What will it take to dislodge Ali & Louis from 1&2?

Yes and no.

If you measure champions in terms of paper resume i.e. number of title defences, number of currently ranked contenders beaten, number of lineal champions beaten, there is a significant gulf between these two men and anybody else!

 

Ant yet someone will say well louis was better because it was the U.S vs Germany in his era and he was Americas champ.etc....there is no end to the debate! while some will look at actual who fought more quality fighters and how Ali promoted the sport...etc

 

I understand that there are a number of ways of looking it.

Where these two have it locked down, is in terms of the raw statistics, and known facts about their resumes.

In order to not give it to them, you have to make an assumption about somebody else beating them, or make an assumption about somebody else’s opponents being better, or perhaps factor in something that happened outside the ring.

That is what gives them such a strong claim!

 

PRIME you mean. PRIME wlad went out to nobodies on too many occasions, joshua has never. its not the same. until we have proof joshua can get wiped out to nobodies like wlad and price do, then we cant say he will be.

no 40 year wald would lose to some of them simply becauser they can act faster and more often.

 

Try it sometime. We all you know you think Louis legtiamelty defeated Walcott in the first match when 2/3 of sports reporters at ringside and the surving film says otherwise.

 

Here is something else for the slow witted people who still think Joe Louis was great because they heard somebody on TV say so. Do you believe Mike Tyson, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, either Klistchko brother etc would of lost to anybody Joe Louis fought? Get the hell out of here. Tons of guys would of went undefeated if the fought the same opponents.

Joe Louis was considered great in his joke ass era but he isn't a all time great.

 

If they fought them over a fifteen year period?

Yes, absolutely!

 

Questions.

1) who do you think won the fight?

2 ) who won on the 10 point must system?

3 ) didn't 2/3 or very close to that amount at ringside scoring it say that Walcott won?

We all hear a tremendous BOO from the audience and Joe's body language clearly suggests something.

 

Ring magazine rated decades of heavyweight boxing. The 1930's were the worst and the 1940's were diminished by world war 2.

If you have heavyweight like Galento being ranked number 1 for a whole and Lee Oma being ranked number 2 for a while I think that's all you need to know. Neither of these two sniff the top ten today and the division right now is in transition with many unproven qualities.

Louis was a puncher using light gloves vs a timeline that lacked depth and top level talent. Yet he struggled vs the better boxers and lost to the best 3-4 fighters he meet in the ring.

Louis being ranked 1 or 2 did not happen in s macro sense while he was active. They felt 4-5 others were better.

Were they wrong?

 

its not about belief, its about fact -

1. tyson wasnt kitted out for longevity. he went out to douglas, someone he should have handled. hes not going to get anywhere close to 15 years.
2. foreman, though his record stretches for years full of kos, has never went such a massive stretch unbeaten or retiring, albeit his first defeat was to the superlative ali.
3. bowe didnt have the longevity for sure
4. klitschkos regularly went out to nobodies.

not even sure why you are asking "do you believe...". Shouldnt you be answering why you dont believe?