How do some people rank Louis over Ali?

I don't want to detract from the original premise.

If you ask the average fan about Mayweather's most significant victories, they will talk the legacy fights, the ones that solidify his legend - typically Money Mayweather. They won't really talk about Corrales, Manfredy, Gatti etc. I would - most fans won't - it doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme as it's the legacy wins that define you, whether the fan is a casual or so called expert.

Many experts might point to Terrell, Williams and Folley as Ali's best, but he also has a Foreman, he does have an excellent effort versus Frazier first time around (outside of Ali's prime) and then winning the series all past his prime, he does have a legacy win against Liston, he does have Patterson, Norton, Quarry, Shavers and beating most of the other top contenders of his two decades.

Respectfully, I disagree with your steer on Foreman not being prime. Simply put, to dominate like Louis and Ali did, other fighters don't really get a chance to build up their legacy and become genuine ATGs. Foreman crushed Frazier and Norton who both gave Ali plenty of trouble - this game plan or lack of strategy perspective that I've seen over the last 15 years on ESB is wonderful hindsight. He may not have been peak, but he was most certainly primed and ready to destroy. The game plan/strategy doesn't detract from the fighter's ability on the night - that Foreman absolutely destroys a large number of top HWs and a fair few ATGs.

As mentioned earlier, the difference between the two is very small and likely not wide enough to be objectively definitive about who is clearly better. I like Ali's résumé, skills on film, his intangibles shown in the ring and the ability to beat the odds when it mattered more often than not.

How many of Louis' opponents were prime HW ATGs when he fought them?

The irony of ATG boxers is that they are often young lion and take the crown from old lion, holding onto the crown, beating challengers to the throne until they become the old lion.

 

Looking at the size of the names is part of the picture. Looking at longevity (especially at the top, where it’s hardest to maintain) & establishing how good - or not - the non-ATG opposition is, is another. All must be weighted. If people lopsidedly give more credence to, “legacy fights,” that doesn’t give the idea credulity in itself, IMO. You’re asking how some people rank Louis over Ali - it’s because some people aren’t as swayed by legacy fights as others.

 

People rank Louis over Ali because of: Length of reign, title defense record, historical impact of his rematch with Schmeling, great signature KOs, the whole nation was gathered around their radios to listen to his fights and he was a nationalistic figure during a pivotal time in history. I also think the fact that he was a two fisted KO artist helps, and he has more signature KOs than Ali does. But I disagree and rank Ali higher due to his better signature wins, tougher competition, and the more modern circumstances in which he boxed--against bigger, more technical fighters in my opinion. Ali's cultural impact also greatly overshadows that of Louis and he ascended to icon status in matters of race relations, Vietnam war history, as well as politics and media in general in addition to his sporting greatness. Generational differences, contrarianism as well.

 

Excellent post. All of it, not just the part I've quoted above.

Can I please have your permission to plagiarize this quote for use in the who ranks higher out of Foreman and Holmes thread?

 

I absolutely knew this was going to come up, even as I was writing it, LOL - oh where’s this logic, Ney, in the recent Holmes-Foreman debacle?

 

I'm only teasing mate, just because you rate Louis's consistent dominance (in terms of win/losses during prime years and number of title defenses), doesn't automatically mean you rates Holmes's.

 

I completely disagree with this, but I see that I can't convince you, so I just have to accept your opinion and you accept mine.
In my opinion, Ali's victories - although great - are historically overrated. The fight with Foreman is a symbol, but George was not ATG that evening, I don't know how much he lost to Kinshasa and how much to Ali himself, but for me it was not as great a victory as Louisa's over Schmellingiel or Baer, although I agree that historically George was better than them greater. In three fights, Ali was generally weaker than Norton, although his resume shows otherwise. The best fight with Frazier was lost, the fight with Liston also looks better on the CV than it looked in the ring. Louis simply dominated more and longer, his era was not strong, but also because he made it look that way. I can't add anything more. Regards

 

Can you imagine if Ali didn’t have the three year ban and dominated during that time he could have racked up a similar number of defences and probably beaten Frazier in their first fight

Would he then be the clear GOAT

 

Liston, Frazier and Foreman were more than names. Two of these guys were estimated to be at the height of their powers, mankillers, who had themselves defeated an impressive array of top heavies. The third had just taken his first loss but still had a wake of devastation behind him and was THE MAN to beat.. All this in two overlapping eras of better athletes, better training, than in Louis' era. And take me to task on that one if you please. But would Galento be fit to qualify as one of Foreman's Toronto 5? He was a poor man's Butterbean in an era when that was enough to be successful. But he was one of Louis' more memorable and important bouts.

 

I rate him, he’s in my top 10, & I agree with most that he’d fare better against the greats than his CV suggests (though some obviously have more faith than I in such matches).

 

I think that Galento was not weaker than Chuck Wepner, I think that in the historical sense, defeating the 35-year-old Holmes, who is still an active champion, looks much better than defeating the 38-year-old Holmes, who is coming back after a 2-year break, but I still think that Tyson was equally successful against Holmes. like Spinks and I won't put Michael any higher. He won against the better Holmes, but not as dominantly.
Frazier, Liston, Foreman and Norton are better than Baer, Schmelling, Sharkey, Nova but they were not as dominated.

 

Wepner does not take the same place in Ali's ranking as Galento does in Louis'.

I would contend they are far better, especially those versions that Louis faced.

 

There is something to be said about arete though. This is Apollo's ritual, some ideas in boxing survived all of it. To this day. For every jab there's a million different kind of lead punches similar to but not actually a jab we call a jab because it's the closest described action we have to label the punch we witness.

So much so that even attempts at differentiation such as the jolt get lost in time and rebranded with commentary adjectives such as "thumping jab", "stabbing jab" etc.

Joe Louis. Including the smaller weight divisions. Joe Louis is the man who actually does what men have attempted to perform to perfection for three thousand years. Joe Louis and Joe Louis alone can show you perfect efficiency of movement. Perfect form.

Not form, such as Ali, and Marciano, and even Mayweather and Dempsey and what is written of Greb, Robinson or Leonard, you know, great ones known for their great boxing, use their traits, sometimes speed, sometimes toughness, sometimes quick mindedness, but always to cover the flaws of their game.

Joe Louis had a flawless game for a long time. Arete was achieved, imo, once in this thing called boxing.




Joe Louis isn't my favorite and I do not rank him tops every time, but, he did achieve enough that anyone complaining in any serious nature about his status among fans is surely petulant.

 

Good list from Foreman

 

Burt Bienstock posted that he rated Louis as better than Ali because Ali was a draft dodger...