I think you need to watch the fight again.Charles had a better punch than Ali? On what do you base that? Him losing to Rex Layne and Harold Johnson? Charles has 52 kos in119 fights 29 of them over middleweights or lightheavies. ps I don't smoke.
If Ali showed to fight he beats him up. Too big, fast, too much reach. If comes in half assed a different story.
Unfortunately, the ONLY sensible post in the thread so far. I honestly don't think many of the posters thus far actually saw how ruthless, effective, and sometimes downright sadistic a pre 67 Ali could be if and when it suited him. This guy would get on his toes, taunting, teasing, and verbally abusing his opponent whilst defying them to hit him. All the while making them swing and miss, then suddenly change direction, and open up with a 5, 6, 8, punch combination ( none massive, but all scoring, and stinging ) then get back on his toes again and be gone. I think many of them have seen edited footage and have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. This is why I laugh like fvck when the morons claim that a silly little straight forward fighting dickbrain like Tyson would have troubled a prime Ali. He simply would NOT have understood when, and where the punches would have been coming from. Just a bigger, stronger, harder punching version of the clueless Old Tomato trained Patterson.
I posted Foley's record in the undefeated ~ 4 years before Ali. He was very good, not at all chinny. He declined 3 fights after Ali, but then was a legitimate top contender. From a great article considering Ali. vs. Louis, a very convincing article: [url]http://www.boxing247.com/weblog/news.php?p=5901&more=1[/url] Stylistically and size wise, the closest fighter to Louis that Ali fought was Zora Folley. Folley's height, weight, and reach are almost identical to Joe's and his stance and footwork was similar to that of Louis. Folley was also a boxer/puncher who looked to counter and exploit his opponents mistakes. In fairness Folley did not possess the power of Louis nor the handspeed when punching in combination. Folley did bring a respectable a 74-7-7 with 43 KO's record into the Ali fight and despite being past his prime at 34 years of age, he was undefeated in 4 years. In their 1967 fight Ali completely dominated Folley. With trainer Angelo Dundee predicting a 4th round KO, Ali chose not to throw a meaningful punch until the 4th and when he did he floored Folley with a single right hand. Ali did what he pleased and stopped Folley in the 7th. This was Ali at his peak. Never getting hit with a meaningful punch, Ali toyed with, connected at will and stopped an 85 fight 14 year veteran who had been undefeated in 4 years. Consider the words of Zora Folley: "Louis wouldn't have a chance; he was too slow... There's no way to train yourself for what he does. The moves, the speed, the punches and the way he changes style every time you think you got him figured. The right hands Ali hit me with just had no business landing but they did. They came from nowhere. Many times he was in the wrong position but he hit me anyway. I've never seen anyone who could do that. The knockdown punch was so fast that I never saw it. He has lots of snap, and when the punches land they dizzy your head; they fuzz up your mind. He's smart. The trickiest fighter I've seen. He's had twenty-nine fights and acts like he's had a hundred. He could write the book on boxing, and anyone that fights him should be made to read it." - Zora Folley Sports Illustrated April 10, 1967
I read the article and found it to be lacking and heavily tilted by a biased author in Ali's favor. For one the author lazily grabs Max Schmeling's record as an indicator that he and Ali possessed equal power simply because both fighters had 56 wins and Schmeling amassed 40kos to Ali's 37. If the writer truly wanted an in depth article he should of researched Herr Max's record far more closely. Within his 40ko's are the only stoppage loss of 200 plus fight hall of famer Young Stribling. The only Knock out loss of #1 contender Steve Hamas career, the only prime stoppage of 100 plus fight contender Johnny Risko and the only stoppage defeat in 16 years until his final fight of perhaps the greatest heavyweight in Joe Louis. In short there is a reason Schmeling places in the rings 100 greatest punchers and Ali does not. The author then stresses how Dundee proclaimed Before the fight that Ali would win in four as he predicted and toyed with his opponent until the 4th round. Not only does the fight show competitiveness the author omits Dundee's post fight comments and I quote "one heckuva a fighter" and how they were glad that they didn't have to fight the Ten year younger version of Folley. The author then uses Billy Conn's speed against Louis to explain why Ali would pose problems. The problem in that analogy is that Conn, who may have been the #2 p4p planet at the time of his first matchup with Louis, is much smaller than Ali and had the wieght of a super middleweight in that bout. Ali is nothing like Conn. In fact against Louis the roles would be reversed with Louis being the smaller man. And we know that against smaller men with good hand speed Ali had issues. Zora Folley may have had Louis body type and size but he didn't have his talent, speed or power. His style is also far less aggressive than Louis ever was. The author says they are both counter punchers! Louis could counter punch with his razor reflexes but when was he ever a fall back counter puncher. As for Folley being "chinny" maybe that was harsh but he was ko'd 3x already and was 34 years old. His 4 year win streak barely had a quality name on the ledger, foster who lost every time he stepped up to HW and the tough chuvalo who while game also lost most fights against top competition with the exception of the flukey win against Quarry where he was losing almost every round. In short Louis was no Folley and Ezzard Charles was no Folley. Charles would be competitive against Ali.
