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

You certainly failed history miserably. Futch's instructions to Norton were well different than Joe Louis talking about how he'd beat Ali. The whole key to it was timing. Louis liked to wait and counter a lot more vs Futch's plan, which he wouldn't possess.

On top of this Futch himself said Norton wouldn't have beaten Ali a year or two earlier let alone when he was at his peak in the 60's. Ali critics always want to isolate 70's Ali as if it's his best.

Norton also has 1 1/2" of reach on Louis and a notable extra 4" of reach. These certainly come in handy in elite level jabbing battles, to put it mildly. He usually blocked jabs closer to his face than Louis as well.

If Max Schmeling could land 70+ right hands on Louis, mostly as leads or over the top of his low left hand imagine what a lightning fast guy like Ali would do. It wouldn't be competitive.

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. It wouldn't be competitive. This sentence is on your level so you should love it, especially given you are a size queen as well.

 

This is fun

 

I totally agree.That's why Mohammad Ali and Joe Louis are regarded as the 2 greatest heavyweight-champions
in history.

 

Even though I may pick him against each in individual matchups, he most likely drops a loss at some point just out of probability through having so many defences.

 

Well congratulations mate,you've done a fine job.There's just one little detail that you've forgotten.I asked who would beat the 1964-67 version of Muhammad Ali,So bearing in mind how a
past-prime Ali more than held his own with Ken Norton sheer logic points to the peak Ali
handling Norton with ease,even though Ken was indeed a terrific fighter.As for Henry Cooper ?
Oh come on, what's this about Cooper hurting Ali ? Ali slashed Cooper to ribbons in both fights.Technical breakdown ??
Just use your eyes man!
Joe Louis ? Here's a history lesson for you----Billy Conn.Conn a much slower,smaller,less athletic version of Ali gave Joe all the trouble he could handle.
I know this isn't terrifically scientific it's....what are the words I'm looking for...
ah yes....COMMON SENSE !
Larry Holmes out-jabbing Ali ? Another history lesson and 2 names---Carl Williams and Tim Witherspoon.
Lennox Lewis,Vitali Klitschko,and Wladimir Klitschko ? Well did you happen to see Ray Mercer,
a shorter,less athletic version of Muhammad Ali at the very least matching Lewis in the battle of the jabs ? Just think what Ali would have done ! Wlad was absolutely bamboozled by the antics
of Tyson Fury.A slower,far less fluid version of Muhammad Ali.Again just think of the way Ali would have confused Wlad.As for Vitali ? Look how hittable he was against Lewis.Nuff said.
By the way Ernie Terrell was not an ATG heavyweight but he was 6' 6'' and had an excellent jab.
Ali toyed with him---it was downright cruel.
Oleksandr Usyk ? Yes,Usyk has excellent hand and foot speed but stop kidding yourself.Not in the same league as Ali's.As for Ali not seeing Usyk's punches ? Ali had possibly the greatest radar and reflexes in history that enabled him to avoid punches.So again,you are using a very flawed argument.
I must emphasise that I am a huge fan of all the fighters you've listed.Well perhaps Henry Cooper does not fit into that category but nevertheless he was at least a decent fighter.So I'm not disrespecting any of these excellent ATGS/near ATGS.I am just saying that Ali would be a significant favourite to beat any of them prime-for-prime.

 

Maybe but I doubt it, since Liston had problems with Ali type of boxers.

 

Which Ali type boxers beat him?

 

Conn was a greater boxer than many heavyweights,and an ATG light heavy, but that doesn't mean he was a better heavyweight.

 

Simple. There's a difference between being tall and actually being a good range fighter.

Terrell didn't have the disciplined, powerful jab required for that strategy. He was a tall mauler who preferred to clinch, not a skilled boxer who could actually control the fight from the outside. He simply didn't have the right tools for the job.

 

You completely misinterpret what Eddie Futch said. The strategy he gave Ken Norton was not "well different" from Joe Louis's approach, it was directly inspired by it.

