I'll just throw in a quick comment for now. As I'm sure you know, sometimes the hardest punches aren't the ones that put fighters on the canvas. Ali soaked up bombs from more punchers than you could shake a stick at, including a not-40, not-fat version of the guy Morrison ran from. Nevertheless, it was spindly little Henry Cooper who probably hurt Ali the most. There's no way on this green Earth that 190 pound Cooper hit harder than Shavers, Liston, Mac Foster, Foreman, et al. But Cooper was a veteran in a rougher game than a young Ali was accustomed to; Britain apparently permitted more mauling at that time than Ali had experienced. Cooper was a craftsman despite looking like a beanpole. He knew his work, and got the little things right. If you were even somewhat serious when you mentioned in passing that Morrison would be an usher in Louis's era, then is it really a surprise that Conn and Walcott hurt/troubled or put Louis down? Or that Tommy, despite his undeniable (to reasonable people) PED advantage, might not possess the subtle workmanship to repeat their trick? EDIT: @Glass City Cobra already made this point as I was typing. Probably better.
Weight. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Height. Or. Reach. Ruddock was ONE inch taller than Louis. Mercer was either the same height or shorter and he beat the dog **** out of Morrison. How did Frazier land on Bugner who was 4 inches taller than him? How did Tyson land on Bruno who was 5 inches taller? Louis and Morrison are basically the same ****ing height and you're acting like Morrison only ever got tagged by guys who towered over him. I'm a complete nobody and even I can consistently land on much taller opponents. No offense, but this is a very goofy argument you're making right now. I don't see why Conn couldn't pull something off if spinks, Byrd, and Jones could depending on the timing and era. Also has nothing to do with the thread, 4th or 5th time reminding you. You are spending more time attempting to tear down Louis opponents than discussing the actual matchup and clash of styles. It's not a debate you will win since Morrison had a fairly weak resume. Louis did not struggle to put away Abe Simon. You didn't even watch the Galento fight and it's pretty obvious you're just looking at names you think are unimpressive and focusing almost entirely on size and power. Louis>>>>>>>>>10-1 nobody Michael Bennt who got stopped by Herbie Hide (whose the same size as Louis) and accomplished nothing. Louis>>>>>>>>>washed up wheezing glass jawed 1 armed bandit Ruddock who got brutally knocked out or knocked down in multiple previous fights. Louis>>>>>>>fat 40 year old man Foreman who went life and death with Moorer, a guy who moved up from light heavyweight just like Conn. Louis>>>>>>>slow easy to hit Mercer who who got taken to school by a fat 40 year old Larry Holmes
Ali was a very different fighter in the 70's. Hell, by the time he first hung up his gloves, he was a significantly better fighter than he had been just 3 years before. Conn was KO'd in his debut. Arugello was KO'd in his first title attempt. Choynski Ko'd Jack Johnson. Flynn's KO of Dempsey MIGHT have been legit. Louis was floored by men far inferior to Morrison. Morrison ate punches harder than any one punch Louis threw.
Too bad for you, then, they call them WEIGHT divisions... not Tape Measure divisions. I get it, you like Louis. Clearly I cannot change your opinion on the matter - not that it was ever really my goal. But you are very committed to defending him, so I will let you have at that.
Depends which points in Ali's timeline you're using, and for what purpose. Ali was green when Cooper got him, which was kind of the point. The experience difference allowed Cooper to exploit a weakness that closed by the time Ali faced him the second time. That experience gap was enough for the physically inferior Cooper to put Ali down more resoundingly than anyone else had. Or would. As to whether Ali got better by '67 than he was against Cooper the first time, yeah, sure. But the Ali who fought Liston the first time wasn't that far off from Cooper I Ali. And the Ali who fought the 70s punchers may have been more skilled and a bit more mature, but he was also getting older. And this in an era where fighters aged rapidly compared to the PED fuelled 90s. Ali from Cooper I may have been a better fighter head to head than the Ali who beat Foreman. He was certainly better than the one who got clubbed without dropping by Shavers. Whether he was more durable than these two later Alis...eh. Dunno. Punch resistance declines with age and punishment, but also gets a bit better when you reach full adulthood. 70s Ali may have been a bit more robust, but I wouldn't put that much weight on it. No pun intended. Also, if we are counting Louis's loss to Schmeling against Louis, then we should count Ali's KD to Cooper by the same logic. Right. All of this strengthens my point that context is important. The hardest punchers you face aren't always the ones who floor you. Sometimes the skill gap or a style problem is more important.
I have no problem with a dream match if its likely to happen with said person why would anybody who is sane looks at the people in Louis era or before and see how they fought and thinks they can hit often let alone beat somebody from 70s-90s its ridiculous to say it I have said mutiple times for these people to show me Louis moving as much as tom razor bowe they wont they need to show that for their reason for picking him to win matches without that proof their pick for him in any dream match is crazy and odd
see how that troll glass wont show you what you asked for its cause he knows George didn't struggle with middleweights like joe did
No he wasn't. He won his debut. He quit a fight early in his career for no apparent reason, which he later said was because he felt sick. He was also 17. He was only ever KOed by Louis. This content is protected
Yes they're called weight divisions. And Louis landed on men who were both taller and much heavier than himself. People who were the same size as Louis landed on Morrison. By all means, shift the goal post by saying the men Louis landed on were less skilled than Morrison and the men who landed on Morrison were more skilled than Louis. You could change my mind if your argument had something to do with the actual matchup as opposed to simply looking at the weight of two fights and their birthdates to determine a winner, skills be damned. To be completely honest, and I say this as politely as possible, only a casual would claim Louis didn't have the "size" to land on Morrison when they are basically the same height with the same reach. It tells me you fundamentally do not know much about boxing, that and you cannot analyze fights even on a basic level, and that you certainly couldn't have ever boxed before based on your replies. You can think Morrison wins, I don't even have a problem with this per se, but your argument and reasoning as to why is horrendous.