Why is Muhammad Ali HW ATG #1 and not Joe Louis?

Not in that case with Frazier. He had the style, pressure, iron chin and quickness to take Ali to the wire everytime.

 

Ali at 31 and 34 had less ring miles on his odometer than Joe Louis at similar age. He had 3 and a half years of no punishment. So that works both ways. It took him some fights to get the feel of the ring back but once he got it he was fresher than Louis.

 

Jimmy Ellis, Jerry Quarry, George Chuvalo just a year after Ali fought him for the title, Oscar Bonevena twice, Joe Bugner. They were all good heavyweights. Frazier was a great one at that time. If the Ali fight wasn't there he would of probably faced Norton or Shavers. His bank account would have been far less.

 

He gives him hell every time,but,imo never beats a prime Ali.Iron chin? I don't think so!

 

Resume

 

I have Ali at the top-spot, but wouldn't challenge anyone who had Louis there.

There's not a lot in it. But Ali, for me, has the better competition, with the more definitive victories.

 

Frazier devalued his legacy defending against two unrated plugs.imo

 

Hi Buddy.
Like you and your post, just a tat perplexed with your assertion that Louis has Ali beat against top fighters, let's look at Joe's first:
Braddock/Farr/Schmeling/Baer/Carnera/Walcott/Conn/Bivins/Galento, and a few others of less note.
Now let's look at the opponents of Ali:
Lyle/Foreman/Norton/Foster/Ellis/Quarry/Folley/Terrell/Williams/Chuvalo/Patterson/Liston/Moore/Bonavena/Frazier/Shavers.
I mean, not seeing what your seeing, or have I not fully understood your point, apologies in advance if I have.
stay safe amigo.

 

You could make a very credible argument for either man.

 

They both meant so much to different people, albeit for different reasons.

 

Modern bias.
Dempsey and Jeffries have also suffered from it.

 

Seems like the number of people who pick Louis is in bad decline.

To be fair, Ali beat the most number of great fighters, but 25 defenses is absurd too. And nor does it matter that Ali lost the three years, because Louis had the army years.

Both first tier greats irrespective of weight classes.

 

Just curious, criteria varies from one person to another.

We can say on one hand Ali had the greater comp. - a reply that can be posed is that Louis couldn’t help the level of comp. he had - he could only be expected to prevail over same - which mainly he did.

Now, can Joe gain any points (and the concept works in reverse for Ali) for at least seeing off certain comp. (the Baers, Carneras, Schmelings, Simons etc. more comprehensively than we might suspect Ali would’ve?

In terms of brevity, Joe has the advantage of being a puncher - but he was what he was so it’s not necessarily invalid to give Joe extra credit for perhaps seeing off certain opposition more quickly than we conclude Ali might’ve done.

It’s interesting to muse also on the concept that if Ali’s comp. was better (and I believe his comp. was) that provided as more fertile ground for Ali to develop and improve as a fighter - and in all potential we might’ve seen Louis improve even more given the same comp.

That’s one of the reasons it’s difficult to compare ATGs from different eras - against and among the field presented to him - Louis stood out head and shoulders above - and that’s literally all that could be expected of him.

I could actually imagine an even greater Louis (or at least manifestly greater, pushing more into his potentials) if he competed amongst the field that Ali did.

 

In consistency, going unbeaten between Schmeling and Charles and only one controversial decision. Ali had two losses before Spinks (and when he lost against him he was the same age as Louis when he lost to Charles) and two controversial decisions and another couple really close ones.

But there isn't much in it, really.

 

Agreed matey.
all good, chat soon buddy.