Why Joe Louis would've beaten Muhammad Ali.

Watch the Baer fight and the Levinsky fight.

There is no question that he could move on his feet when he chose to.

 

Nice:good

 

I've seen the Baer fight but I'm not sure what you take it as proving. Same Joe Louis with the same two-inch steps, for the most part. Are you referring to that one clip someone else posted where Louis takes a few quick steps backward? World of difference between doing something like that vs. being able to dance with or hunt down a fast, mobile fighter who's turning you and darting in and out.

 

You must be watching a different figth to everybody else.

That aside I think you are overrating the importance of footwork.

The people who beat Ali, or gave him competitive fights, did not particularly chase him down.

 

It is simply not possible to over rate the importance of pre exile Ali's footwork. The guy used it as both an offensive, and defensive tool and could switch from one to the other in the blink of an eye.

 

Which heavyweights would you see as having the best footwork to combat it?

 

Let me guess, does Ali win again? He does in every other match up so I suppose he does now.

I disagree, though. I think Louis was the real "greatest" and would have clearly beaten Ali. There are just so many things that Louis could hurt Ali with.

Louis wasn't a wild swinger like Foreman or a shot(literally) Williams, or an aging Sonny Liston. He was the best technical puncher ever seen at heavyweight. He was brutally accurate, too.

That accuracy would be enough to outpoint Ali. I don't even entirely rule out a stoppage win for Louis. He might finish what Cooper or Frazier started.

 

The same as there were between 1960, and 1967. None. And certainly not Joe Louis.

 

You can't hit what you can't see, and there is no way Clay would carry Joe Louis like he tried to carry Cooper for 2 rounds so he could fulfill his prediction of a 5th round stoppage.

He would mesmerise Louis with his footwork and just keep peppering him with shots all the while controlling the distance between them and be gone before Joe could get close enough to do any damage and probably force a stoppage around the 12 - 14th round.

 

1964 Liston isn't quite comparable to a young Joe Louis.
I don't think his passed his prime SINCE the Patterson rematch, I think he was already passed it by then.
There's plenty of basis to say he wasn't at his best. But it's not particularly relevant to this thread.

 

Louis was past it against Walcott, his problem was not be able to pull the trigger enough against an opponent he'd clearly underestimated. Still managed to KO him in the rematch.

He KTFO of Billy Conn.

 

Or his footwork was predictable and not fast. The men who beat Ali had dynamic footwork ( Frazier ) or were taller than Louis with better range ( Norton ).

Did Louis do well vs boxers? I put forth the judges cards vs the best boxers he fought in Schmeling, Conn, Walcott and Charles...and Louis was behind on scored rounds. Okay, he was old for Charles, but you can say Schmeling was passed his best for the re-match too.

Ali's durability towers above these 4, so a come from behind KO to save Louis like he did vs Conn or Walcott 2 is unlikley.

 

How much taller than Louis was Norton? An inch maybe? And reach? Can't be much. Either way, the difference is not enough to make a difference.
And to be honest, how was Frazier's footwork 'dynamic'? I don't see it at all. Joe was relentless and quicker than Louis coming in, I grant you that.
But he was also shorter with stubby little arms, and never did he have a problem hitting Ali over and over and over again with pretty much the only punch he had.

Ali was fast, but despite that he still got hit a lot. With Louis' timing and accuracy, that's bad news for Ali.

 

Norton was 2 inches taller and had 4 " more in reach, in addition to about 15 pounds. But it doesn't end there, Norton was a better athlete too.

Frazier flew across the ring and had a bob and weave type of defense. Like you said Frazier was quicker coming in. Louis was more of a mechanical stalker type, and the prime Ali I think easily out maneuver him.

One thing is clear. Louis is not going to out jab Ali. He has to get in close, like Frazier did, and therein lies his trouble because he wasn't as dynamic with his feet.

 

Of course Louis did well against boxers.
You seem to hold it against him that he KO'd Conn and Walcott (in the rematch) rather than outpoint them. That makes no sense.
And, of course, he didn't actually NEED a KO to win either of those fights.
You seem to be assuming Ali would be far ahead on points at a similar stage and then win all the late rounds too.
But that's no more likely.

Also you arbritrarily pick the 4 guys where the scorecards favour your weak argument, and call them the "4 best boxers" but there are lots of other "good boxers" that Louis fought.
The idea that Schmeling falls in the same stylistic category as the boxers who used mobility is strange too.
You've been called out on this several times before though and you never change.

Both Louis and Ali were great boxers who had the tools to compete with, and trouble, each other.