Charles is not close in handspeed to Ali,he gets comprehensively outboxed at long range and dropped in the second half of the fight.Ali takes a clear decision,and if he gets mean takes him out. Charles is not top 15 as a heavyweight.
EXCELLENT LC ! People falsely attribute Ray Robinson like status to whichever version of Clay / Ali version they wish. A great heavyweight YES, but at his peak fighting the zenith version of the Joe Louis of the Max Baer era fight, Clay /Ali, loses badly, I am convinced...This version of the Brown Bomber had almost surreal frightening hand speed combined with trip hammer punching power, never seen before or after in a heavyweight and would have surely caught up to Ali and hurt him badly or more....Of that I am convinced...:good
Surreal frightening hand speed! Really? Seems to me, like he had good hand speed... but I wouldnt say it was super-special! Not that he wasnt a great fighter... he certainly was! But is it a sure thing that he would eventually catch up to Ali? I dont think so.
I stand by my statement ! For a heavyweight who hits so terribly hard, Joe Louis had great leverage and hand speed when at his prime. WATCH the triple left hooks Louis unloaded on the concrete chin of Max Baer, and still tell me the young Brown Bomber did not have great hand speed for a heavyweight ? Sooner or later Louis caught up with his opponent and wrecked havoc on his foe. The greatest finisher of the heavyweights ,and in the words of a Boxing doctor of those days, " the human body was not made to withstand the blows of Joe Louis once he had you hurt". Amen...
Hmmm..I'm trying to think how Charles could beat a prime Ali but try as I might I just don't see how. Technically speaking you could make the argument that Ezzard was the better fighter, but when u factor in Ali's advantages in height, reach, hand and foot speed, reflexes and chin I don't see Ezzard winning this one. Liston had an 84" reach and could barely lay a glove on Ali. Terrell was tall and long and couldn't either. And while it's true that Ali had some trouble with short quick fighters (Jones,Banks et al) they didn't meet a prime Ali. Frazier had success against Ali due to his bobbing, weaving and relentless pressure punctuated by a vicious left hook, the one punch Ali was most susceptible to. Charles fought in the more classic mode and for a man his size that spells trouble against a big fleet footed, fast handed fighter who by the way could punch. Charles would have his moments of course but ultimately Ali ends matters later in the fight.
So, if they were the same size Ali still wins ? On a pound-for-pound basis, who would you rate as the better fighter ?
Tjamk you Long Count I had not considered those arguments. Though I think it did an excellent job at looking at both fighter's tendencies & successes overall. Shmilling may have had greater power than Ali, though Ali stopped guys rarely or not before, Ali surely fought better men overall, & also KOs are effected by many things, not just power. Uet if Schmeling hit w/more pure force, how does it change the case? Louis was overconfident & undertrained vs. Schmelling, & it still took many bombs to get him out of there... I do not find the info on Foley convincing though. While he was older than 34, & was not fighting greats, they were good fighters, as your own Dundee quotes show, he deserved a title shot. BUT can we really take the gracious words of the victor's camp afterward as their 100& true feeling? Especially when it has been said Ali & Foley were best friends & wanted Zora to have a payday? I think the truth is in between: he deserved a title shot, was nowhre near shot, but I dunno that his record reflects he was much better a decade ago. I dunno how competitive the fight was though, must watch it again. I do not recall Ali seriously challenged Conn was barely over a SMW, & it is a FAIR POINT re: the size disparity comparisons. Though regardless, why would blinding hand & foot speed not trouble Louis? It surely would. if I may call you Shirley. How much trouble did prime Ali really have against smaller men? And Lewis was not much smaller. By the way. I would pick '42 Louis for most prime, still having the physical gifts, tempered by significant challenges by many styles, slightly heavier... Louis being way greater than Foley making it a dubious comparison, I cannot argue with you there! Anyway all of this would not show whether Charles would be competitive. I think like with Floyd Patterson, who Ali said was the best boxer he ever faced, no version would have enough physical talents peak to peak. Very few indeed would likely beat a prime Ali. Without being great AND having specific traits, relentless pressure with a great left hand chief amongst them-& i think prime Ali has enough movement & speed to win at least 9 rounds vs. prime Frazier-I don't see how someone should be favored. I would give Tyson a better shot than Ali, though still pick Ali. The foot speed is a big deal. Anyway Cox did not have Ali winning by a wide margin. Would you pick Louis to win by that same margin?
