They're the same man, though. You're acting like it's two different guys. Saying he wasn't dominant in his second reign doesn't mean we need to have amnesia about what happened in his first one. These kinds of flash knockdowns are almost meaningless in assessing dominance. Louis's or Ali's.
Except the way you're arguing for Ali's dominance in his second reign is by pointing to his durability. You're counting up knockdowns to measure the greatness of a guy whose modus operandi was increasingly to literally train himself to get hit. By the end of this period, Ali was leaning on the ropes, setting himself to absorb punches, and daring all and sundry to hit him. And you're comparing this to a stalking puncher who suffered occasional flash knockdowns in the process of beating his opponents into unconsciousness. The question was which fighter was greater and more dominant. Not which fighter wins the Joe Grim Durability Prize. Like I said right at the beginning: head to head comparisons in fantasy fights are irrelevant to my comparison. Tyson Fury would humiliate Jack Johnson's best opponents -- and Johnson himself -- in anything approaching a modern boxing match. Nobody ranks Fury over Johnson.
Hadn't he hit his stride when he faced Schmeling the first time you mean? He was certainly still improving, but the guy who made easy work of Carnera and Baer had hit his stride I'd say. Even though there was bump in the road in Schmeling. Also Farr, Godoy and Conn wasn't obliterated. Neither was Pastor. Not that Ali breezed past everyone in the 60's either, but thought it was worth pointing out. And besides Frazier and Norton, Ali was winning most of his fight with relative ease in the 70's until he became very shopworn after Manilla. Foreman wasn't easy, but a clear win nonetheless. After Manilla, every good opponent was a struggle, but I think a mid 30's fighter having fought that kind of opposition for more than a decade can be excused for that. In the early 70's he easily beat top contenders like Ellis and Quarry x 2. Bonavena and Foreman were perhaps his toughest fights of that period bar Frazier and Norton, and he knocked out both while ahead on points. So "pulled out wins" mostly fits post Manilla when he was way past his prime. Also you make more out of Patterson getting injured after being outclassed for five rounds than I do. If the back injury had happened in the first, like Cerdan's injury against Lamotta, I'd also feel that it would make the fight inconclusive. But there was noting in the 5 rds up to the injury that suggested that Patterson would ever get into the fight. Cerdan, on the other hand, was still competitive fighting one-armed until he eventually gave up.
Let’s not forget Joe Louis still holds the record of 25 consecutive title defenses. That’s the record for all weight divisions. Still stands. And he lost 4 years to the war. During which time he fought like 90 exhibition bouts. He clearly was not the same guy post war.
I think that we put Louis to way too high standard. He didn't stop all of his opponents, but it doesn't mean that he didn't dominate them. Conn and Godoy I were certainly tough fights for him, but he beat Farr and Pastor with ease - he just didn't stop them. Ali also had a lot of wins without stoppage when he won the fight clearly.
The term was "obliterated", and I don't think that fits any of those fight. And the reports from the Farr fight didn't having beat Farr with ease. https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=t5sFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5034,6462978&hl=en https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=jmoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3685,4466808&hl=en Louis was a beast in rematches, though.
Ali and Louis are clearly the two best ever at heavyweight. But I see Ali as better because he beat better competition and feel that he was better head to head. Frazier, Foreman, and Liston were superior to anyone that Joe Louis defeated. Joe also suffered the KO loss to Schmeling. And while Billy Conn was a great fighter, he was a light heavyweight who lacked a punch in that weight class, yet badly wobbled Louis during their first fight. When compared to Ali, I’m afraid that Joe will have to settle for second best.
