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

Sustaining a broken jaw does not correlate to being knocked down.
Abraham v Miranda
Finnegan v Reiche
Ali v Norton
Squeo v Opetaia
Liston stopped Marshall in their second fight,and Marshall ran like a thief in their 3rd ,not winning a round.
Marshall was 24 lbs lighter not 35lbs.
Far from being ,"not even a good journeyman," Marshall was the no7 light heavyweight in the world.
Provide a primary source that states Liston turned down a rematch with Machen?
Liston beat Machen handily ,that's a fact,just deal with it.

Martin was 199lbs when he beat Liston,he hadn't been a middleweight for 7 years ,or a light heavy for5 years.
Take your Liston hatred elsewhere,you're embarrassing yourself here!

 

I'm on record multiple times ,saying Marciano was a great fighter, and champion,Do you dispute that?

 

Hmm....I agree Ali vs Usyk would be a terrific fight.I'm actually a Usyk fan ( so grateful to him for vanquishing the dreadful Tyson Fury ! ).
I just feel that the superlative speed and reflexes of Ali would be too much even for the excellent Usyk.
However yes,this would be a dream-match.

 

You say Ali didn't solve Fraziers's pressure but he survived it for the admittedly acuurate reasons that you gave.This shows that Ali could survive the most brutal of body attacks.
The fact that Joe Louis would use a different method to attack the body is irrelevant.
Ali would cope.Ken Norton,an excellent body-puncher in his own right,said hitting Ali's body felt like hitting cement.Ali also absorbed plenty of body shots from George Foreman.
Ali is probably no 1 in heavyweight-history for his ability to absorb punishment generally,
and to the body in particular.This is a terribly weak basis on which to favour Louis,or any other fighter,over Ali.

You mention that Joe Frazier was past his peak for his last 2 fights with Ali.Again I have to remind you that Ali was past his peak in 1971 after his 3 year banishment from boxing so let's try and be consistent here.

Whether Ernie Terrell and Lennox Lewis used their jabs for different purposes is of no significance.As previously stated Terrell was 6' 6'' with an excellent jab.He failed miserably
to catch Ali with that jab.We are talking range,reach and speed here,not '' battering-ram ''
force.Ali would evade Lennox's jab just as easily.As for any follow-up right hand power shots
take a look at Ali's head movement and reflexes during his first championship reign.Even if Ali was caught by a Lewis power punch his own powers of recovery were fantastic.And yes,I am
a huge Lennox Lewis fan but he would have to be a significant underdog against the GOAT.

Why do you overlook Holmes's struggles with Witherspoon and Williams but cite the tough fights Ali had with Norton as evidence of his vulnerabilty ? This is inconsistent to say the least.
You continually ignore the fact that the Ali who fought Norton was past his peak.
The younger,faster,fresher Ali of 1964-67 would have a much more difficult opponent for Norton,
irrespective of Norton's style.This is not speculation but sheer logic.

As for Ali being unable to cope with a southpaw may I refer you to his fight with Karl Mildenberger.

 

I’m the same as you. A Usyk fan also but prime Ali would be too much.

 

Agreed Pug.There is a reason why they call Ali the ' Greatest '

 

At best, Machen was an excellent, crafty guy with good power and was of course # 1 contender for a time but unjustly shut out from a shot at the title.

Liston’s just prior destruction of an also highly skilled Folley, who did actually try to win the fight, had to have sent a strong message to Machen in so far as the obvious perils that Liston presented.

Eddie employed all of his evasive skills to pointedly avoid engaging Liston throughout the fight - presenting as the most difficult type of opponent to see off.

Eddie also employed some of his own dirt during the fight, relying on the pre-ordained villainous image of Liston to eclipse and evoke sympathies for his own fouls (similar to Jimmy Young taking the same advantage against Foreman).

Laughably, after Ali-Liston, only 4 years after his own fight vs Liston fight (lol), Eddie came up with the fabrication that he was blinded by Liston - again, NO evidence for that claim can be produced but there will always be that contingent that will repeat the falsehood. That anyone could buy Machen’s totally baseless blinding claim is mind boggling.

I’ve said it before - that Liston clearly outboxed and decisioned such a highly skilled yet completely avoidant opponent in Machen over 12 rounds without faltering is actually a huge feather in Sonny’s cap - not an irrationally deduced mark against him.

