Stonehands has weighed in on the "Birthday for Sonny Liston" argument

I can see your point of view, and possibly could agree.

 

...For the record, I can't accept July 22, 1930 with certainty, thus the title "A Birthday" as oppossed to "THE Birthday" and the use of "may" (to wit: "which may end the mystery"). May only expresses a possibility. The imagery of that "resurrected tree" at the end is another way to express that possibility.

That being said, the fact that:

(1) the date came from Sonny's mom,

(2) it is not easy to explain away (as is the January date and the year 1927, both of which suggest confusion with other children she bore),

(3) and the fact that it is at least 9 months after the birth of Curtis and thus the date fits--

--make it a pretty compelling possibility.

The 1940 Census says that Curtis was 11 and Charles was 10. That would have thrown me off, but for the 1930 census that reports Curtis as 6 months old. "Six months" seems quite specific and the fact that years hadn't fogged mom's memory give that date some reliability. That gave me the idea that mom was counting years inclusively, as stated in the essay.

So, it all fits surprisingly well.

It's fragile nonetheless though. Perhaps Mom did indeed accurately remember his birthday as being in January and he was born in January 1931, making her a year off than the 1932 date usually given. He would still be in his "tenth year" though only barely. That seems less likely; and the corresponding January 8th for another sibling that Tosches found diminish that likelihood at least a little.

July 22nd, though, that seems to come out of the blue. And if it does come out of the blue, then it starts to looks accurate.

 

I doubt the July birth date. I'm dubious of the accuracy of any of it.

Liston had no idea when he was born. He said as much through the years.

If his mother knew he was born July 22, surely that would have been passed on to him during the 16 or 17 years he lived with her. Can you imagine your mother knowing your birth date and not telling you?

Tobe Liston fathered 25 kids. Helen bore 10 or 12 of them. Many of them lived in the area. Charles could have been with an older brother or sister the day the 1930 census taker came by. He could have been 2 or 3 years old in 1930 for all we know.

He could have been 12 or 13 in 1940 and whomever talked to the census taker simply didn't know how old he was. It could have been one of the brothers or sisters who gave the information.

 

Before fighting Henry Clark in July 1968, Sonny had a birth certificate
that he was showing everybody, stating that he was born in May 1932.

Howard Cosell asked Sonny for a look-see, but the birth certificate was
never presented.

Howard laughed it off, as he knew Sonny was every bit of 41.

 

Ofcourse he could have been, but unless you have any evidence to back up that claim it is highly spurious.

You could be 2-3 years older than you think you are but it'd take evidence to convince you.

 

Good stuff as always.:good

 

Indeed. Also, the census form does state that everyone normally resident at that address should be listed, even if they're absent on the day.

 

I've spent some time with this same 1940 census.

My father is not listed. I know where he was at the time. He was 15 years old and living with his family. His parents and sister are listed but he isn't.

The census was as accurate as the person providing the information and the person recording it- no more.

How accurate do you think an illiterate family of sharecroppers with 25 kids would have been?

 

Of course Sonny had no idea when he was born that was the point of the whole exercise.

As per the July 22. His mother typically gave January 18th or 8th as his birthdate though was never sure. When Sonny settled on May 8th she was recorded as saying "Well, he should know." "July 22" is a better date for reasons already stated, and the fact that she said it means something, not nothing.

This is about likelihood, not certainty, because there can be no certainty.

What is likelier -that a child gave the information or that mom gave the information? -Mom. What is likelier, that Sonny was hiding under the floor boards and was forgotten on the 1930 Census or that he hadn't been born by April 1930? -That he hadn't been born yet. What is likelier that he was 15 in 1940 or "10" as reported? Ten of course. Factor in Sonny's large size and 10 becomes even more likely because he may have actually looked 16.

 

Cosell didn't know dink.

Sonny's birth certificate did exist. He walked into a clerk's office and said his birthday was May 8th, 1932 and that was that. That's how it was done then, because recording official birth dates wasn't mandatory then -it was a rural area, during the Depression, and the family was black. Everyone knew that Sonny's "official" birth date was anything but.

 

All true, but the oversight of your dad has to be considered anomalous, not the norm. If Sonny is listed as "10" in 1940 but was really 12 or 15 or whatever and is unrecorded in 1930 but was actually "missed," --that is two anomalies, not one. And that's simpy unlikely.

For all intents and purposes, the argument that Sonny was older than 40 when he died is over now. I think it likely he was 40 when he died; perhaps 39 if he was born in January 1931, but anyone still holding on to the idea that he was 40 in '65 or pushing 50 when he died is out there virtually alone.

 

Exactly, if BillB is to hold on to idea of Liston being significantly older, he has to put in the time and unearth the evidence to back it up. Otherwise his logic is wholly flawed.

 

I'm not saying he was older. He may have been younger. What I am saying is that anything from the US census, during that period of time cannot be taken as fact.

If you are relying on it, it's up to you to unearth the evidence that it is all true. That's a monumental task and one you will fail at.

 

no a census is taken as a default stance. if you think it's erroneous in the case of Liston, the burden of proof is on you.

 

The information may not be totally accurate, sure, but what more reliable sources are there pertaining to his birth date?

It's the best we have, and it has, undeniably, shed some much-needed light on this mystery. Do you deny that?