Well, if the poll of ESB members is the be all and end all, then why you even debating ? Who was ranked number 1 ? I'm no even concerned with de-valuing anyone's standing. It's just that both of them cannot be number 1, so we make a choice based on reasons. Okay, if well past prime performances mean nothing - even when the fighter is defending champion - then we can ignore them. Not at all, I just happened to mention that Ali had losses to Norton and Spinks. I'm sure you've mentioned Louis's loss to Schmeling several times. My only "agenda" is that I dont have to agree with every opinion you hold on the comparison of accomplishments of Ali and Louis. You seem to find that hard to accept. Personally, I respect your opinion, I just dont share it. I factor in longevity. Both Ali and Louis had great longevity. I dont think he was a level above at all. Ok, you said you dont think Ali loses to Louis comp until Marciano. I responded in kind. Now you say "We can go only go by what actually happened" - YES, exactly. That's the way I look at things anyway. And I conclude that Louis has the better record. He defended the title 25 consecutive times (22 KOs), was champion for 11 years. Before his 1950 comeback, he was officially 58-1 with the defeat being emphatically avenged by brutal 1st round KO. He was simply the best.
I dont see it. Carnera actually looks better at jabbing and moving in those films. Neither of them are pareticularly smooth operators. Both of them are good though. Norton had a real herky-jerky style. What specifically do you see in "skillset" or "technique" or "athleticism" that makes Norton better ? I'll concede defence, because I like Norton's cross-arm thing, and Carnera left himself open to a right over the top too often. But Carnera jabbed and moved laterally better. Both are important. As is decisiveness of the win. Some people do claim Marciano was the greatest. Louis beat far more contenders than Marciano did, over a far greater number of years too. I dont think Patterson and Norton were better at all. Foreman and Frazier, yes, you have a case. But Baer, Walcott and Schmeling aren't that far behind. And Louis destroyed Baer and Schmeling (in the rematch), and loads of other good fighters. BTW, who do you rate as number 2 behind Muhammad Ali ?
Yes,Joe's record of 25 consecutive title defences is a phenomenon,as was Louis himself. It must be remembered though,that Ali's career was interupted for 3 1/2 years. Louis may have been drafted during World war 2 but he was allowed to defend his title throughout. Apart from J.J. Walcott,there was n't one of Joe's title challengers who were in Joe Frazier's class,or Ken Norton's,for that matter. I emphasise that I'm not knocking Louis,just saying that I believe that Muhammad was just a tiny notch above him.
Louis was NOT allowed to defend his title throughout his time in military service, and was out of action for over 4 years. I dont rate Ken Norton as high as you do. The only reason Norton is being assumed to be "superior" class of fighter as some of the men Louis beat, is because Ali LOST to Norton.
When Ali lost to Norton in 1973,he was past his prime,but not too much so. Joe Louis fought Buddy Baer,Abe Simon and Johnny Davis between 1942 - 44. The first two were billed as being title defences.
Johnny Davis wasn't a serious fight. I'm not sure why boxrec insist on including it as part of his record. Joe Louis was stopped from fighting after the Abe Simon fight, and his purse from that fight was donated to the war effort. He didn't fight a serious fight, nevermind a defense, for over 4 years. He was on army duty.
Put your "best" Ali with Foreman in a legitimate ring and Foreman gets him . Ali may have been the most competitive against him out of their era , but would have lost.
Like I replied to this stupid argument somewhere else : Ali's jab might have been the fastest among HWs ever , but it still would not have reached a much effectively rangier fighter with in tact reflexes and speed without Ali himself getting hit prior and after trying to land. He may be faster than the Klitschkos , but would lose just as well as others did , he was not even a big enough puncher to crack Wlad's chin. The one thing common to the 3 men who beat Wlad is : bigger aggression than Ali's. If someone could upset the Klitschkos (especially Vitali) it would have to be someone like a prime (70s) Foreman or a 90s Oliver McCall. And then Lewis and then Bowe.
Ali just may have found prime Young , Holmes , Wladimir , Vitali , Byrd , Tyson , Frazier , Chuvalo :yep, Doug Jones :hey , Foreman (with in tact ring) , Lewis , Holyfield , Toney , Norris and probably even The Boogieman :yep himself as boogiemen , and then plenty more . Don't forget , the Boogieman was plenty o'men's boogieman . And stating that Ali simply had a broken hand in the fight he lost against Norton is much more convincing. Ali was not as great as people try to convince others he was. But he still is a top 5 in my HW list , but a lock below Foreman whom he never beat under legitimate circumstances neither did he rematch him. Ali could fight Norton and Frazier 3 times each , Chuvalo , Quarry , Liston , Patterson 2 times each , yet no time fo ole George ? Ali had 3 years to do so before Foreman's loss to Young . How do you apologetic bigots explain this ?
You know **** about P4P. Ali enjoyed a size advantage over his average opponent , and failed to impress against much smaller men such as : Chuvalo , Frazier , Doug Jones , some may say Henry Cooper (?) , but I still do not know about him. And then some more. Shavers may have always given him problems too .