Could Sonny Liston have made it undefeated vs Louis title defenses?

Even Cus D’Amato understood and believed that, after the 3.5 exile, Ali could not return to what he once was……

…..and, for the FOTC, Ali still hadn’t even tuned himself up to his full second career potential, all be that potential diminished as compared to the 1960s version.

Like 71 Ali hadn’t lost his inexhaustible stamina and incredible, persistent leg mobility? That’s outright denial rather than fair, objective observation.

Ali most certainly did give Joe an awful going over for the first 4 rounds or so before clearly beginning to tire within himself.

60s Ali would be far from tiring at that point and the going over he was giving Joe would simply continue for a good many rounds thereafter.

 

I see your point in theory, but I believe the evidence from his career tells a different story. The vulnerabilities that Frazier exploited weren't new; they were present even in Ali's athletic prime. For instance, he was always susceptible to a strong left hook, as Henry Cooper demonstrated. He also had a tendency to get caught on the ropes, which we saw in his fights against Chuvalo, Liston, and even Terrell.

The difference is that no one before Frazier was skilled enough to capitalize on those tendencies for a full fight. The Joe Frazier from the "Fight of the Century" was arguably the perfect fighter to exploit those specific habits. Given this history, I don't see how a marginal increase in speed would have fundamentally erased the flaws Ali always possessed.

As for why you perceive me as "disrespectful," my respect in a debate is for the argument, not the person's age or tenure. In my interactions with Mcvey, I've found that when he's faced with contradictions, he tends to pivot rather than address them directly. I find it difficult to engage respectfully with arguments that aren't made in good faith.

 

You're asking the wrong question. It shouldn't be "When did Ali lose on the ropes in his prime?" It should be: "When did Ali face anyone in his prime with the skill and relentless pressure to punish him for it?"

The answer is he hadn't, until he met Joe Frazier. The first time he faced a fighter who could consistently trap him and make him pay, he lost. This proves my point precisely: The flaw of lingering on the ropes was always there. It didn't magically appear because he was slower, Frazier was simply the first opponent good enough to exploit it.

 

Yes!

 

Hi Buddy.
Thanks for the prompt and respectful reply, you make some valid points, and lay them out in a way that suggests you know of which you speak, which judging by some of your previous posts is self evident, I have have always given your posts the time of day with that in mind, it's just that you come across as a tad belligerent sometimes, not to myself I would add, you may be right about mcvey " pivoting " that's up for conjecta, even so I would like all us posters to have, and give politeness and consideration to a fellow poster regardless of how we perceive them as a person, or their point of view and or stance, but you are fully entitled to say what you want and how you feel about whomever you choose, that is your prerogative and you are free to air it as is your desire.
stay safe buddy, chat soon.
Mike.

 

No,unfortunately you simply,stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the blatantly obvious.Muhammad Ali was
phenomenally resistant to body punches.Look as I said earlier I am a far bigger fan of Joe Frazier than I am of
Ali, and I do regard Joe's victory over Ali as possibly the finest in boxing history.
However if you look at their first fight the result was on a knife edge until Frazier decked Ali in the 15th round.
Just one more tune-up fight before FOTC and Ali would almost certainly have defeated Smokin'Joe
This is not speculation or ' fanboyism ' but just sheer common sense.

 

Just a heads up Mac, whenever I post I always wear my Magneto Helmet (very cheap from Amazon, btw) to protect myself from any Professor X wannabes out there. If you don’t have one, a makeshift hat made from aluminium foil will do nicely in the interim.

 

Respect is optional,but I do find him unnecessarily sarcastic and condescending. He reminds me of Klompton.

 

Thanks for the heads up P ,a senile old geezer like me needs all the protection he can get!

 

Futch also named his three greatest heavyweights as,in no order.
Ali ,Johnson,Louis, but what would he know compared to you ?

 

Louis wouldn't be jabbing simultaneously, he'd be parrying then jabbing and Ali wouldn't be there. It was the key point of the strategy. Also, Louis wouldn't be fighting that version of Ali best for best. Again, Futch admitted even the earlier comeback Ali would have beaten Norton despite the strategy.

