How do some people rank Louis over Ali?

I don’t know how you come to a lot of these conclusions, it’d take me too long to untangle this and the way you phrase a lot of this makes me think you’ve got your mind well and truly made up no disrespect intended.

 

Schmeling?

 

Merely using your post as a conduit to many of my musings over the years.

Simply put - Louis is great so is Ali. Conn is great, not a great HW.

I have no problem in anybody ranking Louis over Ali - I rank him over Ali in terms of longevity and fundamentals. However, when it comes to separating them as to who was greater, I use a combination of how strong their eras were, who they beat, who they fought, how did they beat them, what do I rank them H2H and some other factors and I rate Ali just above Louis - just.

The Conn rant is just that - my mind is made up that he was not a great HW and other HW ATGs would dispatch of him easier than Louis managed.

 

Some of them are not rated highly due to looking terrible on film like Baer and Galento. Losing to Baer seems like a very bad look for Schmelling.

Conn was a middleweight by the standard of later eras and you don't see middleweights of those eras wanting to fight heavyweights

 

well, you can repeat a thousand times that Ali defeated this or that, I still think that such classification - based on the number of names defeated - can be misleading. My argument is still the same, Ali defeated great boxers but not all of them were in top form when he fought them. In my opinion, the best are still Frazier in 1971 and Holmes in 1980. In general, he turned out to be slightly weaker than Norton, the fight with Liston and with Foreman had very specific circumstances, the third fight with Frazier was Futch's decision when both were almost dead, it all looks great in the resume but was Ali really as great as Louis, who outclassed the entire 1930s and later 1940s? I have doubts, Ali's fights were certainly better promoted.
James Douglas had a Horse Day in Tokyo, he won the victory that Tyson can dream of, but did he win against the prime Tyson? theoretically yes - 24 years old, 37-0, 10 title fights, in the top for over 4 years, but did he really win against the best Tyson? McCall easily knocked out Lewis, does Louis have someone better, much better than Lewis? I'm not sure. But I'm sure McCall isn't even close to Joe Louis because catching someone at an opportune moment isn't always a sign of greatness. Louis and Ali had a great performance but remember that decorations don't fight wars. Liston is historically a bigger fighter than Schmelling, but I am convinced that when he fought Ali he was no better than Schmelling was when he fought Louis and Ali's performance was no better than Louis' performance. Number of defenses, record, scale of dominance, consistency... it matters! Do you really believe that for over 10 years of Louis' dominance there was no one of value in HW?

 

No worse, in truth, than Ali losing to Norton. Upsets happen.

 

Is losing to Frazier a “very bad” look for Foreman? I don’t understand how folks can pretend Baer is so much worse than GF lol.

 

Correct it’s an upset and it isn’t even too much of a mark against Schemling or anyone? Baer was a talented professional fighter with a ton of bouts against plenty of good names…
sometimes you just get beat, you couldn’t decipher the pattern. Each fighter is a puzzle years in development. MB boxed forever he can’t have been that bad if he survived with what he had for as long as he had with as much success as he had? He was heavyweight champion of the world! Same as Galento who was at one point the number 1 contender? no one or very few pause to think “what were they doing to succeed” they get as far as “that looks funny” like gawking kids and I’m sure they all know more about boxing then Two Ton Tony after all he was just some fatty who smoked cigars and ate hotdogs unlike this forum of spartan warriors lol.

 

I didn’t say Conn was a great heavyweight? I said he was as close as anyone to beating the GOAT - I’d favour him over a few champions on the strength of that achievement, that and my eyes, he’s a worthy opponent not a career HW perhaps but it’s irrelevant.

 

Norton appears far more skilled than Baer on film. I'd say losing to Baer is by far the less forgiveable loss.

I don't think Baer could beat Canelo Alvarez

 

That's fair ... genuinely though, as good as Conn looked that night, I'm not sure that RJJ, Charles and a few others don't equally put up as good a fight against that version of Louis.

As good as Conn looked, I do genuinely think that a fair few HW champs at their best tear him a new one. Whilst, I think he was an extremely formidable fighter, I struggle to call him a formidable HW off one showing (clearly you are not arguing that) but I do think it's important for me, in my own mind, at least, to make the distinction. Even H2H, I don't see him standing up against too many elite HW fighters.

 

One thing people are forgetting is Louis was totally dominated and smashed up by Schmeling when pretty close to his prime at 24

Ali never suffered such a beat down even late into is career when he should have long retired

 

Because of 25 title defenses.
Louis' reign is seen as one of the greatest dominations in boxing.

 

This.

Additionally, the way he went about his business often captures the imagination. Anyone I've encountered who rates Louis above Ali tends to be more impressed with Louis as a Boxer, than they are with Ali.

I actually favor Louis from a pure spectator's perspective.

That said, Ali has the edge in numbers and those defining victories to boot and this tips the scales on the matter of All-Time Ratings, for mine - though, I would not argue with anyone who rates Louis higher. They both occupy such a rare space in history that it seems hardly worth the effort.

 

I have Louis at no4 H2H.Ali no1.