There was no way I could stall the C172, and remain on the simulated glide path, maintaining the Landing Configuration
You could stall a 172 going down, going up, or staying level - the engine power you've chosen will be the determining factor. If the engine is at idle, you'll be going down. The stall will be evident by your loss of pitch control, either you can no longer raise the nose, or you cannot prevent it from lowering. The path of the plan is not a factor.
You cannot safely stall a 172 at 75KIAS (refer to stall speed table in FM), so you're going to have to slow down to get the plane to safely stall in any configuration. If high speed stalls are in your plan, the aircraft should be equipped with a G meter. (As an aside, I find it amusing/alarming that the G limits are pilot limitations, which aside from a coordinated banked turn, the pilot cannot determine).
Landing configuration in a 172 will be any configuration in which you can land (flaps up or flaps down). There really are no variables which take a 172 out of landing configuration. If you have too much power, or too much speed, it won't land, otherwise, you're in landing configuration if you allow it to slow (hopefully over a suitable landing surface).
The actual C of G position will affect the stall indication to the pilot, between controls full back, descending, or nose drops while controls held well back - either is a stall. Happily, a 172 is very docile, and no matter how you stall it, will be recoverable with no excitement with adequate altitude. Stalls conducted with angles of bank exceeding 60 degrees, or G loading exceeding the limitations are unsafe, but certainly are nothing near flight from which a landing could easily be made.
There are some types (Ercoupe, for example) which are pitch control limited, to provide a stall barrier to the pilot. You can hold the controls full back, and the nose will not drop (though the plane may be going down!). This makes those types poor primary trainers - pilots need to learn to stall and recover.