How do some people rank Louis over Ali?

Many promising lists have been sabotaged with just this problem.

 

Foreman's first attempt saw him placing 5 at 1 and not remembering the number 7. His second saw only bullet points written laterally over one giant underscore. Shame. That one was written after Schulz.

 

Remembering the existence of the number 7 is always the toughest part.

 

Meanwhile, Louis is my No.1.

Ali was undoubtedly the better showman and also fought in a more modern and nowadays more popular era... He had the greater opponents as well, which give him a good bonus and I'd favor him in a matchup against Louis...

But I think Louis still edges it and here are the reasons:


1. Overall, Louis stood out more in his time. It was just the Louis era... People may think of Schmeling too, but more for political reasons.
Louis was the big and undisputed star for black and white Americans.

When you think of Ali... you think of more personalities that formed the 60s/70s era, like Foreman, Frazier, Liston and Norton and so on...

I think Ali had the better opponents...but he also fought in a more advanced era. No disrespect intended toward the older fighters, but I think the generation after WW2 became bigger on average (also because of nutrition), fought under better and more stable circumstances with better amateur backgrounds (Patterson, Ali, Frazier and Foreman were all Olympic Champions...). Over the decades the fighters became successively technically sounder and less rough... For example, compare the number of good jabbers in the '30s to the number of good jabbers in the '80s.

I believe Louis was throughout his whole career betting favorite (even against Marciano). Ali was underdog against Liston and Foreman (but great that he won)...

Ali had more losses (Frazier, Norton, Spinks vs. Schmeling), opponents at eye level (Frazier, Norton vs. ?) and more disputed or close wins (Norton, Young, Shavers vs. Walcott I) during his time as world champion...



2. Louis was the king of rematches (Schmeling, Godoy, Conn, Buddy Baer, Walcott...) and crushed many careers. I don't see big improvements in Ali's rematches (also opponents faded, like Frazier)



3. Louis vs. Schmeling on the brink of World War II was perhaps the most historically important sporting duel of all time with meaning beyond pure sport



4. I think Louis had the better pre-championship career, because he dominated a bunch of former ex-champions, even though he lost to Schmeling. Pre-championship Ali was unbeaten but against weaker opponents and struggled against Henry Cooper and had his hands full with Doug Jones.

+ old Louis still had a series of good wins and was a decent contender.


But anyway, Ali had the greater ring battles, upset wins and 60s Ali was just outstanding... It's pretty close and both are interchangeable.

 

I have Louis 2nd and Ali 3rd and heres some things to think about.

When saying Louis didn't fight the same quality of opponent as Ali something we've got to remember is that Louis's top contenders didn't stick around to build a career after losing to him. With Ali your Foremans, Fraziers, Nortons, Jimmy Youngs, Lyles, Shavers, Ellis, Bugners and Quarrys all stuck around to fight each other. With Louis this didn't happen. Carnera, Braddock, Schmeling, John Henry Lewis, Buddy Baer, Simon and Conn were gone right after their fights with Louis. Besides Braddock and Schmeling the whole group were in their 20s. Tommy Farr hung around a few fights and retired at 27. For the guys who did hang around these guys absence meant there was no one impressive to fight and build a resume off of.

Louis was hurt more by his break than Ali both in the ring and resume wise and could have done more with those years. Ali really got to all the top HWs in the 60s and 70s and the ones he didn't get to weren't options in that timeframe. Who could Ali have gotten to during his exile he didn't? Leotis Martin and Thad Spencer are the only WBA tournament participants Ali didn't fight. Any activity during this stretch likely is balanced with being less active later on. Louis could have fought 30 times during WWII. With Louis you had Lee Murray, Elmer Ray, Joe Baksi, Curtis Sheppard, Buddy Walker, Maxim, Lem Franklin, Lee Oma and Turkey Thompson. And this is just Americans this is not to mention all the European fighters who would have been fighting in the US if not for the war.

Ali went 7-2 against Foreman, Nortonx3, Frazierx3 Jimmy Young and Lyle. He could have very easily went sub .500 if he fought Foreman another night etc. Theres nowhere you can do this with prewar Louis. Louis didn't need trilogies because whenever a fighter did well enough to justify a rematch he stopped them usually easily.

Louis is 5-0 against superheavyweights with 5 KOs and 16 knockdowns. This is going by the strict 250 pound definition.

 

Maybe I've answered this already, but Louis's amazing consistency over his 12-year reign and his deciviness in rematches is the argument for him over Ali. Not a bad one either.

 

Who is your nr. 1?

We'll never know, but my guess is that Ali would look even better if he was away between 70-74 instead of 67-70, especially if he did exhibitions and a title defence rather than college appearances during that time.

I think he beats Frazier and everyone else during the late 60's, and Foreman after coming back. He beat him in real life around that age, so see no major reason to believe this would be different.

He would probably lose to Norton and some other fighter in the late 70's, but don't think that would count much against him at that stage in his career.

So with a title reign to match Louis's, going undefeated well into his 30's and maybe also regaining his title I think he would sit comfortably at nr 1.

 

I have Ali a clear number 1. But then, I factor H2H more than most. I think there are very few who can beat Ali.
I have Louis at a precarious number 2, due to consistency, but don't hate on Lennox or another at 2.
But then, many think I am a clown, because I have Bowe at 10, and I might even replace him with Usyk, depending on how the next couple of years go.
Each to their own.

 

Joe Louis...the perfect boxer-puncher....champ from 1937 to 1949...25 title defenses...a national hero...

 

I agree with most of this.

What made Galento one of Louis more important bouts? He was another title defense. There was some good PR from Galento (murder da Bum) actually Galento's manager was supplying the colorful quotes

 

I think Ali has the strongest argument for the cat birds seat. Based on the quality of opposition. Ali was also never knocked out or stopped anywhere near his prime Louis was. That matters since we're talking about #1.

Ali doesn't lack longevity at all. He spanned eras as Louis did. At the end of the day Louis is the only other heavyweight within shouting distance of Ali.

Having Louis as your #1 is a reasonable position based on his longevity and dominance and the finality in which he finished his contests.

 

Imagine being the key word. We have to deal with what is real.

 

Louis was being greedy, he made sure no one but him was champ. The Buddy Baers, 2 Ton Tony' and Billy Conns may of got a knock down or look good, but in the end, Louis made sure he was champ. 12 years 25 title defenses. You go over to Ali and that guy was handing out championship reins like it was candy lol. Joe Frazier, George Forman and 7-0 Leon Spinks was walking around with the belt around his waist. What a nice guy he was.

 

If anybody had taken the title from Louis before the war, and looked good doing it, then by default you have another Joe Frazier.

I am not saying that Arturo Godoy would have been another Joe Frazier, if he had walked away with an ugly split decision win.

They woudl have had to look good doing it.

 

And being undefeated and looked good beating the other top contenders.

There's lot of myths around Ali's era, and one gaining popularity as of late is that Frazier's reputation only is built on beating Ali, which plainly isn't true. Frazier was a favourite going into the fight for a reason.