"Joe Louis of '40 vs. Muhammad Ali of '67" in a time machine/fantasy bout. Who wins?

But you don't have a single argument supporting your case. Not one.

 

I do, you just aren´t acknowledging them.

 

No, you haven't made one.

Saying that he wasn't tested like he was in the '70's tells us nothing, 'cause no HW ever was. What we do know is that Ali showed no signs of being more immature at 25 than any other ATG. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest a large shift in his personality.

Yes, he probably grew a bit mentally stronger with age, everyone does. Louis did as well. But he himself didn't think this natural progression made him a better fighter all in all. Neither did Dundee. Neither did the only two who faced him both before and after his lay-off. Wouldn't you agree that your opinion weighs lightly in comparison?

 

Ali: I was better pre-exile.

Dundee, Chuvalo and Patterson: Yeah, you were.

Bodhi: No, you weren't. What you don't understand here is that you were much mentally stronger after, and this made you a better fighter.

Ali: Say what, chump?

 

One thing for sure, if the 1967 Muhammad Ali was fighting in the 1940's versus Joe Louis, the last thing Ali would have to worry about would be Joe Louis.

Ali would have never made it to the ring.
Always take the 'Hero over a Zero'.

 

this thread is going around in circles.

At the end of the day, it's all speculation. Speculation as to how Louis would deal with Ali's prematch promotional behaviour. Speculation as to how Ali would cope with someone as compact, precise and technically astute as Louis. Speculation as to how Louis would cope with Ali's head feints and right hand lead countering over the jab. Speculation as to how Ali would deal with someone as good as Louis at picking off and parrying a jab with the counter. Speculation as to how Louis would deal with someone with the footwork and angles that a prime Ali showed. Speculation as to how Ali would survive when eventually caught by a devastating Louis combination. Speculation that Louis could catch Ali enough to trap him and finish him.

There's so many possible outcomes in such a match up. As technically proficient as a prime Louis is ... stylistically, I look at the match up like B-Hop versus Jones. Was B-Hop the more technically proficient fighter - but of course, but speed kills and absolute unorthodox speed kills absolutely. The difference here is that Louis is a killer and WILL catch Ali ... judging by their careers and who they faced, I'd favour Ali to survive.

 

But you forget that Hopkins was green and of no more than contender quality when he lost to Jones.

 

Despite their having similar number of professional bouts? From Hopkins' 5th fight, it's pretty clear that his technique is of a high class. The only thing missing was the experience. Himself and Roy were of similar professional experience and the issue is stylistically ... Hopkins of the Trinidad fight would always get outboxed by the speedy, unorthodox style of Roy, for my money.

 

Based on what?

Then you may have to go back and rewatch footage from both eras, because the 70's Ali who conserved himself by leaning against the ropes and holding behind the head does not at all look more determined to me, than the one who never stopped moving or throwing punches years earlier...

Liston was a devastating puncher, with incredible skill and heavily favored put Ali in a grave.. Ali briefly got into trouble, recovred and won the fight.... I'd say he was well tested.. Upon becomming champ, Ali traveled all over the world taking on challengers, some of whom just weeks apart.. That says something about determination as well.

Louis is not just going to " end the fight at any minute" with a man who was never KO'd in over 60 fights and survived the onslaughts of Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Shavers, Norton, and many others...

And where did he learn to deal with it, prior to having faced Frazier? because the only two bouts he had post-exhile, and pre-Frazier were Bonavena and Quarry..... I think he had that ability all along.

I think the onus is on you to tell me why he couldn't.. You're the one making claims that he was mentally tougher in his second career, and doing it on shear speculation.

Yes, because he did.. You don't win the heavyweight championship of the world from a guy like Sonny Liston, then defend it 10 times in less than 3 years, and leave the game with a 30-0 record inless you are tough mentally... Just doesnt' happen.....

You are vastly in the minority if you TRULY believe that 3.5 years of inactivity helped a fighter who was supposed to be peaking during that time frame.... His flat footed stance, proved that his abilities had diminished, as had his tendencies to avoid getting hit... You pass this off as a sign of " increased toughness" while most people recognize it as lost ability, and frankly I think its probably a device for harboring an argument for Louis beating Ali than anything of real substance...