Only time for a few short points at the moment: * The guys you listed were among the few who even put up a tough fight. And Conn still got stopped. When taken as a whole, Louis's title run against the best fighters available is an extremely high level of dominance. * It's true we differ on Patterson. That said, even from your perspective, let me suggest that Ali would have slowed a bit in later rounds, giving a healthy Patterson more chances. * The thing with Louis is that he never allowed a Frazier or Norton to emerge. Louis beat everyone who could have become heavyweight champion during his reign. And he beat all the prior claimants, too. There's a reason why people cite the likes of Carnera and Baer as Louis's best opponents: They'd been given the opportunity to prove their abilities in a Louis-less division. It was inevitable that at least one of the guys on Louis's list of victims would have been champion if not for Louis. * Farr may have been close, but it was still a UD win for Louis. If two of Louis's worst title reign performances are a knockout victory (Conn) and a UD victory (Farr), that says something. * It's often agreed that Louis was still an unfinished product for Schmeling I. If you take the position that it would've gone down similarly against the Louis of, say, 1939, then that would change things and be an interesting discussion if you made the argument stick.
As I said, Louis was still improving, but I think he had "hit his stride" in essence. Like Ali against Liston, about. And Louis in 1939 would do better, partly because he knew better how to fight Schmeling after the experience of the first fight. Louis was dominant in his prime, more dominant than 70's Ali, but that he obliterated all his opponents while 70's Ali pulled his wins out is not a fair reflection. He obliterated most of his opponents and Ali had to pull some wins put, against the very best comp, until he got really past his prime. And this is comparing a prime Louis with a past prime Ali. That Ali would slow against a Patterson that he was tattooing with punches even befre the injury... Nothing is impossible, but considering Ali's engine at the time (the 15 he did against Chuvalo was after a 17 day camp, and even then he didn't show much slowing) and that Patterson would get more and more worn down by taking that punishment, I think it highly unlikely that he would do so to a degree that would in any shape or form lead to a different result. Maybe he'd pull his punches less than he seemed to do in and the end would have come at about the same time anyhow.
Liston 1 or Cooper. Yeah, I could buy that. Yeah. It wouldn't be a perfect experiment. I was speaking collectively. I agree that he didn't obliterate each individual opponent to the same extent, and that one or two (like Farr) survived. Nevertheless, almost every ranked contender Louis faced eventually ended up in the same place: concussed and staring up at Louis. Which I said at the outset. In theory, Ali could have pulled off something similar to Louis. But it didnt happen. History intervened. So we have a prime Ali dominating a 60s division (but benefiting from excellent timing), and a post-prime Ali reigning far less dominantly over the 70s division. Remember that the best 70s Ali didn't even hold the title. By the time Ali got it, he already was sliding into becoming the guy you agree was pulling wins out more often. He literally wasn't champion at the time when a lot of those victories over contenders happened. Ali didn't evade Chuvalo for 15 rounds, though. It wasn't like the first half of the fight in Liston 1 where Ali was gliding untouchably the whole time. (Aside from the Liston ninja blinding powder issue.)
I think "excellent timing" is overdoing it a bit here. Some were getting on a bit in years (as was for example Schmeling in the rematch), but only Williams was far removed from his best imo.
Patterson fight happened when he had a bad back. Liston I fight, according to discussions on this forum when this came up before, happened when Liston was already having a shoulder issue beforehand. Williams had been literally shot. Liston II wasn't bad timing, but the guy just gave up, which again most people think he wouldn't do in his prime. And Terrell -- the most controversial of this group, I admit, since people dispute whether it happened -- got an eye injury that none of Ali's other opponents suffered, and which boxers in general rarely have. If it was from a punch, it was a pretty lucky one.
Some interesting reading. I'm glad the forum sees it so clearly for Ali. A note on Louis-Schmeling I. This was Joe's Road to Damascus. It is a fact that Jack Blackburn, in public, stated that Louis wasn't training properly. It is furthermore the case that he told the press that he thought Louis could do with being knocked out to set him straight and stop him "believing all you say" [the press]. Schmeling cured him of his arrogance and Blackburn's future sight convinced him for all time that it paid to listen. He was always going to be a bit better after that. Blackburn is underrated.
