Why Joe Louis would've beaten Muhammad Ali.

Lol yeah what a trash

 

To be clear, I hold these performances against him as they highlight many of his flaws.

Conn was much smaller at 168 pounds. He out boxed Louis and even stunned him.

Walcott floored Louis and easily outboxed him. Louis can thank his lucky stars he won the first match due to questionable judging and the fact that both Conn and Walcott fought foolishly, and the first Conn match was 15 rounds, not 12.

At any rate, Ali had equally movement to Conn and Walcott, a much better chin, and super height and reach to fight on his terms.

As for Schmeling, he was a skilled boxer. That is my point. For the purpose of this thread, Louis was a sucker for a right hand. Schmeling took advantage. Ali's right hand had decent power, enough to knock out Liston, and Foreman who by most people think were superior to Louis in durability.

PS: If you think Schmeling, Conn, Walcott and Charles were not the best four boxers he fought, please show me who were.

I'm not concerned about the teir two boxers Louis beat.

 

But the way reach was measured those days, gave an inaccurate picture. It was measured from fingertip to fingertip. Thus, best case scenario for your argument is that Norton had 2 inches in actual reach over Louis. Not a massive difference by any means.

I honestly cannot see Louis battling to tag Ali because he was too short or his reach was insufficient.

I agree that Joe was more of a measured (personally I would not use the word mechanical) stalker than Frazier, but once he did get you in range, he was lightning fast and explosive.

I do think he took too much time to deliver the perfect punch sometimes, and that he was too judicial and maybe too patient as well on occasion, but it's arguable that he was the best finisher in heavyweight history.
Ali sometimes left his chin wide open, and was open to counter punches. He could not afford to get hit by Joe the way he was repeatedly tagged by Frazier or Norton, or caught cold like he was against Henry Cooper.

 

Using Charles and Walcott is a bit unfair as Louis was clearly on the slide in those fights.
That's like using Young or Spinks or Shavers to formulate an argument against Ali, which also would be unfair.

Schemling and Conn I can agree gave Louis a lot to think about and Schmeling actually beat him. Fair enough. But on the other hand, he was the last to do so for over 12 years. So Louis obviously learned a thing or two since that evening.

Yeah, Conn outboxed him and was ahead on the scorecards, but he eventually went the same way as most of Louis' challengers. The fact that he was smaller than Ali isn't really here or there for me since he used speed and elusiveness to beat Louis, not size or strength.
But let's also remember who actually won that fight. That is the danger of Louis, as Walcott also found out-you can win every round, but make that once critical error and Louis would make you pay dearly.
I don't see Ali being an exception to that.

 

They were somewhat different fighters of course (but I can't come to think of a HW that was more similar to Louis than Liston), but the Liston who of course was at his peak for those who actually were around at the time and saw him destroy Patterson two times in a manner that no one (no, not even Ingo) came close to doing before or after in his 20 year career was much closer to Louis in terms of quality than any of young Louis's opponents were to Ali. That's just isn't up for debate (intelligent, at least).

 

I notice Ali's opponents are given superhuman abilities to bolster his chances against Louis. Frazier, usually one armed and chinny gets props for dynamic footwork. Norton's size and weight and "athleticism" make an appearance!

Ali was hit by worse fighters than Louis even in his prime. Ali would be hit often by Louis, or you're essentially saying that his foot work was worse than Cooper's or Chuvalo's.

This would be a boxing clinic with Louis doing to Ali what Barrera did to Hamed.

 

Muhammad Ali was the computer printout of everything that was a problem for Joe Louis.

 

If you think that Larry Holmes was not the best boxer that Muhammad Ali fought, please tell me who was.

 

I agree with that last part of your statement.

I think Liston's speed, hunger and conditioning left something to be desired though, at that stage. I seriously doubt he'd trained properly for the Patterson rematch or for the Clay fight, and tend to believe the stories that he liked to drink and party and gamble all night in the casinos. A man in his 30s who'd had a hard life anyway, not the most disciplined man, and had fought about less than 6 rounds total in the previous 3 years.
I'd say he was unlikely to be prime.
The Patterson rematch proved nothing to me.

 

I imagine that he meant boxer as style not fighter

 

Ali has been credited as being a better adapter than Joe Louis.

 

I can't for the life of me see why a 1 rd KO of one of the best in the world proves nothing. For me it naturally proves that you're extremely good.

It could be that he didn't train enough, but haven't seen much tangible about that. For me, one should always go on the accounts of the ones who were around at the time and saw both guys train unless new substantial facts come to life. And we all know what those who actually saw both guys train had to say before the fight.

EDIT: But reading your post again, I see we agree on the relevant part.

 

Rematches maybe. But turning the tide on the same evening where things weren't going his way? No.. And who did Louis ever rematch that compared to Frazier, Liston, Norton, etc?? Joe Walcott being better than Norton might be the only exception I think of.