The style he speculated. Louis, as great as he was, had a great many problems and woes himself during his career, at times vs lesser men than Ali did. Ali would have whooped Conn in a canter - it's not even up for debate. Louis was at his best too.

The success of the jabbing strategy is, at any rate, vastly overstated. In the second fight against the best version of Ali Norton had bugger all success with jabbing. Ali was fitter and more mobile and Norton was getting pumped with jabs while having little success with his own. Ali was on the move and just not there for him. Norton's primary success was coming when he got Ali along the ropes and let his hands go. He was getting outboxed mid ring. A younger, more mobile Ali with better stamina wouldn't have been caught along the ropes near as much and would have comfortably outpointed Norton.

Norton also applied rougher more adaptable pressure than Louis would. Louis was far more methodical and didn't cut the ring off as well as Norton. On top of this Louis needed to be set to punch whilst Norton was happy to let them fly from ungainly positions. Louis' quite rigid and certainly not the most fluid, in total contrast to Ali. But again, the best Ali never fought Norton.

Futch grew up sparring Louis and tells many stories of Joe. Of course he's going to be partial to him. Eddie also stated Hearns would beat Hagler (among numerous other wrong calls) so he's hardly infallible.

The flaws are negated a lot more via youth, movement and stamina. Louis certainly had his own flaws but for some reason they aren't mentioned...i wonder why? I'm sure if a Louis vs Usyk thread comes up they will be flying around the forum everywhere

Ali's peak style is brilliantly suited to beating Louis. Lots of speed, lots of movement, enormous durability and *a great right hand lead and counter. "Proof of concept" was not vs peak Ali so the so called flaws were accentuated.

Reach is important if one thinks he's going to be countering jabs with jabs given Ali's the quicker fighter, and their foot speed isn't remotely comparable so yes, reach plays it's part.

You're throwing up Baer and Carnera as proof of Joe's mastery? In comparison to doing it vs Ali? Get out of here

Yeah right.

Do you even watch these fights? Schmeling landed truckloads of right hands that weren't counters over jabs. He could barely miss! Umpteen right leads hammered into the side of Joes face. *Ali had a brilliant right lead, lightning fast, straight and accurate. He walked foreman onto plenty of them and they'd be a constant danger for Louis. On top of this Ali had an exquisite right hand counter over the jab as Folley and Liston found out, among others.

The rematch? Schmeling was past his best when they fought the first time, how do you think he was 2 years later? This is boxing history 101. Louis did shore up the flaw somewhat but it was still there to be taken if you were sharp enough. Joe Walcott landed some great right hands on him.

What's flawed is your ability to read. mcvey just nailed you for pretending things are said when they weren't!!! Please do show me where i claimed Conn "The idea that he out-boxed Louis with a jab is a myth." beat Louis via the bolded! You must have dreamt it.

What i said was, and i quote "If a 168-169 pound Billy Conn could outspeed, outpoint and outmaneuver peak Louis for 12 rounds (and wobble him) imagine what a faster, harder hitting more robust Muhammad Ali would do to him.". There's not even a hint of me claiming he outboxed him with a jab LOL

Louis' footwork was precise and excellent against plodders and come forward fighters but he wasn't all that at cutting the ring. He was more of a follower if anything. This is why i favor Ali. Louis was a bit static, a bit robotic, and that's good news for Ali. So is the ability to hit him with right hands. Ali well hit hard enough to bother Louis with his best right hands so that will keep Louis a bit honest. Ali would be somewhat a danger of stopping Louis too. He'd have to accumulate a lot of right hands over the course of many rounds but it's not impossible. He was a sharp puncher in the 60's. Louis would be a live one, he might get thru and hurt Ali but i don't think he'd get all the way to stopping him. It's an Ali decision for me in a fight he'd have to be careful in all the way to the final bell.

 

I think Louis would probably beat Liston, but it's close to a 50-50.

Liston defeats all of Louis' opponents.


And I can't imagine any universe, even an alternate one, where Conn beats Liston.

 

Bump

 

He certainly earned Bonavena's respect. He told Ali, "you're a great champion" after the fight . I tend to give the actual combatants more credence.