The Great Heavyweight Debate: Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Louis - Who's the HW GOAT?

Some would say leaning backward or sideways is all wrong when facing a puncher like Louis.

 

I would say the same if the act wasn't being done by The Greatest.

 

Well whether he is or isn’t, that is what this thread’s all about.

 

You don't say.

 

I think Ali has probably the best argument, but......alot of that has to do with the passage of time. I think if I grew up in the Louis era I would feel differently b/c of the 25 title defences & the 12 year unheard of title retention. But, since I'm not as familiar with his opposition and know how good Ali's was It's hard to pick against him. Having said that, both GREAT champions and both deserving of the mantle IMO. Call it a tie and honour both of them. Both great fighters, champions and men in their own right.

 

Neither are the HW goat. Liston betta.

 

Wouldn't ko victories over Conn and Walcott sway things in Louis' favor?
When Ali faced skilled boxers who applied pressure he sometimes struggled mightily.
The people Louis had most trouble with, he knocked out.
The people Ali had trouble with, he squeaked by with split decisions.
Louis is held to an unfair standard where he isn't even allowed to struggle with an opponent before knocking them out.
Ali had many, many more decision wins than Louis but strangely enough these are never brought up against him the way Louis tougher fights are.

 

I think that if a fighter is getting outpointed and they absolutely HAVE to win by knocking their opponent out, it should be considered a lesser achievement to being able to rally back in the later rounds and ensure a win. I think that you could make a better argument for him fighting tight with Conn and Walcott and that he COULD'VE won without the knockout- Do consider that he was still close on the Judge's scorecards in all of his respective fights with Conn and Walcott.

 

Alright, I'll make that case.
He was tied with Conn on one scorecard and behind 2 rounds on another, the body punching had taken Conn's legs away in the late rounds so a split decision win would be the likely outcome.
He was ahead of Walcott on one scorecard and behind one round on another. According to the commentators Louis was winning the rounds before the knockout round by jabbing at Walcott very effectively (you'll even notice that before Walcott starts his cakewalk in the 11th he receives a hard jab to the face), had things continued that way Louis could have very well won a split decision.

Instead of letting these fights go to the scorecards he put an end to matters, not with lucky punches, but with correct timing and finishing ability, so why should his ko victories be used to criticize him worse than Muhammad Ali's multiple controversial wins over guys who troubled him?
The best way to describe this is like Ali being the younger brother who can do no wrong and the parents always have an excuse for him whereas the older child, in this case Louis, would get lambasted when he pulled the same stunts.

 

I have Foreman as GOAT I'm talking 2 and 3 for me.

I rank Louis slightly higher because of how he handles adversity. Ali could overcome adversity Louis could make the adversity go away right away. Against his best opponents Ali was a point fighter save Rumble in the Jungle where Foreman and the Liston fights. Louis almost never got taken the distance. Alis gameplan usually worked. But when it didn't work he was in real trouble and it was actually a close fight. If Louis catches Ali, Ali is in bad shape. If Ali wins a few rounds Louis can handle that. Ali didn't have to face real adversity until he fought Frazier. Louis got it out of his system with Schmeling and Braddock.

Alis got the better best wins with Foreman and Liston the wins no one expected but Louis's SOS was better on average. In the 70s you had Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Young and Lyle. Those 5 guys(and Liston) really are the core of Alis GOAT resume and Rumble in the Jungle is the only stoppage before the 10th round and Foreman was not his best that day for whatever reason.

In the 60s when Ali was most dominant besides Liston most of his opponents weren't serious threats even Patterson. In the 70s when his SOS was its best Ali could have easily lost the Frazier and Norton trilogys probably loses to Foreman any other night and could have lost to Jimmy Young and/or Lyle. He didn't lose most of those fight he ran that 9 fight gauntlet in the 70s with only 2 losses(7-2) but I do think he got a lucky there and the margin between 7-2 and 3-6 or 4-5 there was a very close one. Ali is the king of the 60s but if things went wrong he could easily have ended up a close 2nd,3rd or even 4th in the 70s. Louis was the king of the 30s and 40s and if we don't account for racism theres nothing that came close to stopping him from being that even if a Braddock a Buddy Baer or someone got lucky and handed Louis another loss or two.


Theres also the question of their time off and how much more they could have acheived. If not for Vietnam Ali could have 25 title defenses instead of 21. If not for WW2 Louis could have ended up with 50 title defenses not to count his 15 non title wins before he was champ. Most of which would have dominant. Louis has like 34 title fight and/or 15 rounder wins and while if we add Alis NABF wins that include Norton and Frazier its a tie, Louis got there much much faster. Theres so many guys in the 40s Louis could have fought in America, Europe during WW2 and the late 1940s etc. People lament Alis 3 year break but who did he miss out on? He fought the entire top 10 of the 70s maybe even top 15 and the best guys from the 60s he didn't fight were Johansson and Machen. Leotis Martin and Thad Spencer are the only guys from the WBA tourny Ali didn't beat. Maybe he could have added 3 title defenses or something but theres no feats that Ali could have really added. Guys Louis missed out on fighting include Elmer Ray, Lee Murray, Curtis Sheppard, Baksi, Maxim, Sheppard, Lem Franklin, Harry Bobo, Clarence Henry, Buddy Walker, Roscoe Toles, Buddy Scott, Neuhaus, Turkey Thompson, Buddy Knox, Gunner Barlund, Archie Moore, younger Ezzard Charles and younger Jimmy Bivins. And all the great fighters who would have come out of Europe during the war who didn't for obvious reasons. Louis could have been the GOAT of HW boxing by a Secretariat margin.

Its still really close between Louis and Ali. . I'm not a Walcott guy think hes one of the more overrated HW champs and Walcott would have beaten Louis if he got 10-8s for knockdown. But that was sufficently late in his career coming off the WW2 break where I can't really blame him too much. Louis's greatest weakness against modern fighters would be the 10-8 system. Its part of why I have Foreman higher. Alis not really the guy to exploit that. Louis is just big enough where I can't really pick modern superheavyweights to beat him. Especially seeing them lose to Usyk.

 

Wow. Whole lotta words to say nothing.

 

Abridged version

Louis more dominant than Ali, was HW boxing GOAT by 25, handles adversity better than Ali or just about anyone.

20 words!!

There are 2 posters with very similar AVs one which tends to agree with my posts one which tends to disagree. I keep losing track which one of you is which.

 

It's also a helluva lot easier to be consistent when not facing fellow ATG big names.

 

Yet only one fighter across all of history has done it.

 

There's more than one and it's all about context. Some know when to retire, some don't.....well almost all don't.