How easy is it place Louis above Ali???

JD, did you receive my reply ?

 

JD , did you receive my reply ?

 

All ****s are the same colour on the inside

 

Im the opposite. Luis was a very active, multidimensional fighter who could box or slug it out.

Louis had title more defenses, a longer reign, and a better wining %, a better KO %. What else could you ask for?

 

I wouldn't go this far as I think it's justifiable having Louis ahead. But really, it's not easy (Unless you want it to be). Ali has dominance, depth, and some unreal skills/ability to observe on film. Everyone has a foil as did Louis (Schemling) but Ali's were better (Norton, Frazier) and Ali's happened when he was clearly past his best. Louis biggest trouble was before the war, not after it (Although he had issues with Walcott).

Unless you have a preference for knockouts and hold that against Ali it's pretty tough to rank Louis ahead. And while Ali has depth some of his past prime performance are unremarkable, if legitimate victories. It's not light and day but I see Ali having a distinguishable edge.

 

A better resume with more great wins than just Schmeling and Walcott(controversial).

Ali has better wins against better opposition. Also look better and more skillful on film.

I can't for the life of me put Louis ahead. He has no wins that better the Frazier, Foreman, or Liston wins. None. Never regained his title once lost.

 

Norton better than Schmeling? No, Sir, surely not.

 

Ali's post-exile career is what separates them for me. I actually think this part of his career gets a tad underrated. Many are quick to point out the losses and struggles he had (Frazier, Norton, Young, Shavers, Spinks), but that is definitely seeing the glass as half empty in my view.

He came back after losing his best years, clearly diminished, and still had a career that in itself would place him near the top. And during his long career against mostly top opposition he was always competitive except when fighting Holmes while poisoned by Thyrolar. This for a fighter that many like to claim was dependent on his athletic abilities. Even at 39 he managed to put up a good effort against Berbick, while being physically inferior in just about every department.

I can see an argument for Louis, though. But it shouldn't be easy.

 

Good points :good Ali's resume from 1970-75,alone would place him really high up on the all time ladder.

 

Tell me their names and I will go to their houses with a bat. ...A big fruit bat. With rabies.

 

Personaly I find it prety easy.

There is little enough seperating them that a case can redily be made either way.

 

He looked better on film? atsch

Louis has the most title defenses of any HW fighter in the history of boxing. He can't help who was available at the time.

The guy faced everyone, and is probably the most well rounded HW champion ever.

Sure, Ali was great and flashy and had a few great fights, but he accomplished less.

 

d0nboxer does. at least he has a good argument for it though.

 

I don't see why there'd be an issue with rating either one over the other.