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

That's what i did in the first scenario. Ali is fighting Foreman 10 years after winning the title, not Young and Spinks. Spinks is 14 years in. Louis is post Ezzard Charles at the 14 year point. 10 years in puts him at Walcott.

 

Ali had a helluva lot more than Foreman and Liston tho, not the least being Frazier x 3. He had 19 defenses overall and they don't even count Liston 1, Foreman or some of Frazier.

Of course this is why they stand out from the crowd, no-one else is even in their rear view mirror.

 

Very defendable. That's well back for valuing consistency tho.

 

And that's the cope Liston fans must live with.

 

For me it's clearly Ali as he beat 3 ATG Heavyweights in Frazier, Liston, Foreman, and all 3 of them could be ranked in the top 10 Heavyweights of all time atleast 2 of them are anyway on most people's lists.

Louis has a slightly better record against ranked opponents and more title defenses. But Ali's superior opposition gives him the edge for me.

 

I don't know why Jones slipped as fast as he did, because he wasn't old, but motivation always helps.

It should of course not be forgotten that Jones lost to every decent fighter he faced st this point, but Ali looked like he could have stopped him in the second and as I remember they were wearing head gear. He was several levels above that version of Jones and looked much sharper than in 1963.

He also looked much sharper for the second Cooper fight than for the first.

 

One of the most overdone topics together with "Mayivweather vs Pac in 09'", "What-if Cous survived..." ecc. yet like these ones I'm never tired to discuss the possible outcome lmao
I remember I was conflicted, but lately I'm going with Alì both p4p and h2h

That seems the consensus from Alì stans and I'm gonna hop on this wave since this explanation summarizes my thoughts as well.

 

Was not expecting a pale Irish teenager when I clicked that link

 

Holmes had barely half Louis’ reign. & Klitschko’s opposition was arguably even poorer than Holmes’. Again, which would you rather be tasked with, though? Defending the title for twelve years against Louis’ opposition, or one-off nights with Liston & Foreman?

 

it's tricky, was Ali's comp really better than Louis'... there is an automatic, yes, sure, of course, it must be - Norton, Frazier, Holmes, Liston, and a host of others. But is living colour really any better, I mean it is a serious question.

Were the Best men from the 1920's onward, lesser men, just because we can't see many of them and even much of what we see isn't the best film footage either???

last night I watched a good few rounds of Trinidad vs Vargas in living colour, a good hard fight, but I'm thinking, Vargas was never Top tier and Tito, well he was a tall Welter and though I don't remember many of his fights, was he really a true great, maybe, I don't know I'm just saying.

Anyway, my thought was, man if these two had to fight every 6 weeks, how long before they come unstuck or fall away, Vargas certainly would have and just like my RJJ statement that I always make, "he, Roy, would have met 'his' Tarver a lot sooner, had he fought in such demanding times.

I tend to believe in reality the competition level was just as good & better back then, simply because, these guys already done it, 'swam' at the Top for years, where as the living colour years didn't to the same degree.

So it's a hard one.

I will say Ali, but I still think Joe Louis could beat him... so there it is for what it is worth.

 

Yeah, that's hard to say. Liston, Frazier and Foreman definitely stood out more from the rest than any of Louis's comp but that might also have been because the rest was worse, so you get a similar average. Foreman's success in his 40's is an indication that he didn't just benefit from poor comp in the 70's, but it's hard to say for sure. And Ali's opp also passes the eye test for me relative to Louis's, but there is a clear subjective element to that.

So I think it's far from unreasonable to say that over a 15 year period or so the quality of opp should be similar to each other, given the conditions of the time, and conclude that Louis had fewer losses, a better record in title fights and more wins over the nr 1 contender.

It does muddle the waters a bit with Ali's exile, since it's far from unlikely that he would have gone unbeaten in this period and have a record that matched Louis's, but just going on what we know does have the merit of no speculation. And in that case it's Louis's, with Ali a close but clear second.

To have Ali, one has to at the very least lean into the context that he lost what probably would have been his best years, but the notion that he beat the better opp with Liston, Frazier and Foreman is what really cinches it, and that can of course be questioned.

 

My point is i'd rather Ali's resume over Joe's. Ali has so much more around multiple wins over prime ATG's. Can understand Joe as a pick tho. The vote for Ali is 53 vs 18 which is about what I'd expect.

No argument Louis is miles above Holmes but you also have 5 others ahead of Holmes after favoring consistency over top line wins. Not many of that 5 would have more consistency or number of defenses.

 

I haven’t done a list in a good many years, at least not at Heavy. Might have to re-visit.

 

Yeah it's always interesting to see Heavyweight lists in here.