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

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.

 

When did Sonny start taking heroin and was he taking it during the final years of his boxing career? Guy had a brutal upbringing. Joe Frazier had a tough upbringing but I believe he had an intact family.

 

He was not in the golden age but late 60s where Frazier was still green, Foreman was too, Liston was old, Ali was stripped and there was no Norton around.
Ellis' wins are not very good, best wins were over Martin and Bonavena, okayish contenders, and a questionable win over Quarry and Patterson, while Meehan beat Langford and Dillon.

 

The late 60s was a very fine era for heavyweight boxing and Jimmy did campaign into the 70s.
For goodness sake why do you keep posting these inaccuracies ?

 

It was a Weak era until the early to mid-70s, and Jimmy did very poorly in the 70s, which you did not mention.

 

I really don't know what you're trying to say here.The prime versions of Foreman,Ali ,Frazier,and Liston would beat the overwhelming majority of heavyweights in history.
Ken Norton would also provide stiff opposition for the majority of history's heavyweights.
Not for the first time I'm asking you what's your point ?

 

Being stopped by the great Ezzard Charles,even in 3 rounds, doesn't mean the guy was a bad fighter.

 

Fighting in the heavyweight division is never easy.Jimmy's success in winning the WBA elimination tournament
deserves the utmost respect.This would be a fine achievement in any era.

 

He won by robbing old Patterson and injured Quarry, while Ali was stripped and Frazier was still green, when Ali got back and Frazier and Foreman hit their primes, Ellis was long forgotten, Ali and Frazier made easy work of him.
Again, he was in the weak era without Foreman, Frazier, Ali, and Norton, and still he would not be a champion since he robbed Patterson and Quarry.

 

It does. Charles was a very light-handed fighter, with a low KO percentage.
To stop Satterfield in 3 rounds means that Satterfield's chin is very weak.

Harold Johnson and Layne also stopped him very easy and even John Holman stopped him with ease.

 

The point that Ellis fought in a very weak era, with Frazier and Foreman not around, and Norton and Ali too.

 

Jimmy Ellis in winning the WBA tournament in 1968 recorded 3 victories over excellent fighters Oscar Bonavena,Jerry Quarry and Floyd Patterson.
The fact this tournament took place at the end of the 60s is a mere detail.These results prove that Ellis was a genuine world-class fighter.
Not an ATG but a damn good,world-class fighter.
If you want to gert technical Ellis recorded another excellent victory when he defeated George Chuvalo ( UD ) in May 1971.

 

Nonsense.Ezzard Charles could really punch when he had to.