Your life depends on predicting Ali vs Louis accurately

Wow! One fight? I would have to go with the 1967 Muhammad Ali. Before the fight, I would use that enormous amount of money to hide! Is there any place to hide where the boxing gods can't find me? -Just in case.- And I agree that a large wager on Ali would also be in order.

 

I have to agree. In 1967 Muhammad Ali was close to unbeatable, speed, timing, stamina, reflexes, and footwork, none of this Rope A Dope business or being vulnerable like the 1970's Ali who got his jaw broken but a fighter who was virtually untouchable in the ring in 1967.

 

Are there any members here that qualify as potential beneficiaries Jan?

 

Not to be too presumptuous but I read the crux of the question as being: “What would be the best resources and methodologies to utilise in order to determine the most likely outcome for this fight.”

Many have gone the way of their calculated own picks, and that’s fine, - a match up likely thrashed out in their heads many times before with their selection already firmed up well before now - suffice to say, this is a choice fantasy fight chewed over a lot previously. That people have simply expressed their own opinions is an interesting and significant point in itself, IMO.

I don’t know if there are any resources, human knowledge and experience etc. that necessarily brings the selection of a winner any closer to fail safe.

Could all the technology and wisdom in the world have calculated the outcomes (and complexions) of fights like Liston v Clay, Foreman v Ali or Tyson v Douglas to name several examples?

Atop that, let’s say you have a most revered expert in mind (say Manny Steward for example) and he is emphatic that he knows the outcome - but that outcome goes against your own, already well considered choice.

Would you necessarily change your own selection in deference to Manny? It’s a nice, simple thought experiment. Say, for those choosing Ali - your chosen expert of choice tells you a FLAT no, go with Joe Louis. Would you?

Personally, I tend to think no matter the advice or statistical number crunching etc., most will stay with their own pick if they were reasonably confident with it in the first place.

I joked that I felt safe picking Louis - safe only because of the fact that there will never be a real outcome to this fight - UNLESS CT later hypothesises the outcome also - and then we will be subject to our live or die gamble - not sure how that will come into effect - a lightning strike, heart attack, instant evaporation - who knows?

Let’s just hope that, if it comes down to it, it will be mercifully quick.

For all that we know (and relatively, it isn’t a lot) I would say Ali deserves to be selected as the “most likely” winner - but I’m certainly not so confident of that selection as to not sweat buckets during the course of the fight.

And I don’t say that just allowing for the extraordinary and unexpected (fan man?) I just see Joe as only a marginal and very live underdog.

Failing all predictive resources, I’m going all in with the available money and enlisting the services of Doc Brown and his DeLorean.

 

I think the safe bet would be Ali by decision he's too fleet footed for the static Louis, and i've always thought Ali is one of the worst stylistic match ups for Louis.

 

The only thing I'd be confident predicting is that Ali hears the final bell. If that's not good enough, they can go ahead and kill me because there are so many variables and it's very hard to guess a solid outcome.

 

For all their combined high-end intelligence, technologies, analytical abilities, projections and solutions, I don't know if even NASA and the crew of the Apollo 13 would too thrilled having to take this one on -encountering a greater degree of uncertainty in their forecasts. "Houston...we have a bigger problem.... predicting the outcome of two, highly variable humans in combat." 

 

I did consider the 'consulting' angle but then, such was the finality of the wrong outcome, I quickly realized that I wouldn't be able to sue those know-nothing nitwits for under-performance.

 

I'd rather not, but I think I'd bet on Ali.

 

If it was the resurrected 1974 version of Muhammad Ali in Zaire, I would have to go with Joe Louis, that version of Ali often tired and laid on the ropes like he did against Smoking Joe Frazier on March 8 1971. Louis would have not fallen for the Rope A Dope, he would have brutally punished Ali's arms much like Japanese wrestler Antonio Inoki brutalized Ali's legs in their exhibition match on June 25 1976, causing Ali some Blood Clots. But if it was the Ali of 1967, Ali would have scored a unanimous 15 round decision, Ali was never floored in his first reign from 1964-1967, Ali had all of his physical gifts, stamina, speed. reflexes, timing, and footwork. Ali would not make the same mistake that Billy Conn made in 1941 with the great Joe Louis.

 

I don't think CT mentioned a bout between Ali and Lewis.

 

I was on my phone and the stupid thing autocorrected it to 'Lewis'.

 

In a series of fights, say best of seven, I am going with Joe Louis. I would not be surprised if Muhammad Ali won the first one, and a couple more in the series.

 

My apologies, W W.


THAT REALLY PISSES ME OFF !

It's time to put an end to this nonsense...

The spell-corrector on here is a menace. The number of times my posts have been altered by that she-devil of a thing.

We need a petition to switch off this nanny device.