A couple of comments from someone who followed closely Liston's career back in the day 1--"Hated"--in a way, but the Senate investigation which revealed his close ties to the mafia perhaps hurt his standing more than his earlier troubles with the law. The argument that boxing was a way for a guy to get out of a life of crime and go legit and so be useful to society was regularly made. He was refused a New York license because of his mob ties, not because of his prior criminal record nor his performances in the Ali fights which came years later. 2--"His status improving in later decades." I think is not that hard to explain. His status improved as Ali's status rose. In the mid-sixties many at first considered Ali a clown who would fall apart in his first tough fight. Liston was expected to give him that fight. Few "experts" like to admit they were so wrong, so the "it had to be a fix" or "Liston dogged it" were the usual views. By the late 1970's, with Ali now challenging Louis for ATG honors, these losses by Liston were no longer such a negative. 3--"Liston hype"--there is a point to this. It is true that Liston hadn't done all that much prior to 1959 and certainly it was Johansson who was the #1 contender and deserved the shot he got at Patterson. 4--"Johansson refused a rematch with Machen." Yes, but so what. It was in his interest to fight the champion not to rematch a guy he had slaughtered. The IBC, the underworld monopoly which was a front for the mob, took Johansson to court in an effort to block his fight with Patterson. The suit was thrown out by the judge on the grounds that no one can be extorted into signing away his rights, and Johansson had the right to pursue his career in what he deemed his own best interests.
I understand the history and your point... Was curious to know your opinion on my analogy of Ali/Liston .. Dempsey/Tunney?? Thanks
My opinion of your Ali/Liston and Dempsey/Tunney analogy is that Dempsey was not coming off a career best win against Tunney. I have often said the number of short fights over a number of years between Machen and Ali hurt Sonny but that does not change the fact that in his very latest fight Sonny had improved on his career best win by a number of seconds. He was still superman at that point. Tunney was not facing that kind of Dempsey. In fact Dempsey was coming off the kind of lay off/exile Ali and Joe Louis had when he met Tunney the first time. Second time Jack was not coming off a career best win either, in fact Jack was coming off a controversial win over Sharkey, and against Tunney he nearly won. Second time Sonny fought Ali he was worse than the first time but then that was a farce caused more by fleischer, Walcott and Ali than anything Sonny did. Supporters of Sonny cannot have it both ways. They can't have Sonny being prime against Floyd and past prime in his next match. for Sonny to be past prime against Clay then he must have already been past prime versus Floyd and for that to have been true Sonny has to have beaten a poor Floyd on an off night, twice. It does not quite add up. I think Sonny was perfect in 1960. He had reached an absolute pinnacle then but to sustain this level he needed to be busy, needed more rounds and Floyd, westphall and King were unable to supply this. This was unfortunate. Nobody knew it, but Sonny was unable do himself justice against Clay with so few rounds. I don't think Sonny took a real punch between Machen and Ali. It hurt him. We never got to see more than the year that Sonny truly was a great fighter. And I don't think that is enough to go on when comparing him to other champs.
We can agree that prime Liston was '59/'60 .. As my comparison was years past prime. I'm definitely not one to say Sonny was prime when he beat Patterson and shot with Ali. I assume you were speaking generally. You dug into it deeper saying that activity and opponents should be factored in. I agree with that. Thanks for your reply
Agreed. All the articles I can find support this. The boxing fraternity appeared happy to overlook his background in the face of such talent. This is the most plausible theory for this about turn on "Liston the top ten ATG". However, I believe this does not entirely quite explain how long it took for Sonny to catch on. By the first Frazier fight and certainly by the Foreman upset Ali had won over everybody who thought he was a powderpuff braggart. Exactly. I have many times seen Cleveland Williams boosted as championship material in order to hype Liston up as well as stuff that dosnt add up like Sonny being ducked by Marciano Or having not been allowed to win the title in Floyds place. yes, I read that Ingo had to break training to appear in these court hearings to see if his championship fight was going to be allowed or not right ahead of his biggest fight.
That's unequivocal nonsense. For any fighter. Loads and loads and loads of fighters just go off a cliff. It tends to be guys who trade on speed, but it can happen to anyone. However, although we've been through it nine, twelve, fifteen times here, i'll give the bullets once more for this specific case. Sonny was near his prime for Patterson I. He was not drinking alcohol in the run up to this fight, it seems. By the time of Patterson II, evidence indicates he was once again drinking heavily. This probably continued into his first fight with Ali. Benny Lynch and Kelly Pavlik are examples of guys who (probably) went downhill even more quickly because of booze. Most of all though, in this case, it doesn't really matter - because Liston wasn't going to beat Ali if he was pure prime, and wasn't going to lose to Patterson if he was past-prime. But don't let that stop you arguing with yourself about it.
