How do some people rank Louis over Ali?

I think it's more a fact of consistency and based on the longevity of his reign

 

Louis is the model of perfection.

 

Consistency, dominance in rematches, KO power in every punch, technically more sound with the best arsenal of punches thrown with accuracy and excellent body mechanics known amongst the HW greats.

I don't rate him higher than Ali based on the competition faced and my H2H assessment of both fighters but the differences in their elite standing are extremely small - much smaller than we often make out.

 

yes, he has some equally impressive victories and many other advantages.

 

This.

 

Respectfully disagree.

Louis has fight-ending and fundamental advantages over Ali, but there's no way that he has victories over fighters of similar quality/ranking to Liston, Frazier and Foreman.

 

this is the magic of names, nothing else. Liston was a great fighter, but was Ali still as great in his fights or was he just considered that great? Could an aging puncher who had fought a few one-sided rounds in the last few years, was injured and spent a lot of time in the casino, be as outstanding as he was when he was climbing to the top? Was Frazier as great in 1974 and 75 as he was in 1971 when he beat Ali? Were the conditions in Kinshasa and the crowd pressure so unfavorable for Foreman that this sensation was not as sensational as it seems, or was it really a fight at an outstanding sports level?
Does Louis have victories like Tunney who defeated Carpentier, Dempsey, does he have victories like Jeffries with Corbett, Fitz, Jackson? Foreman has Frazier and Norton and is not ranked higher than Louis. The magic of names is not everything, Louis is one of the most and longest dominant in the history of boxing, in my opinion putting him above Ali is ok, although I don't do it.

 

I can see arguments for both, though most have Ali at 1.

The answer to your first question is - no.

The answer to your second question is - yes, Schmeling and JJW are usually ranked top 30. Possibly M.Baer too.

 

Dominance as the Champion.
Consistency, always found a way to win, like Conn 1, no matter what happened. This is not easier than a few great wins.

 

I hear you but when all is said and done, who you beat and how you beat them counts.

Ali's top 5 - 10 wins/names are better than Louis'. Résumé is often how we decide amongst the very elite when both have elite skillsets on film.

 

The usual process is by writing out a list of numbers from 1 to 10, like so:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.


The people you're asking about will then fill in the list with the names of heavyweight fighters. This is usually based on which ranking criteria are important to them, weighted however they fancy. To put Louis over Ali, you would need to write Louis's name higher on the list than Ali's.

For example, here is how George Foreman did it:

1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Jack Johnson
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Joe Frazier
6. Jack Dempsey
7. Mike Tyson
8. Sonny Liston
9. Floyd Patterson
10. Evander Holyfield

https://www.georgeforeman.com/pages/ring-greatest-champions

 

Yes, but if you ask about Ali's most valuable victories, the average fan will, of course, say Foreman and Frazier, but many experts will point to Terrell and Williams, who are historically much lower than Foreman and Frazier. Norton should have been 2-1 against Ali, Ali's best fight against Frazier was in 1971 and Ali didn't win it, but it was still a great performance. A simple scheme is not always the most important. Overall, Joe Louis's career was great, as was Ali's. In my opinion, although I know many people will attack me, Ali fought prime ATG on 2 occasions - Joe Frazier in 1971 and Larry Holmes in 1980. Foreman, despite appearances, was not in his prime, and neither was Liston. Both were not well prepared and had a terrible game plan. I'm not sure about Norton but it was a painful road for Ali and in my opinion he lost to Norton overall.

 

In film terms, think of Ali as Aliens or Predator, & Louis as 2001: A Space Odyssey or Blade Runner.

Both are exceptionally great, but the former requires markedly less effort to appreciate. It’s easier to notice flashy names on a résumé or watch one or two fights, than it is to appreciate the always under-rated difficulty of consistency at the top, or to deep dive on fighters who were good, but not all-time legends, & who have fewer fights, with the further distraction of black-&-white.

It’s easy to love an Aliens or Predator - they sizzle, they flash, they’re showy - while also being great on more subtle levels. But 2001, Blade Runner…these films require more effort, more investment, more discernment on the part of the viewer, but once fully appreciated, who could argue they are any lesser?

 

No, he never allowed such a peer to establish themself.