Futch explicitly modeled Norton's game plan on the exact style he believed Louis would have employed to beat Ali. The plan was abased on two core principles:

Neutralize the Jab: Futch trained Norton to keep his right hand high to block or parry Ali's jab. Because Ali didn't protect himself with his own right hand when jabbing, this left him wide open for a counter-jab down the middle. This fundamental parry-and-counter is something at which a master technician like Louis excelled. If Norton could disrupt Ali's rhythm this way, there is no logical reason to assume the more skilled Louis could not.

Apply Pressure and Attack the Body: Futch instructed Norton to use the jab to walk Ali to the ropes and relentlessly attack the body. This exploited Ali's poor infighting and drained his stamina, the exact same principle Louis himself laid out in his plan to defeat Ali.

Futch stated that Louis possessed the "correct style to exploit Ali's fundamental flaws," and he implemented that very strategy with Norton. They aren't different plans; one is the direct application of the other.

While Ali was not at his athletic peak in the 70s, his key technical flaws were inherent to his style throughout his career. His defensive reliance on leaning back from punches and his vulnerability to a disciplined jab were fundamental aspects of his technique, not products of age. Norton's success serves as a proof of concept, demonstrating that this flaw existed and could be exploited by the right strategy.

You mention Norton's reach advantage over Louis, but this detail is misleading. Ali himself held only a minor 1.5-inch height and 2-inch reach advantage over Louis. More importantly, Louis consistently faced and defeated much larger opponents who had significant reach advantages, such as Max Baer and Primo Carnera. Louis's mastery of cutting off the ring and jabbing with his opponents allowed him to nullify such physical advantages. He consistently out-jabbed taller heavyweights, making a negligible reach difference against Ali a non-factor for a fighter of his skill.

Once again your analysis of the Schmeling and Conn fights is historically inaccurate and fundamentally misrepresents the stylistic dynamics at play.

Your comparison to the Max Schmeling fight is a flawed argument because it ignores how he won. Schmeling's victory wasn't a blueprint for any fast fighter; it was a specific, tactical masterclass. He used a patient, disciplined, counter-punching style. He feinted to draw out Louis's jab and fired a straight right hand over Louis's momentarily dropped left. This methodical approach is the polar opposite of Muhammad Ali's style, which was based on movement, volume, and reflexes, not the patient, single-shot counter-punching Schmeling employed. You also conveniently ignore the rematch. Once Louis adapted to that specific style, he annihilated Schmeling in a single round. This proves the flaw was correctable and demonstrates Louis's mastery at permanently solving stylistic puzzles.

Your reference to Billy Conn is even more flawed. The idea that he out-boxed Louis with a jab is a myth. Conn himself knew that trading jabs with Louis, who possessed arguably the best jab in heavyweight history, would have been "suicide." Conn's actual strategy was a quick in-and-out attack, hooking off the jab and unleashing fast combos on the inside and then retreating before Louis could respond, a style completely different from Ali's outside game. It was a hit-and-run approach reliant on the speed of a natural light-heavyweight, not a strategy the larger Ali could have replicated who has never shown the ability to fight on the inside like Conn did. But you also ignore that Louis was systematically punished Conn to the body throughout the fight, weakening his legs. By the later rounds, Conn was already wobbled and fading from the accumulation of body shots before being knocked out. This fight doesn't show Louis's weakness to a mobile boxer, it shows his ability to systematically break one down with relentless pressure, bodywork, and devastating finishing power, the exact tools required to defeat an outside fighter like Ali.

 

While the 1964-67 version of Ali was an athletic marvel, the argument has never been about his athletic prime, it's about his technical style. His key vulnerabilities were inherent to how he fought, and his athleticism doesn't magically erase them.

