Joe Louis vs Sonny Liston primes

Tons of respect for Charles and he would not back down an iota from Liston, and it's not out of the realm of possibility for him to pull off an upset, but peak, motivated, sober, non-ancient Liston would IMO just be way too much for him.

 

Charles is my #5 p4p fighter of all time, but I'd favour the much bigger Liston too, though hopefully Ezzard's sphincter would remain intact.

 

Peak Charles would be very high on my P4P list too.

 

I agree. I'm bored being right all the time.

 

Welcome to my world. Being infallible isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

 

To be very honest, I have no idea how or why the evolution happened, but you look at the footage of the top contenders from the late 30's -early 40s compared to those from the mid to late 50s, the latter look way better.
The likes of Liston, Patterson, Machen, Moore, Johansson, Williams - move way better and look way more skilled overall than Louis, the Baer brothers, Godoy, Simon, Bivins.

Agreed, Sonny was not very fast, but he had solid fundamentals, good defensive head movement and slips, a hammer of a jab, and incredible power and offense. His left jab and right cross combo against Westphal is still one of my favorite KOs of all time.

 

Yes, I meant guys like Buddy Baer, Primo Carnera, who although they were big, they didn't knew how to properly use their size to their advantage and did not move well at all. Galento was a contender in that era ffs.

No, cause boxing hasn't always eveolved by the same rate. I'd argue it reached it's peak in the 80s and 90s and from then on it has stayed at roughly the same level in most divisions, just going slightly up or slightly down.

I have no idea why, but like I already mentioned, the likes of Liston, Patterson, Machen, Moore, Johansson, Williams - move way better and look way more skilled overall than Louis, the Baer brothers, Godoy, Simon, Bivins.

 

I agree boxing evolves. I disagree there was a huge step change by around 1960 from when the likes of SRR, Louis, Charles and Pep were peak. Film of these fighters does nothing for the credibility of your argument.

Talking of credibility, do you know where you've just decimated yours? Archie Moore was born before Joe Louis.

 

I was just talking about the HW division, more specifically Louis's opposition compared to Liston's.

 

You cited Moore as more evolved than Louis's opposition, yet Moore is older than Louis. It's ok, we can conclude the discussion here, that tells me all I need to know.

 

Either way, citing Moore as an example in defense of a stated position that boxing had evolved substantially in the 20 years between Louis and Liston's respective peaks, is not credible.

 

It's irrelevant how old he was. He was not even a HW in Louis's prime, let alone one of his opponents.
Either you have a comprehension problem or you are grasping at straws.
Going back to the original argument I was replying to, which talked about Louis's combination punching, my point was that only worked on the stiffs he was facing, and it will never work on someone like Liston.

 

No comprehension issue here.

You cited "era" when calling Louis's opposition stiffs in comparison to Liston's.

I questioned your use of the word era, given Liston made his debut 2 years after Louis retired.

You responded that their peaks were nearly 2 decades apart, doubling down on your era comment.

I asked what had evolved about boxing in those two decades. You responded "Sonny Liston".

I pressed further, you answered that you didn't know, adding that boxing has typically evolved over each period of 20 years, apart from since the 80's/90's, you were very much arguing from an evolution of eras perspective. You then cited Archie Moore as an example of that evolution.

I informed you that Moore was born before Louis and now you're backing away from citing him as an example of how boxing had evolved between Louis and Liston's "eras" and instead stating the combination punching Louis used to beat opposition in his prime wouldn't work on Liston.

You see? My comprehension of our exchange is spot on. You on the other hand don't even comprehend your own argument.

I haven't voted in this thread. I have no idea who would win between these 2 utterly formidable fighters and therefore no problem with anyone picking Liston. I'd have had no problem had you merely stated Liston beat better opposition, I may not have agreed, but the best fighters Liston beat being better than the best Louis beat, is at least arguable. I also agree boxing evolves. Where I disagree is that there was a huge, fundamental step change evolution between the 1940's and late 50's/early 60's, to the extent that by the latter's standards the best fighters in the world at the time of the former can be reasonably described as "stiffs" in comparison. That's absurd.

I've just recalled that you're the poster who had Carl Froch (who I was a big fan of), amongst other even worse examples, in your top 100 p4p fighters of all time. I'm not sure which is less credible, that, or citing Moore as an example of how boxing had evolved since Joe Louis's reign.

BTW, a shot Joe Louis beat Jimmy Bivins aged 37. A 31 year old Archie Moore lost to Bivins.