The 3rd Ali-Norton fight could have went either way but personally,having viewed it again recently, i gave it to Ali though i agree it was close but it was certainly no great robbery as some claim. As for Louis and Walcott, i havent seen the entire unedited 15 rounds either but i think joes body language when he tried to leave the ring before the decision was announced says a lot of what way he thought the fight went.
The last thing a guy who gave so much of himself in the ring,against such awesome opposition,is is a fraud. He's at the very least the second greatest Heavyweight of all time (I have him first) and imo deserves to be ranked in the top 10 p4p of all time. Boxers,punchers,spoilers,brawlers,Ali beat them all.He avoided no one,gave rematches to guy's who gave him problems and at his peak revolutionised the sport.He brought boxing colour and interest and backed up all his talk by actually performing in the ring (unlike the stars of today). His condition today is attributable to his willingness to lay it all on the line for his fans,his sport and yes his legacy. If you rate him outside the top 10,whilst ridiculous and unjustifiable is a matter of opinion and fair enough but to call him a fraud makes you a **** pure and simple.
Unforgiven do have a point. We have no idea how Foreman and Frazier would have been rated today if Ali wasn't stripped of his titles. If Ali had beaten both they'd probably not be known as more than good contender, who perhaps would have been champs in another era. They certainly wouldn't be considered top 10 HWs. So it may actually have strengthened Ali's legacy to have lost to Frazier. On the other hand Liston would likely have been ranked even higher had he not ran into Ali. So Ali's win(s) over him may actually be slightly underrated just because he made Liston look so bad. But another way too look at it is who the best fighters were that they proved themselves conclusively better than. In Louis' case that may be Baer, since he lost once to Schmeling and arguably also to Walcott. In Ali's case it would be Liston (if we accept that Foreman's reputation is indirectly based on two of Ali's losses and therefore too related to Ali himself). Personally I think there's a substanstial gap in quality between Baer and Liston.
George Foreman was bigger than Joe, and shown in both of his careers that he can take some serious artillery and still remain standing. I haven't gone on record to pick George over the likes of Louis, I'm merely saying I wouldn't find it all to surprising to see Louis hit the deck and not get up if hit with a right hand from the same man who lifted Joe Frazier off the canvas.
I dont know, it's close. I can see arguments for any of them. Ali was abit more durable than Louis, granted. But Louis destroyed the man who beat him in his prime. Ali struggled with Frazier and Norton in all the sequel fights. He beat fighters who were easily as good as a 6-0-1 Leon Spinks ! I haven't even mentioned Shavers. I give Ali the credit he deserves for any of his wins. No. But Louis was world champion at 23, reigned for 12 years, and made more defenses than anyone else. Foreman's not comparable in any way. Norton was good. But I think Louis fought several fighters of that caliber too. Yet Ali lost to Ken Norton and Leon Spinks within the same amount of fights that Louis only lost to Schmeling. You think Ali loses to Marciano ? I can equally say I honestly don't think that Louis loses against Ali's competition until he's old too. It means nothing. Neither of us know what would happen. Not all of Louis's reign was known as the "bum of the month club". Some were acknowledged as very good fighters. Not to mention that Ali defended against his fair share of unworthy bum challengers. And who knows who would have been a "great" had Louis not been around ? It's impossible to tell. Maybe the Baer brothers, Pastor, Nova, Conn might have been champions. Walcott might have been champion sooner. It's quite likely either Max Baer or Max Schmeling would have been first to regain the title had Louis not been around. Loads of possibilities. The reverse of the question is how would Patterson or even Frazier be remembered had they been thrown in with a peaking champion Joe Louis in their first title shots ? Personally i think they would have been sent packing within 2 rounds each. And in the 1930s there was a lot less money per fight for non-champions, so keeping a fighter prepared, fit and undefeated wasn't as easy. These guys would have go straight back in tough fights, no six-month or twelve-month layoffs, against other hungry fighters. That's no knock on Frazier and Patterson as great fighters, i just dont see them have as much career success if they had been in the midst of Louis's peak. Hall of Fame means little to me, for various reasons I've already explain.
I have Ali at number one,and Louis number 2. I can quite understand those who have it the other way round,though. I just feel that Ali was more adaptable,and would have beaten Joe in a hypothetical fight. Bokaj mentioned that Ali is probably the only ATG heavyweight whose status gets judged on some of his post prime fights. This,I feel,is very signifigant. Any peak heavyweight would have had an extemely tough time beating the post prime version of Muhammad circa 1970 - !975.
This content is protected This was part of an exhebition that Ali and Tyson participated in the late 80s. People thought that Ali was finished but he actually used his superior jab and reach to maul Tyson and therefore beat him on a points decision.
There was a kernel of truth in the ridiculous premise of the topic. Of course Ali is not a fraud in the ring. However, he is a bit of an overblown entity and is eternally forgiven for shortcomings both in and out of the ring. It provided impetus for good discussion.