"Joe Louis of '40 vs. Muhammad Ali of '67" in a time machine/fantasy bout. Who wins?

Nonsense. Technicians like Folley and Patterson wasn't skilled enough to parry and counter a jab, which is a basic technique? You're reaching.

Young is ok to use as an example, but not Walcott?

 

Yes, I do.

I don´t know it. I never wrote I do. I wrote that I think what I posted based on what I see in the fights I saw. Big difference.

Physical, yes. Mental-wise, well, I think people in general often achieve things out of defiance. I think that defiance made Ali tougher and stronger mentally. Yes, that is speculation and just an opinion.

Liston. He wanted to quit. Yes, he still improved and matured later on. He was never in with someone who really could put him into trouble too. He was not tested, in that regard.

Yes, I make it sound like that. I exagerate. I often do that. I try to remember to highlight it when I do this.

However, Ali can fight his way out of trouble but only so many times. I just think that the mental pressure of a Joe Louis, who can end the fight any minute, shuffling after him, hitting him with combinations that he feels when he get´s trapped will tire him out mentally, will lead to lapses in his concentration and to mistakes. Mistakes Louis will take advantage of.

The Ali who was in with Frazier knew how to deal with that kind of pressure.

If he never had to do it, how do we know he could do it?

The difference between out opinions here is that you think he had the mental toughness he had post-exile already before while I think much of this toughness developed in and thanks to the lay-off and what happened there.

You think that if Louis would have landed as many shots as Frazier did Ali would still stand after 15? Really?

Conn did not outbox Joe Louis, he fought him. And Schmeling more or less was lucky that many things came together that night.

And yeah, Frazier was a better hw than Schmeling and Louis. No doubt about that.

 

Good summary of those schools of thought...

I will also ad that in addition to Ali being past his prime for Norton, he was also facing an opponent who's style was very dissimilar to that of Joe Louis, as was Joe Frazier for that matter.. Frankly, if we're going to draw conclusions about how each man faired against fighters of similar description, I think Louis's performance against BILLY CONN in the first match gives us more to work with... Conn had him outboxed for most of 13 rounds, before Louis stopped him with two rights to the jaw - an unlikely outcome for Ali, who's primary weakness was the left hook, and only the best of left hooks at that...Ali was also a bigger man than Conn, with a more durable chin as proven throughout his career... He was also a natural heavyweight, and arguably had more snap to his punches than Conn who stopped somthing like 15 opponents in 64 wins....

 

Fighters Ali beat who had a better jab than Norton: Liston, Terrell, Foster, Ellis.

Fighters with at least an equal jab that he beat: Folley, Bugner, Foreman

 

Agreed.

I don´t know about that. Never thought about this. Very possible though.

Really? When did he show this? Pre-exile that is.

Forgot what you wrote? You asked how you can be more determined than Ali was against Jones, Cooper and Liston. I gave you an example that is all.

What has this to do with this argument?

Class-wise: yes.

 

This thread may indeed be the first time that I've ever heard anyone attribute Ali's later success to his layoff..

 

Not at all. read again what I wrote.

 

Almost all opponents pressured him and he usually seemed to thrive on it.

If we're talking just general pressure, it does not come much bigger than the Liston fight. I can't for the life of me see 25-year old with nine defenses under his belt being more daunted against Louis that 22-year old Clay was against Liston in his first title fight.

 

Too quick to defend, and not really reading what i'm writing either.

I'm talking about one thing Norton did, that I think would make a difference, I really don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

Walcott is valid- in terms of the feints. Although I think JJW was a better feinter(best of the division actually). The movement bit... A lot different than Ali IMO. I see Ali's footwork as being a lot faster but less designed for create counterpunching opportunities and powerpunching. A bit more offensive if you will. Ali has better feet than Walcott, but different. Not sure whether it would be easier or harder for Louis to deal with.

Patterson didn't block and counter very much, or successfully. Maybe a point there with Folley though, I could probably give that a rewatch.

I was simply mentioning Young in the spirit of adding a couple other names in there, but whatever

 

I stated many times in the past that I think the post-lay-off Ali was the better Ali. At least he was harder to beat. In my opinion.

My argument here is not so much about Louis-Ali but more about Ali before and after the layoff.

 

I wasn´t talking about general pressure but the pressure you are under when you face a fighter like Louis. There are few fighters who bring that pressure. Louis, Marciano, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson. You know, the kind of pressure where you know that the slightest mistake of yourself could be your end.

 

Liston would fit in that category. Two of the others were beaten by an Ali past his prime.

Yeah, Ali would handle it.

 

You've not made much of an argument, though.

If Ali had been found mentally wanting pre-exile, I can see why you would favour the older, more mature Ali. But he wasn't. He was tested several times and came through. Therefore your argument falls flat.

 

Then you forgot Holmes.

 

Na, I don´t think Liston fits here but then I don´t think as high of him as most seem to. That´s actually my point, Ali was mentally stronger by then.

I don´t think he would.

See, I disagree here. You don´t need to be "mentally wanting" for this. Yes, he was tested but never at the level he would be in. Yes, you can say the same about Louis but ... and now we start moving in circles. Guess we have to agree to disagree.