[Deleted by user.]

Louis in a close decision after a war akin to the FOTC.

 

Louis, I think is overall the better natural fighter & boxer, Ali is a Stylist Classy Boxer...

Louis would beat him often in a redundant series, however, 1 Fight at their Best, I'd reluctantly place Ali for a Points Victory 60/40 betting favourite.

but I'd happily be wrong - Joe Louis IS the Heavyweight mould, if you ask me.

 

Louis nearly stops Ali along the way, but Ali is just too much of a master to let that happen. He jabs, holds, jabs and tries a right hand, holds, left hooks his way to a SD. One of the judges gives it to Joe for being the constant aggressor, but most people see how Ali rallies in the later rounds with some slashing combinations and deft use of the ring, at times making Joe look near-arthritic with his speed.

SD Ali

 

Footwork is where Muhammad Ali outclasses Joe Louis, and that would be the deciding factor.
Muhammad Ali UD

 

That would an amazing fight.

 

I would start by writing a very clear cut will.

 

Alternatively, just liquidate all of your assets and put it all on one or other of them to win (before taking a solemn walk to the nearest chapel).

 

Ali of the late 1960's over the Louis of Max Baer via UD, all day. Damn right I bet my life on it! Louis never figured these tactics and level of mobility out, and he had from January 1937 to December 1947 to figure it out.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Privately, Jack Blackburn is quoted as saying "Jack Johnson would've beaten Louis, because Johnson was a mover." Joe simply couldn't cut off the ring like Foreman.

Now he'd be dealing with 15 rounds of mobility, blinding hand and footspeed combined with effective use of reach and clinching. There's not going to be any resemblance of post exile Ali warring in an FOTC type scenario. (Ali-Frazier in 1969 with no exile would've been a near shutout for Ali, as Joe couldn't get close enough to land much of anything. Watch Chuvalo I or Patterson I for examples. Of course Frazier wouldn't have been ready for Ali until after Bonavena II established Smoke as a 15 round fighter in1968.)

The Bomber wouldn't have a chance to pull the trigger much, since the continually moving Ali would either be out of range or clinching.

Yes, again, having my life depend on predicting Ali-Louis accurately is about as easy as such a decision could possibly be. One punch could never do it for Joe, and Ali wouldn't freeze if hurt, or be still long enough to get nailed by one of those lethal combinations by Louis.

 

I lean to Louis, in a fight not unlike the Norton fights. Ali would be picking him off at range with jabs, with Louis staying in the ring center, catching Ali with hard, accurate, timed shots when Ali tries to drop in the right hand. Neither man dominates and it comes down to the judges preference…Louis harder shots vs Ali’s higher volume of accurate jabs.

 

Good point.

You would have nothing to loose, in betting everything you had, on whoever you picked.

 

And more to write into your will, if you win.

 

They were just using Ruiz for RJJ sake.

 

Fair enough.

 

Wow! One fight? I would have to go with the 1967 Muhammad Ali. Before the fight, I would use that enormous amount of money to hide! Is there any place to hide where the boxing gods can't find me? -Just in case.- And I agree that a large wager on Ali would also be in order.

 

I have to agree. In 1967 Muhammad Ali was close to unbeatable, speed, timing, stamina, reflexes, and footwork, none of this Rope A Dope business or being vulnerable like the 1970's Ali who got his jaw broken but a fighter who was virtually untouchable in the ring in 1967.