Ali is all wrong for Louis

I would debate the idea that Conn was faster of foot than Ali, first of all, and as to Futch's word on it.........well, how can you not respect that man's word, but at the end of the day he's just another boxing expert, many of which would pick Ali. I don't know what it is about Futch in particular that would make his word trump anyone else's. I't not the end-all, it's just an opinion no matter who's saying it.

 

But did Conn have the chin which withstood numerous punches from George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston and Earnie Shavers? Was Conn 6'3", 215 lbs? Did Conn have Ali's reach or Angelo Dundee in his corner? Did Conn have a better jab than Ali and some sting behind his shots? There's more to this than just being a little "faster" or "trickier". Futch might have forgotten more about boxing than all of us combined... But he also trained two fighters who went 2-4 against a past prime Ali.. Nat Fleischer who also knew more about boxing than most people, would have picked Dempsey to beat everybody including Ali and Louis. Knowledge doesn't always eliminate bias..

 

Only a fool would say that Louis doesn't stand a chance against anybody (no offence).

Regarding your previous point, I would say that Ali is wrong for Louis in some ways, but it is not entirely a one way street.

 

He didn't actually say that ,he picked Johnson ,Louis ,and Ali as the three best heavyweight of all time.

 

So, MM, If a Nat Fleischer or Eddie Futch or Ray Arcel ,all who chose a prime joe Louis over a Clay/Ali, but you in your infinite boxing wisdom, taint's them with being biased, so sir in what category do you who pick an Ali to beat Joe Louis, PLACE
YOURSELF ??? Albert Einstein ?...

 

I dont think you need to be an 'Einstein' or a member of Mensa to predict the outcome of this dream match. All it takes is a bit of common sense to realize that Ali would indeed be all wrong for Louis. You know... the ability to judge/evaluate something without letting personal likes/dislikes cloud the picture!

 

I don't know about that approach. I'd rather froth at the mouth and stammer for a while instead. :think

 

Why is YOUR "personal LIKES or dislikes" more valid than mine ?
Is it because somehow you have more boxing acumen than an
Eddie Futch, Ray Arcel or even mine ? I have been around boxing
since the 1940s M, and I wear that distinction proudly, though according to you sir, I by definition along with other "oldtimers"
HAVE TO BE BIASED...Well according to you I'm biased if I
think that boxers I favor such as Joe Louis, Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Ike Williams. Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Sandy Saddler
etc, were just products of BIASED fans like me.
Ridicule me all you wish M, but my biased mind tells me that the prime Joe Louis who obliterated his opponents in his glorious prime, would be ALL WRONG for a Clay/Ali who had such trouble with a Doug Jones, a Ken Norton, and the trip hammer punching Brown Bomber truly would be all wrong for an Ali...Sue ME...

 

I favor Ali's consistency round per round. I think his control of distance would see him land more than Joe.

I could see room for argument if one were to place emphasis on who hurt whom to an extreme degree. It's certainly within Joe's capacity to stun, wobble, or even drop Ali. The opportunity would spring from time to time, and Louis was an exceptional counter puncher.

 

I've always thought it was a bad matchup. It's not a knock on Louis to say that. I'd favor him against Norton & Norton was "all wrong" for Ali. I can envision both men having trouble with Klitchko but that doesn't diminish them in my eyes.

 

What get's my dander up [aggravated] is when some flame throwers use the
politically correct term "BIAS" when the disagree with the opinions of
usually older posters...But when they give their opinions on fantasy fights, somehow their choices are somewhat more noble and valid than other posters
as myself or anyone who think that a Joe Louis at his peak would beat an Ali,
because they KNOW BETTER and they are NOT BIASED, just the older posters who disagree with them...Everyone has a right to their honest opinions, but no one has a right to demean other posters by calling them biased to shut down honest debate...Well I'm too old to be politically correct, and I tell it as it is...Yours truly, Burt Bias.

 

Not questioning their "knowledge" of the sport. But considering that Fleischer would pick Dempsey to beat the loch ness monster ( if one existed ) I have to take his opinion with a grain of salt. Futch had two fighters who went 2-4 against Ali when he was past his best and probably had somewhat of a bad taste in his mouth. We all know what opinions are like Burt, and they don't seem to be in short supply. For as many experts, fans, or random internet posters who pick Joe Louis to beat Muhammad Ali, there are just as many ( or more ) who have it the opposite. I have given my reasons for choosing Ali and I am sticking with them.. But I also haven't counted Louis out.

 

Sorry but when Ray Arcel says :-

'Mike Tyson may go 1 round with Dempsey, maybe 2'

I have to seriously question his judgement Burt.

 

I have never read that BC. Hyperbole most likely, but NOT BIAS.
Have you never said" fighter A will kill fighter B " ? Have you or others never heard, they couldn't hit Willie Pep in the ass with a handful of rice " ? Have you never read what Tony Galento
uttered before his fight with Joe Louis, "I'll moider da bum "?
Hyperbole plain and simple, but not BIAS....
One other thing . We are talking about a fight between Clay/Ali
and permit me to utter his name on ESB, Jack Dempsey so I thought...Not Mike Tyson who I think because of STYLE would be along with Joe Louis, the greatest threat to Ali and Jack Dempsey, maybe because I'm BIASED...atsch

 

I'm afraid you have read it Burt....

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=268026

You and i both see Tyson as a threat to those you have mentioned but when Ray Arcel say's Dempsey would of beat Tyson in 1 or 2 rounds then sorry, but i have to differ with his views regarding some fighters.