Your logic that a peak Ali would handle Norton "with ease" is a leap of faith that ignores the evidence. The Norton fights serve as a proof of concept. Norton's success wasn't due to Ali being "old"; it was because his unorthodox style, jabbing from a low angle and using a cross-arm defense, was a direct counter to Ali's. Norton repeatedly out-landed Ali in their first fight and gave the other two were close, controversial bouts that Norton arguably won. This proves the stylistic problem was severe. To assume Ali's athleticism would simply nullify a perfectly designed strategic counter is speculation, not analysis.

To say Ali "slashed Cooper to ribbons" is true both fights were stopped on cuts. But that ignores the real difficulty Ali had in both fights. Cooper's powerful left hook, a punch Ali was famously susceptible to throughout his career, put Ali on the canvas and gave him immense trouble. Cooper exposed a specific, repeatable weakness as Frazier later showed.


Your historical comparisons are based on popular myths, not the technical reality of the fights:

The idea that Conn gave Louis trouble with an Ali-like style is completely false. Conn knew trading jabs with Louis would be "suicide". His actual strategy was a quick in-and-out attack, hooking off the jab to get inside unloading quick combos and then retreating, a style completely different from Ali's outside focused game. Furthermore, Louis was systematically punishing Conn's body, and Conn was already wobbled and disoriented at the end of the 12th round before being knocked out. This fight doesn't show Louis's weakness to a mobile boxer; it shows his ability to break one down with pressure and bodywork.

As for Holmes, mentioning Holmes had tough nights doesn't negate the fact that his jab is widely considered the greatest in heavyweight history. It was a versatile, powerful weapon he could throw from any angle with speed. The argument, which you didn't address, is that Holmes possessed the ultimate version of the exact tool needed to exploit Ali's primary defensive flaw.

Next, your dismissal of the modern giants relies on flawed, apples-to-oranges comparisons:
For Lennox Lewis, the Ray Mercer fight was a brutal, back-and-forth war, not a simple jabbing contest. Mercer had success because of his toughness, aggression and power being willing to walk through Lewis's punches just to get his own off. It doesn't show how someone with a completely different style like Ali would be able to fight the taller, longer Lewis since Mercer fights nothing like Ali. Ali was a backfoot boxer not a slugger like Mercer.

Tyson Fury beat Wladimir not with Ali's fluid rhythm, but with extreme awkwardness, feints, and constant movement that made Klitschko completely "gun shy" as well as being bigger and taller then Wlad. It was a victory of pure disruption, a different style from Ali's not to mention how old Wlad was when they fought.

But most importantly, you're avoiding the central issue. Ali’s defense was built on leaning back from punches. Against men 3-4 inches taller with massive reach advantages, leaning back puts his head directly into the path of their right hand. It's a matter of physics he never had to face. Ernie Terrell was tall, but he lacked the elite skills, technique and power of a Lewis or a Klitschko.

As for Usyk, again, this isn't about whose speed is "in the same league." It's a fundamental stylistic problem. Ali's legendary "radar" and reflexes were calibrated almost exclusively against orthodox fighters. An elite southpaw presents completely different angles. The lead-hand battle is altered, and the power hand comes from a place Ali was strategically unprepared for. It's a technical puzzle he never had to solve at an elite level.

 

Interesting thread this

 

Bowe I think is too slow and simple to beat Ali, Larry Donald gave him fits and Donald is a much worse Ali. Holyfield would be interesting he was vulnerable to a good jab but he was also good enough to get Ali against the ropes and unload on him so idk would be a tough one I can see it being a 50/50 fight. As for Fury, in theory, I think Fury at his best should beat Ali by simply being too big and long for him and being able to keep him at range, but Fury never had the discipline or technique of a Wlad or Lennox so idk he's be able to do that consistently and he's shown that faster smaller fighters can give him lots of trouble. So I'd probably lean Ali just because he's way more consistent but if Fury has the right gameplan and is disciplined enough to follow it he can def beat Ali.

 

Terrell was considered to have the best jab in the heavyweight division .