Did I ever say that Louis would hit Ali as many times as Frazier? No, and I dont' see it happening either.. Frazier had faster hands, a more polished left hook, upper body movement that was off the charts for a heavyweight, and a bob and weave style that was well suited for slipping Ali's jab.. Louis had none of this.. In fact, he was a stationary fighter by comparison.. The perfect profile for Ali to hit and not get hit by..

Okay, so Conn now brawled with Louis? Wasnt' it Louis who said to Conn " you can run but you can't hide?" Conn boxed him... That's all there is too it, and Louis was getting schooled... And you're saying Schmeling was lucky?

 

Ali via comfortable UD or late TKO.

 

I agree with you. Just making a wee bit fun of Bodhi.

 

Who said anything about a shift in personality? Or that he was immature? :huh

He did not grew a "little bit" stronger mentally. I think he got a lot stronger mentally. Due to the exile and what happened around that, out of defiance.
If you would have read my posts thoroughly like I advised you before, you would have already read that "saying hat he was better wasn´t quite right." And that you could say that "it would be more correct to say he was more likely to dominate an opponent pre-layoff but was harder to beat post-layoff - at least when he still had it, from 1971 to 1975/6."

But since you aren´t bothering in reading the arguments of other people thoroughly and prefer to critizise arguments that were never made, see above, your arguments miss their targets very wide.

That´s a nice way to discuss. Good manners. I know that´s common behaviour around here, it´s still classless though.

 

You did and you do it again below:

Growing a "lot stronger mentally" would signify a shift in personality to me.

But that is just drivel you use in trying to justify your stance. You plainly said "better post-exile" before you got called on it, and then you adopted this pseudo reasoning so you don't really have to say he was better but still be able to say that Louis would have an easier time beating him.

It's transparent to me, and I think it is to most others here.

You haven't really made an argument. You voiced an opinion that Ali grew much mentally stronger during the exile, but you haven't backed that with proof of any kind.

 

Read the thread. I wrote all that and I think more than once.

I shouldn´t have put that word in. Again, that word was meant in combination with the other words to describe his post-layoff mindset. It was not intended to be used without the others. And no, it does not mean that Ali was not determined pre-layoff. Again, read the thread and you know what I meant - hopefully .

And again, I don´t think that highly of Liston. Yes, he had good skills and power. Not as good as some would make you believe though, IMO. "Briefly into trouble". Yeah, he wanted to quit.

I thought we are talking about pre-layoff Ali? You know, the one who hadn´t faced Frazier, Foreman, Norton and Shavers yet. Aside of that I never said Louis would end it at any minute, what I wanted to illustrate was the danger and the pressure that resulted from that danger.

I think he had the potential for that ability all along. Yes. But it was brought out of him, got developed due to the lay-off and the circumstances of it.

Not on speculation. Ali wanted to quit against Louis but went 14 with Frazier in Manilla. Is that speculation?

Show me were I wrote that Ali wasn´t tough mentally pre-layoff? Why are people always assuming things that were never written? Just because I write that Ali was tougher post-layoff doesn´t mean he wasn´t tough pre-layoff. He was.

I never said it helped him. Again the assumption problem. Yes, his abilities have diminished and yes as a result of that he fought different. I never wrote anything different to that.

It´s not I stated my opinion before in threads not related to Joe Louis.

I don´t think Frazier had faster hands than Joe Louis. But anyway that was not my point. I expressed it poorly by saying you should put Louis into Frazier´s position, I should have said, can you imagine still standing after Louis landing as many punches as Frazier did?

Where did I say so? I said Conn fought him. People act as if Conn was boxing him but he was very often and handled Louis well in close.
Yes, Schmeling was lucky in a way - and I´m the biggest Schmeling fan on this site. He was lucky that Louis´ wasn´t quite as motivated during training as he was, for example, for Baer, that he found the technical flaw and that he had a great night. On that night everything came together for Max. If anythind would have been different he probably would have lost - I think this was kind of a wake-up call for Louis too.

 

This is ridiculous..

Rather than fronting facts, Your argument has been reduced to " go back and read the thread." " where did I say this, or where did I say that." And how is Conn "boxing" Lous supposed to be different than " fighting" him?