimmons was criticised at the time for taking this inexperienced oponent over Joe Choynski.
Well let me start by saying that i'm not insisting upon it. I'm just open minded to the possibility. I feel there is enough cirumstantial for it to be worth that much. As far as Liston's punching goes, it is troublesome. Although of course he couldn't elect to take a dive in round 6 without having thrown between the opening bell and throwing in the towel. They do all just miss of course. If the fight was thrown, Liston pulled a little bit. If Ali won clean, he ducked out of them. Liston missing Ali doesn't prove he was trying to knock him out. Liston made his money knocking out his opponents jab then firing. Or slipping the jab and then firing. Or...he was adept at cirumnavigating his opponents jab. In parts of this fight, Ali just hovered his jab in Listons face, and he doesn't even bother to bat it out of the way. I found that curious even when that was the only Liston fight i'd seen, before I knew that Liston had been seen crying on the way to the ring, before I knew that Lison had spent years tracking opponents down in the ring, before I knew that knocking a jab out of the way was a move he knew and knew well, before I knew he was owned by the mob. In the "Ali blinded" round, he can't catch Ali. He's a proffesional fighter in with a partially blind fighter. He's near the top of most ATG head to head lists. I find it a bit curious, I also find his propensity for bodywork in that round curios. Given he was no cut off expert, though with his massive reach and underated hand speed he didn't have to be against most opponents (Ali is an extraordinary opponent of course). Even undertrained, Liston should never be described as "helpless" in the ring, in my opinion. A perfectly reasonable point of view. The point of view that his sudden collapse - and it was sudden, i understand the fight was very close on the judges scorecards going in - was a neccesity rather than symptom is also reasonable, is it not? I've always found people who accept so easily the 2nd fight being a fix but refuse to acknowledge the first one may have been fixed curious. The same principles were involved. Huge amounts of money. The huge, huge amount only ever bet in a title match on a heavy champ who is a heavy favourite - guaranteed to be left in the coffers. And the massive amount that the mob would collect from straight up bookies having gambled on Ali in 6. There were financial irregularities involving a load of out of town money going on Ali in the last few days ("Night Train") - this is not uncommon on a big outsider in a title fight but we are talking about A LOT of money here. And Liston was an ageing fighter - if they were to cash in on their prize possesion it had to be soon. And they would DEFINITELY want to cash in on him. I think it's worth you reading that sentance again. This is not disputable in my opinion. These were long odds and Ali was a young fighter. Why take the chance? How so? Why more than the 11th or the 2nd? And it's possible that Ali would have won a straight up fight - I would certainly bet on peak Ali to beat peak Liston. I dispute this. Exaclty - the crucial point. Long odds Chris, pretty tempting. Liston was entirely in the power of the mob. Can you really dismiss the possibility so easily given what came after?
Finding a motive is by far the easiest part. Deciding what you are going to beleive is the difficult part.