Sonny Liston vs the following Louis foes

He had a good 7 losses, some to obscure names before becoming champion, in quite frankly one of the worst eras in boxing history.

 

Williams was too limited and too chinny to go through Louis's opposition without getting knocked out at least once.
Pastor knocks him out after a good scrap.
I see Nova doing a number on him too based on styles but I think we'll agree to disagree here.

Play at 0:25 speed

This content is protected

Not quite a clean slip but great timing

This content is protected

More fighters means more competition.
I don't see how Machen, Williams, Folley, Valdez and Patterson made the era stronger than Pastor, Max Baer, Loughran, Lou Nova and Billy Conn did theirs.

The Williams era still encompasses the 50s and 60s though.

No.
The top 3, Foreman, Frazier and Ali were top of the top but it must be said that after them, the rest are not any better than the best of the 30s and the 30s had more of the good ones.

Sure but it wouldn't be a surprise if he did. Sharkey was a tremendous fighter at his best and a great technician.

Liston was a great puncher with good skills but he had his own limitations. He should be favored against all the fighters above but it'd be fair to say he could drop a loss to the best of them.

 

I think Sharkey (when he showed up) was much better than Machen.
I don't think Liston ever went the full 15 in his career which is why I think Sharkey could do well so long as he doesn't get knocked out. That's a big 'if'.

 

You really believe that Machen and Folley were more scientific than Schmeling ?

 

Sometimes this place makes me want to start singing “They’re coming to take me away ha ha.” Historically elite ATG’s like Louis and Liston get dissed while people get orgasmic over freakin’ Ron Lyle.

 

He wouldn't have to. He'd just have to go through Baer's who didn't face many big hitters with the exception of Galento and Nova (who stopped him twice).

Pastor had a 32% KO ratio..... color me skeptical.

Yes. We will.

Thanks for proving my point mate.

That doesn't mean anything if the competition is less than stellar which it certainly was and that's why it's remembered as one of the poorer eras in boxing.

Well for one, nobody with such crude, clearly telegraphed, punches became a top contender in that era.

This content is protected

The Williams era still encompasses the 50s and 60s though.

1. Tunney was referring to HIS era not the 30s.

2. This is just a non-sensical statement that reeks of nostalgia, and old-timer bias. Norton alone, I would favor over any heavy in that era besides Louis himself. Let alone, Ali, Foreman, and Frazier would slaughter everyone with the possible exception of Louis (who I think loses to all three).

Their's a reason one is universally recognized as the best era in heavyweight history, and one is recognized as one of the worst.

Liston was an ATG fighter, and one of the most well-rounded champions in history. I highly doubt he drops a loss to any of them. He ran through the division, and untouchable until the age of at least 34 (when all of the listed boxers barring one were retired) rusty, having fought six minutes in three years, and suffering from a shoulder injury..... when he lost to the greatest of all time.

 

Which I wouldn't bet on him to do.

He knocked out Lem Franklin, stopping his 19 win rampage, though most probable outcome is a UD for Pastor.

This content is protected

I wouldn't favor Frazier, Foreman or 70s Ali over Louis.

Foreman especially is going to get his face punched in with the jab and lit up every time he winds up to throw his
uber telegraphed bombs.

Norton gets knocked out by so many punchers he barely makes it to the 1940s with his braincells intact, and then, Walcott and Ray will be waiting to greet him with smiles on their faces.


The fact that a past it Patterson had to be robbed against a prime Quarry who himself would go on to be one of the best contenders in the 70s grounds the so called Age of Supermen that the 70s are constantly being hailed as. Especially when you take into consideration what Johansson did to prime Floyd.

There's no reason for Chuvalo, Young, Bonavena, Lyle or Quarry to be rated over the Godoys, Novas, Pastors, Conns and Baers of the world.

It was a strong era in regards to the top 3 but it has been exaggerated to the point where Norton is picked over fighters who'd put him in a long coma within three rounds.

Liston was formidable but there are some caveats. He dropped a fight to Marty Marshall of all people. He was green, but say he begun his career in the 30s and had to go through Loughran or Ramage, he would have racked up more losses.
He never went the full fifteen, usually because of his excellent power but his stamina was only tested by Machen, the only elite "slickster" he met before Ali.

In his championship fight he blinded Ali, came out swinging with hooks and crosses, failed to capitalize on the unfair advantage, Ali recovered and was thoroughly taking control of the fight and then Liston quit. Quit just as his face was showing the marks of that sixth round.

For you this might be easily excused but some of us can't look at this performance and think he would just destroy every other champions, even those who persevered through excruciating situations and had the skills and stamina to go the full 15.
Imagine if Schmeling had given up after Louis had badly bruised his face and closed his eye in the first fight.

To reiterate, Liston should be favored over all those guys because he had wins over prime fighters of varying styles but it's by no means a guarantee that he'll sweep and even less of a guarantee he'll have an easy time with the best of them.
A win over Liston wouldn't be Schmeling's best win after all.
Peace.

 

I think when people bring this up they are suggesting that Baer would have put on a better showing not that he would have won. Braddock, Schmeling and his brother all put up better fights against Louis than Max Baer did yet most would have him as the best of those fighters.

 

Prime Schmeling was outpointed by Hamas, kod by crude Baer,and drew with limited Uzcudun,

I see no case for Schmeling being more scientific.

 

Max's arse fell out just before he went in the ring with Louis , he had a panic attack in the dressing room and Dempsey had to almost manhandle him into the ring.

 

Franklin was stopped in 8 of his 13 losses, stopping him doesn't make you a dangerous puncher .
There is no evidence Liston intentionally blinded Ali.
Liston went the distance with Marshall whilst suffering with a broken jaw.

 

• UPI - 7-5 Patterson
• AP - 6-6 Draw
• Long Beach Press-Telegram - 7-5 Patterson
• Pasadena Star-News - Two writers covered the bout for the Star-News. Joe Hendrickson scored it 7-6 for Quarry and Don Pickard scored it 8-5 for Quarry.
• Los Angeles Times - Two writers covered the fight for the Times. Frank Finch scored it 7-6 for Quarry and John Hall scored it 7-6 for Patterson.
• 
  
• 
  
• Fights that close are not robberies ,imo. Patterson was 32 hardly ancient!

 

Schmeling almost killed Hamas in the rematch, he beat Uzcudun in the 2 other fights he had with him and was winning the Baer fight until he got kayoed (and also because of Baer's dirty tactics).
In any case these were good fighters.
Ray Robinson drew with Henry Brimm, does that make him unscientific?
All the guys you mentioned are better than Zora Folley. Folley lost to guys like Johnny Summerlin, Young Jack Johnson, Henry Cooper, Alejandro Lavaronte, Doug Jones, Terrell, Bonavena,Brian London and drew with Mildenberger.
Machen lost to guys like Mildenberger, Patterson, Terrell, Folley, Johansson and Manuel Ramos
How many of those guys are comparable to or better than Schmeling?