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

But he was still more dangerous than Charles.

 

I said that Louis was more dangerous than Ezzard Charles, even being past prime.

He stopped Walcott which Charles couldn't do.

 

You again comparing stupid things, Jack Johnson and Langford went to be GOATS being small guys which makes them even greater while Martin didn't do anything except beating old Liston but he also lost against slugger Bonavena and Ellis, average contenders.

Yes Martin bulked up to Liston fight, you can't go from 175 to 200 pounds, Even Holyfield couldn't do that without steroids.

Leotis was LHW and so was Ellis, both were blown up LHWs, small HWs even in their time.

I can smell the lack of arguments again, nothing uncommon for you.

 

Jimmy Ellis got the title because Ali was stripped of his title, and as soon as he beat Frazier he got destroyed and his title was taken away from him.

Patterson also being old beat Ellis but was robbed of win.

Also Jimmy Ellis was a champion because:
He robbed Patterson
Ali was stripped of his title
There was no Ali, Frazier, Foreman or Norton around


Bonavena was just a slugger who only beat Chuvalo and was beaten by ancient Patterson and slugger Lyle.

 

Because Meehan beat better guys than Ellis being even smaller which makes him even greater.

 

@Spreadeagle

Cleveland Williams was not top 10 hardest punchers in history, was one handed crude slugger with no jab and had weak chin.

Nothing special to beat, he was beaten by LHW Satterfield who was aging LHW with weak chin too.

Best wins were against some bums, draw against Machen and win over Terrel who beat him in the rematch.

 

Yet again your arguments are so seriously flawed.Satterfield was a renowned puncher even at a
comparatively light weight.Jack Dempsey was beaten by a guy who started as flyweight.

 

No.Ellis campaigned during the Golden Age of heavyweight boxing.His level of opposition was
superior to that of Meehan.

 

Yet again ( and again,and again...... ) your arguments are incredibly flawed.Jimmy lost to an ATG in Joe Frazier
and a PFP ATG Floyd Patterson.That does nothing to detract from Jimmy Ellis from being a damned good fighter.

 

Maybe but the differences in height and weight concerning Liston,Povetkin and Usyk are not significant
even if one discounts the obvious aids modern boxers have in gaining extra bulk.

 

As I suspect you know, the Louis who beat Walcott was past prime, but not close to being shot, and still lost their first fight accordong to two thirds of reporters who watched the fight, whereas the Louis who fought Charles was borderline shot.

To say Wills "wasn't on the same level as a past prime Langford ", when he beat past prime Langford x 13, it's difficult to believe that your statement is born of legitimate, authentic stupidity. You need to better disguise your trolling attempts, it's not funny for anyone when you make your trolling so obvious.

 

Still he being old beat Walcott which Charles could not do, and could not stop Walcott.

That means that Louis was still very dangerous fighter.

 

Usyk is an excellent fighter but he doesn't possess the blinding hand and foot speed of a peak Muhammad Ali.
It was Ali's unworldy speed rather than his slight physical advantages over Liston that was responsible for his victory over Sonny.
I would wager a fairly hefty sum of money that the peak Liston had more punching power than Povetkin,even allowing for the latter's ' little helpers ' !

 

Again, the guy who started as a a flyweight achieved more at LHW and HW than Martin, making him even greater, and Dempsey greater for losing 4 rounds against him than Liston losing against Martin.

Satterfield never beat anyone good, was stopped in 3 by Ezzard Charles. he had a perfect punch but lacked chin and skills.

 

He was not very good, a good contender at best; he would never be a champ in any era. if there were prime Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Norton or even Liston that beat Ali, there would not be any signs of Ellis' chances of being a champion.