Is Louis too much of a primitive bum to be compared to an unbeatable 70s chad like Ali? Has the game evolved?
No Ali wasn't more skilled. He was a unique talent hadn't really been seen before or since in a fighter that size. His mobility was God given. Joe Louis punching technique as well as his combinations and timing would be impossible to evolve from IMO. Close to perfection. Closest i can think of all these years later was Alexis Arguello. He was a mini Louis but i can't say he was better than the original. They were both unique talents
This is the same deal as the Ali vs. Usyk thread on skills. Louis had more textbook boxing "skills"; Ali would win in a match, because his physical gifts would overwhelm Louis' skills.
Skilled =/= better. Floyd Patterson was more skilled than Sonny Liston. How did that work out for The Rabbit?
Even without the exile I doubt Ali would have defended the title 25 times; like Louis (Ali defended the title 9 times)...
Not only does "skilled" not always equate to "better," but it does not even always equate to "outboxing your way to a decision" either. Plenty of Ali and Jones' opponents looked silly even though likely-better skilled. Speed and at times reach overcome skills even in a purely jab-throwing chess contest.
Speed, Reflexes, Intimidation, and Punch Resistance = Muhammad Ali. Style, Skill, Power, and Punch Combinations = Joe Louis. Focus, Stamina, Heart, and Ring Smarts = Equal.
Also, Size = Muhammad Ali. Size may not be a skill, but the inevitable question lurking in the background is who would win a matchup, and I think size would be a determining factor.
Good point! I also look at the size of elite Heavyweights they beat, as in how did they handle large, good opponents.