English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i believe that they were not and here is why- first, the second fight, if one looks at the video, it is clear that Ali connected with a punch on the temple, which is the best place to land a knockout punch. It is clear that Listons head snapped back pretty violently, second, Ali refusing to go to a corner meant that the ref had to figure out how long liston had been down because he could not start the count. during this tim, liston got up and ali resumed the fight until the ref stepped in and calle the KO, would they have done this if the fights were fixed? Now the first fight, i don't see any logical reason one could call this a fix, especially after what Ali went on to do in the rest of his career. Liston had a cut and was disheartened and quit. good sources also indicate that Liston intentionally tried to blind Ali by puting somthing on his glove. This worked, but Ali fought through it and won. Would liston have tried to do this if the fight were fixed?

2007-03-23 14:46:20 · 5 answers · asked by westinf 2 in Sports Boxing

5 answers

The "anchor" punch that KO'd Liston the first time was real, it landed. You can see the impact in Liston's hair and musculature, there was no doubt the blow had power behind it. As to whether Liston could have taken the shot and kept fighting, the blogbaba wasn't there in person, so I simply cannot say for sure. I don't believe Liston tanked it, I believe he simply got caught with a hard shot, and got KO'd.

The burning substance in Ali's eyes was real, but it didn't alter the outcome in the second fight. Quitting on your stool always causes controversy, but Ali by then had pretty much owned Liston, and Sonny knew he wasn't going to catch the kid. He (or his handlers) tried chemical warfare, and Ali fought though it, which had to demoralize them.

I agree with you, the fights were legit, had the liniment on the gloves worked, than yeah, but Ali was good enough to overcome even that.

2007-03-23 17:25:53 · answer #1 · answered by blogbaba 6 · 0 0

I agree that both bouts were not fixedSonny thought he would ko Clay in the 1 st match and set a very fast pace.and usedso much energy he knew he would not be able to compete for 15 rds .Essentially he tapped out and resigned The second Ali scored a legit flash knock down there should have been no count and the fight should have continued I wont take anything from Ali I think I can make a case forSonny Liston being one of the very best of all timesIn 1956 Archie Moore and Floyd Patterson met for vacant title Liston was was about 29 yrs old would have beaten both those men on the same night He would have had an 8 yr reign as champion and then losing to a much younger much faster man we would have I think accepted his defeats in a much different light When as an old fighter he continued into the late 60s many top contenders would not fight him When he was champ Ali said Sonny can beat every one else out thereThanks for raising the memories Tom

2007-03-24 03:34:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Sonny Liston just never got any respect after destroying Patterson twice. But Ali, some young, loud mouth kid, ("That big ugly bear...") just seemed to have Liston's number. And he did a smart thing. He boxed him. If you watch the fight Liston knew he would get knocked out in the later rounds. He started plodding, throwing lunging punches. And in the second fight, Liston just got caught. And it was right on the jaw. (Or in boxing terms "The fold-up button.") Watch how Listons head is jerked by the punch. And "Jersey" Joe walcott (The Ref) got confused during the count. I think it was his first time refereeing.

2007-03-23 15:38:57 · answer #3 · answered by Da Mick 5 · 0 0

I do know from lots of sources that Liston was mobbed-up big time and Clay was a huge underdog as far as the betting odds.

2007-03-24 03:02:09 · answer #4 · answered by michael w 2 · 0 0

No Way.

2007-03-23 16:31:34 · answer #5 · answered by rynickant@verizon.net 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers