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

Meehan was much better at 4 rounders then he was at normal boxing.

 

He didn't sweat; he just showed a lack of stamina and the output of punches needed to keep the oponent busy.

There is a picture of tiring Sonny on Wepner because Sonny, at that time being past prime, had stamina problems, which he showed in the Martin fight.

I do not care about the damage that would have happened to Wepner if Wepner lasted longer with Foreman and Bugner, but they put him inside 3 rounds while Liston needed 9 rounds to stop Wepner.

Yes, Liston struggled because Foreman and Bugner at that time, green fighters were able to stop Wepner inside 3 rounds, 1973 Foreman would stop Wepner most likely inside 1 round.

 

He still defeated Langford and showed me any win of Leotis Martin, which was good as beating even that version of Langford.
Meehan also defeated LHW champ Dillon, equivalent of that will be like if Martin beat older Patterson and LHW champ Bob Foster, but he did not and since that, I could comfortably say that even Meehan achieved more than Martin.

 

Sonny Liston could have beat everyone Joe Louis beat but he lacked the discipline to do it in the same time frame.

 

Well for a start the Sonny Liston that lost to Martin was more formidable than the version of
Sam Langford that lost to Meehan.
As for Jack Dillon,his record ( presumably at heavyweight ) is absolutely riddled with draws and defeats
to guys that quite frankly I've never heard of.His record is horrible.
Honestly,I'm not usually a gambling man but I would wager a large sum of money on Martin beating Dillon.

 

Theres lots of brilliant fighters most have never heard of from the 1910s. Name names. A lot of draws from that period aren't real "draws" in the sense that a fight is tied they are draws in the sense there was no other way to render a decision and the newspapers didn't deliver a decisive verdict.

Leotis Martin could lose to Meehan over 4 rounds because Meehan was great at speed boxing. Less rounds favors the smaller boxer and/or the lesser boxer because less rounds is less time for these advantages to mantifest. For someone who gets their opponents out of there right away like Liston they are kind of immune to this but most other ATGs are not.

 

So now you've changed your tune ? You're now saying Liston DID'NT SWEAT !
Would you care to comment on the following results ?

Frank Bruno ko'd Jesse Ferguson in the 1st round-Mike Tyson ko'd Ferguson in the 6th round.

Frank Bruno ko'd Jose Ribalta in the 2nd round-Mike Tyson ko'd Jose Ribalta in the 10th round.

 

No,sorry,but even in the midst of history if any heavyweight was exceptional his name would be well known.
Perhaps what you're saying could apply to the lighter weights but the heavyweights ? No, any heavyweight
who was ' brilliant ' would be known.Trust me on this.

 

No, he wasn't. Langford was younger than Liston by a few years, even in their last fight between Meehan and Langford.

Yes, but he was a LHW champion, whereas Martin couldn't be a LHW champion, even if he wanted to, and Dillon was still an okayish HW contender.

If Martin beat past prime hw champ like Patterson and beat Bob Foster, a LHW champion, it would be comparable to Meehan's achievements, but since he did not beat anyone close to as good as Langford or Dillon, I could say that Meehan achieved and had a better record than Leotis Martin.

So still, Meehan's achievements were better than what Martin did in his own time. if Martin beat guys like ex hw champion Patterson and LHW champ Foster, I will say that they were equivalent, but since Martin didnt, I could say that Meehan was better and achieved more than Martin.

Case closed.

 

In the 1910s we're talking more LHWs/HW combo fighters. But still. The 1910s is the single most underrated HW era in part because of how few title fights they were due to WW1. The 1910s is also known for having the highest quality average SOS.

If these fighters suck so much name them and let the people at home decide for themselves.

 

I would take this argument if I compared Liston with just one guy who had different style like Bugner but not this time since Foreman was similar to Liston.

So one fighters with Similar style to Liston's and one with different both did better against common oponent, means that this time it's not about styles but that Sonny was too old and these guys were just better even being green.

Frank Bruno and Mike Tyson had different styles like Liston and Bugner, but Liston and Foreman had similar styles so this time it's not about styles but about the quality of old Liston compared to other fighters who did better than him being young and green.

 

He won't, he couldn't beat a Bonavena who was a no skill head hunter, Sam Langford wae great HW champ and Dillon was great LHW champ.

Martin didn't stop any champ HW or LHW prior to Liston fight.

 

No.Even the old version of Liston was better than the Sam Langford who lost to Meehan.

What on earth do you mean that Dillon was better the Martin because the latter never campaigned at
light-heavyweight ? We are talking about the heavyweights.Dillon's achievements at light-heavyweight,
though admirable,simply have no bearing on his merits as a heavyweight.

 

Meehan shouldn't be used in comparisons like this because he was an ATG at speed boxing and was nowhere close to elite in regular boxing. Nowadays(and in the 70s) we don't have top fighters have 4 or 6 round contests. Its not a thing that happens.

Its not possible for someone to replicate Meehans feats because no ones fighting someone like Dempsey or Sam Langford in a 4 rounder unless its his debut and no one knows who he is.

 

If these fighters are so brilliant name them.Be my guest.