Ali is all wrong for Louis

Yeah spot on, forget the 21 world champions he trained, he clearly knows less than you.

 

The argument that seems somehow to be continually lost in the shuffle here (god knows how) is that there are just as many experts thinking Ali would win, so at the end of the day all it comes down to is a bunch of opinions. How does one even begin to say which boxing insiders' knowledge is superior to any others? No matter which side of the argument you take, you're going to seem biased.

Besides, I would frankly sooner listen to the opinions of a few here (not all that many, but a few) than some so-called experts. There are a lot of really, really knowledgeable people on this site whose opinion shouldn't be discounted simply because they aren't famous.

 

As if the people sucking futch's ***** here would even look twice at his opinion if it went against their likely already formed opinion on the two fighters.

Disgusting scum tbh.

 

Joe Louis was a great fighter, but Muhammad Ali was a different animal. However, if Ali took Joe too lightly, Louis could beat Muhammad.But most likely, Ali's jab, superior speed, and better chin would carry him to a unaimous decision, possible late round stoppage.

 

Louis is so slow of foot, it is amazing how many fighters he managed to find inside the square colusseum.

I think Ali would punish Louis from distance, but every second Louis is in the match is a risk to Ali. If Louis hurts him the way Frazier did several times, I don't think he let's him back into the match.

That said, Ali by tko within 12 is the most likely outcome. But Louis is Louis. You can never know.

Also, thumbs up for Burts "too old to be politically correct" line.

 

Yes it is, it real is!

Yet it never occurred to you that there might be a reason for that statistical anomaly!

Louis could move on his feet when he wanted to.

He did it all the time in his early fights, often unnecessarily.

Eventually he worked out, that he simply didn't need to bother, given what he was up against.

Finally, you have to ask "Which of the guys that beat Ali has brilliant footwork, and why?".

 

Louis can win the fight if he can do two things: land his jab regularly and negate Ali's right hand. If Louis can land his jab, he can land everything else. I believe he would be able to hit Ali with his jab and keep Ali off balance with it, like Ken Norton did. Could he avoid Ali's right often enough or take it if he couldn't avoid it? I'm not sure he could.

What I am sure of is Louis could hurt Ali badly due to his accuracy and range of punches, so I think Ali is ok for Joe; it's just that the right hand of Ali, though not the heaviest punch, was very accurate and could take it's toll over 15 rounds.

I think it's a 50-50 fight.

 

I would have to agree with this!

Its very hard to write off Arcel's love for Dempsey as merely being 'hyperbole'. Sounds like a clear case of fanboyism to me!

 

And if posters as yourself choose Ali, over Louis or any fighter ever, you are NOT a FANBOY M ?
Remember the old adage, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"...
P.S. If I choose a Jack Dempsey, a Joe Louis, A Ray Robinson as all time greats, I am accused of being a biased oldtimer trying to recapture my youth inferring that the "latest has to be the greatest", but on the other hand when I think that today's Gennady Golovkin, or Sergey Kovalev would fit nicely in any era
even my favorite 1940s, I am blasted by some saying" who have they fought today"?. Well I still have faith in my honest opinions
and integrity based not on the unfair word BIAS, but on what
I have gathered watching boxing lo these many years...

 

Futch also insinuated that Ali's opponents were cherry picked...

Even men of great knowledge carry some sort of bias. Often for the generation of fighters they grew up with and opened their eyes to the sport. And in Futch case he was also on the other side of a bitter rivalry with Ali.

I remember a show with Atlas, Holmes and Chuvalo were they picked Ali to do a job on Louis.

I don't put too much stock in these things. It's so very hypothetical anyway. If anyone could accurately predict how fighters from different eras would do against each other, you'd expect them to do an effing fortune on betting on fighters in the same era actually facing each other. But reality isn't that easy.

I think Louis best chance of success would be to do something similar to Folley. Be patient, control the middle of the ring and try to drive Ali straight back with a jab to the chest and then connect with something substantial but not look too much for the one big punch. Reset and repeat.

Ali's fight would be to get Louis to follow him in straight lines, make him swing and miss and keep the jab in his face with the right waiting behind it.

 

In the Thomas Hauser book 'His Life and Times'

Ali basically said he would beat Louis. I cant remember the exact quote, but he said something to the effect of 'Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, Louis wont hit, what Louis cant see'

And i agree.

 

The Folley fight makes me sit and think that Louis would have a great chance against Ali, he caught him plenty of times in that fight and if it was Louis who landed those shots he'd have Ali in serious trouble. Thing is though about Ali, he appeared that he was going through the motions in many fights. Against Louis he would be deadly serious from the offset.

 

Folley did well against Ali, but those punches looked more than they really were. The crowd going nuts every time a punched grazed Ali was a bit deceiving, but Ali actually took most of the steam out by riding them.

But if Louis could show the same kind of counter punching patience, I'm sure he could make it interesting indeed.

 

I also think Folley was able to land more because he had a boxer's style and not a puncher who relied on having his man right in front of him. Billy Conn was unsuccessful at "hiding" but the "running" part certainly enabled him to win plenty of rounds and this was no Muhammad Ali.

 

Yes regardless of the truth that he fought pretty much EVERYONE who was worth anything between 1964 and 1978. Futch must of had a low opinion of the 60's and 70's, which included two of the best horses in his stable.