 

Ali "surviving" Frazier's body attack actually proves my point. He survived through sheer toughness, not by nullifying the attack. The "Thrilla in Manila" showed that a relentless body assault was incredibly effective, forcing Ali into a brutal war of attrition where his guard dropped and he took tremendous punishment. Norton also hurt Ali to the body. The fact that Ali could endure this doesn't mean it wasn't a highly successful strategy. Joe Louis wouldn't need to apply pressure like Frazier; his methodical, ring-cutting style was designed to achieve the same result draining the legs and breaking an opponent down with greater technical precision.

You're inconsistent in your application of the "past-peak" argument. The reason the Norton fights are so significant is that they exposed a fundamental stylistic flaw, not just an athletic decline. As trainer Eddie Futch explained, Norton's specific use of the jab would have always given Ali trouble, regardless of the era, because it directly countered Ali's technical habits. In contrast, Holmes's tough fights with Williams and Witherspoon were just hard-fought victories against difficult styles, not evidence that his own greatest weapon, his jab, was flawed

To say the purpose of a jab is insignificant is to ignore the fundamentals of boxing. Ernie Terrell's "jab-and-maul" style was a defensive tactic to smother opponents, and he failed to maximize his height and didn't really use his jab much against Ali instead opting to rough him up on the inside. Lewis's jab was a versatile, offensive weapon used as a battering ram to control distance and set up power shots. The idea that Ali would evade Lewis's jab as easily as Terrell's ignores Lewis's superior technique and the athletic advantage over a slow lumbering Terrell. Ali's lean-back defense would have been a catastrophic liability against a fighter as tall and skilled as Lewis, putting his head directly into the path of the right hand

The Karl Mildenberger fight only strengthens my argument. The fact that a decent, but not elite, southpaw gave a prime Ali significant trouble in the early rounds proves the point. Ali was puzzled by the stance and had to completely adjust his footwork mid-fight to cope. This demonstrates a clear vulnerability against a style he had almost no experience with. To assume he would have no issues with a far superior, ATG-level southpaw like Usyk is the definition of speculation.

 

Great post Pug!

 

Ali took heavy body shots from Chuvalo,Foreman, Norton ,and Frazier , if Louis beats Ali,it wouldn't be down to body shots.imo.Louis' pressure was more measured than Frazier's who was on your chest all night.
Apart from Dempsey, I can't think of another heavy champ who applied pressure so intensely and rapidly as Frazier.
Ali purposely let Chuvalo have some free shots to his midriff,Ali with only 18 rds of boxing in 4 years did not trust his legs or stamina against Frazier,and so went to the ropes to save his legs,a prime Ali would not have retreated to the ropes in that fight or his later fights .
As to the rest, ATG jabbers give everybody problems,orthodox or southpaw.

 

Cheers mate.

 

Why on earth are you persisting on the theory that Joe Louis would defeat Muhammad Ali by body-punching ?
Ali,using your own words,survived Smokin'Joe's body-punching and so you declare this a route to defeat Ali.
A baffling lack of logic,even allowing for your dubious assertion that Joe Louis was a better body-puncher than
Joe Frazier.
As for the past-prime issue I highlighted it because of your stubborn refusal to acknowledge that Ali's
decline from his 1964-67 peak was a significant factor in his fights with Norton.On the other hand you qouted
Joe Frazier no longer being at his peak for the last 2 Ali fights.Talk about double-standards !
Another case of double-standards here.You dismiss the problems Holmes had with Witherspoon and Williams
as being '' hard fought vicories against difficult styles ''.How about extending the same courtesy for Ali in his fights with Norton ?
The fact that Muhammad Ali mercilessly toyed with a very competent 6' 6'' left-jab specialist in Ernie Terrell does give a clear signal that he would have coped with Lewis no matter what
purpose Lennox had in using his jab.
The fact that Ali ,with his usual adaptibility,managed to work out the southpaw stance of Mildenberger reinforces my argument that he would have done the same with Usyk.Yes even though Uysk is clearly superior to Mildenberger.
In fact this fight provides another telling example of Ali's ring IQ.

 

Liston also wins that fight if Leotis Martin doesn't land that punch. It would have still been the closest decision win of Listons career but the knockout was a fluke. Liston in 1969 was still better than Leotis Martin.

 

Such a fanboy response. Give me actual technical reasons for how and why Ali would win until you do its pointless to respond because you;ll just keep going back to Ali's speed and toughness as the ultimate gotcha and we're just going in circles

 

Sonny has to stay focused, in shape, determined, busy and undefeated for 12 consecutive years … and out of jail/prison or else you’d better extend that 12 years for a few more.

I don’t see it.