I think Holmes would give Sonny hell, with Larry taking a decision. Lewis could stay away from Liston and win a decision and Ali well. But we are talking about fighters Frazier, Tyson and Rocky attacking a murderous puncher like Liston not trying to outbox him. That's a recipe for disaster
Yes fighters do go off the boil overnight. It is not impossible. There is a case for what you are saying. Yet I can't decide if You are saying "Sonny was so wrong for Floyd he could have been drunk and still beat him" or if you are saying that the Patterson results hid a multitude of sins in that Sonny was not really as good as Floyd made him look. I think Sonny just had a predatory instinct for an outmatched guy. He ate at Floyds confidence and had his number both times. You get guys like that. They just know. And when they do they will really perform well. I watch what Sonny did to Floyd and he was really on target. If Sonny was in bad shape and the other fellow was not intimidated it might have been a different story. The truth of it is, history never let us see more than the year that Sonny truly was a great fighter in 1960. And I don'tthink that is enough to go on when comparing him to other champs.
I'm saying what i'm saying. There's no hidden meaning: it's simple and straighforwards: if Liston was past prime for Patterson (Which he probably was, slightly, even for the first fight IMO, but it's not locked in) it wouldn't matter/didn't matter, and when he'd slipped/slipped further for II, it didn't matter. So no, i'm not saying Floyd made Liston look good and no, i'm not saying that "if he was drunk" he would beat Patterson. Where do you get these things from? Sonny was in relatively bad shape for the second one, and it didn't matter. You are the only man I have ever spoken to who can take a puncher knocking out an all time top 20 type heavyweight, Champion/#1 contender in back to back fights in a round and concluding that "history never let us see" him as a great fighters in these years. That has never been done. Nobody, at any weight, has ever knocked out the #1 contender/champion in back to back fights in a round. It's absolutely crazy that you try to use that to undermine him. By your bizarre, twisted logic, if Patterson had fought brilliantly and been one round behind on the cards before getting knocked out in the 8th and 10th rounds that would have been better for Liston's legacy. It's ****ing crazy.
I agree If Patterson fought brilliantly he would not have been snuffed out like that. Would that have been better for Sonny? It would be better for boxing that we got to see a fight rather than an execution both times. But that's not Sonnys fault. He honed in and let instict take over. I don't think Floyd could fight brilliantly against Sonny, both times his mind probably let him down. Floyd was under a lot of pressure and had personal problems by the second fight. Boxing was going through some weird stuff back then. I imagine the stuff going on in the background was pretty heavy.
It would have been a better "boxing match". A heavyweight champion destroying opponents brutally is never anything but great for boxing. Arguably literally the very best thing for boxing. I didn't say "if Patterson fought brilliantly he would not have been snuffed out like that". I didn't say that at all, so there is nothing for you to agree with. I said, that YOU were saying, as per your statement that we never saw Sonny great outside of 1960, that Liston was not great in these years despite doing exactly what he is meant to do in double quick time against as legitimate an opponent as can be imagined, almost. I said that YOU are saying, that because Liston did away with this superb opponent so quickly, his legacy is damaged, whereas it would have been enhanced by 8 and 10 rounds knockouts. Which you are. Which is lunacy.
Is there a worse feeling on this forum than the one you get when you actually have to start explaining someones own posts to them?
sonny took care of business. I don't blame him. In no way am I saying he should have toyed with Floyd for the sake of boxing. I'm saying he did the right thing. I'm saying a one round knock out does show dominance. Of course it does. But it shows another thing too. that there is only one guy in that fight. And that doing it too often is no preparation for a guy who is going to fight back and last a few rounds. As it proved. A puncher can be a victim of his own success. I am not big on Marcianos win over Walcott in one round or Ali's one round win over Liston. I don't think those two fights proved that Rocky and Ali were 100 times better than the man they beat in those two wins. I think what we should all think. They just got going first and it worked out for them. Louis taking out Schmeling is a novelty in that Max had beat joe first. But it's the same thing. One way traffic. One guy being ready and sharp getting in first.
