The trainer Charley Goldman referred to Joe Louis's boxing IQ as being often overlooked. For example an opponent could make a certain move against Louis in the 3rd round and it would be effective. You could fool him...once. if the guy tried that same move in the 8th Louis would stretch him and put his robe on.
Ali has the style to really frustrate Louis. His footwork, height and range would be an obstacle for Joe. With that said Ali couldnt afford too many mistakes. In his prime Joe Louis had a laser of a right hand and it was kinda quick. Ali hands low? It would be interesting. Even Ali's chin had its limits. Joe was perhaps the best finisher of them all.
I think Joe would have had massive problems with the weight and viciousness of Larry's jab (and might have suffered a sneaky kd ala Walcott), but ultimately Larry would have to deal with a puncher who was best ever at combinations. So, if Joe hits Larry with the right things wouldn't just stop there while Holmes staggers or goes to the canvas. Joe would left-right-left him to distraction. I might be the biggest Holmes enthusiast here, but even I can't see Larry making it 10 against Joe. Joe would have been the only ATG who could have stopped Larry in his prime (1978-1981). Even FOTC Frazier would have had to settle for a UD.
Joe was very good but I think he a problem with hard hitters particulary right hands Foreman, Tyson, Frazier would have also been a problem. However if he made it past the onslaught he would have stood a good chance. I made a video as there are not that many on Joes style /vLo6GTIs924
Yes he was boxing perfection those bitching about footwork only judge boxers who look like sugar ray leonard ,they do not understand there are more than 1 style of fighter .Packey Mcfarland was not as fleet footed as freddie welsh and had no trouble beating welsh and would be regarded as the better fighter!
Really? Billy Conn or Jersey Joe Walcott don't make you 2nd guess that? I'm a Joe Louis fan but I could think of plenty of guys that could beat him based on those two performances.
I think Louis was a bit like Holmes in one way: he always seemed to end up figuring out the other guy and then capitalizing on that knowledge. Both Louis and Holmes had odd days where people were wondering what the heck was wrong with them, struggling against opponents they were expected to blow out. But inevitably they'd pick up on and time the other guy until the latter would be stumbling and failing. The thing with Louis: the downfall of his opponents would usually be decisive, awe-inspring. Larry wasn't the puncher Joe was, but he could be just as smart...and that kind of ring intelligence is priceless.
I don't agree. Louis had decent ring IQ but was only really better able to adjust in rematches. He was rather robotic when presented with a problem and wasn't the best at making mid-fight adjustments as seen in his initial bouts with Schmeling, Conn, and (perhaps to a lesser extent Godoy). An example of a fighter excellent at making mid-fight adjustments and thinking on his feet would be Liston as seen in his bouts against Williams and Machen.
Liston seemed to be especially great at not being in too big a rush; if something looked like it might go the distance, he'd switch gears in a very seamless, effortless way. He almost never seemed obsessed with the knockout, as so many other great punchers were (at times to their profound detriment).
A couple things..he won those fights by knockout but more importantly in regards to Walcott Joe was near the end of his career. Joe defended his title so often anyone can have an off night. That is IMO what happened with Conn.
I agree. My point is, if Billy Conn who was a great fighter at 175 could have that much success on the outside against him I would think outside guys like Ali, Holmes etc would as well. As much as I like Louis, he was far from perfect. It's been pretty well documented that Louis struggled with movers. Fortunately for him, he was able to catch Conn late.