Joe Louis replaces Frazier vs Muhammad Ali 1971

Norton was nothing like Louis, that's like me saying it would look like Ali-Patterson 1.........

 

What would be amplified though, I'm just not seeing that. You picture Louis jabbing with Ali like Norton was? I just don't see it that way, nor did they have a similar jab in the way they through it or set it up. That was also a past his prime Ali, and it wasn't quite as good as the one Frazier faced, so I think comparison is a little lacking here. Ali of Frazier 1, didn't quite move as good as he did in the 60's, but he still had decent legs at that point. That would be the biggest difference in this fight, Ali's legs. Louis didn't like movers, he often struggled with them, and they were Ali. Ali, by clear UD or late right stoppage. Louis wouldn't be able to take the blows frazier did

 

I said the results would be similar, not that Norton and Louis are the same fighter. That said, you're just dead wrong that there aren't similarities. Both are flat footed fighters who inch forward, employing an economical style patiently looking for counters. Both have an underrated jab.

The most salient differences are that Norton uses a cross arm defense, and Louis uses an orthodox stance; Norton is more of a careful pressure fighter, and Louis more of a knockout artist.

 

I do indeed, and much more to boot. Louis did absolutely everything better than Norton -some things only slightly, some by far- but he's entirely superior across the board.

 

Before anyone says it, Norton has something like an 80 inch reach, and Louis' I think was around 78, but that's it.

 

I think there's a lot to be said for the unorthodox style Norton had in running Ali close.

Louis' advantage in fundamentals can be argued as a weakness against Ali. He is, as you say, a far more classic stalker-puncher type.

I see lots of evidence of Ali dealing with that type of fighter well.

 

Okay, that's actually a good point. An awkward or unusual style can often cause problems just because the opponent is unaccustomed to dealing with it and/or has trouble figuring it out.

But in raw talent, physical tools and skill set Louis far, far, far outclasses Norton.

 

You're arguing a point that I doubt anyone would ever argue.

 

Like Ali outclasses Schmeling, Pastor, Farr and Conn in most areas. And this were guys that troubled prime Louis. The version of Ali that Norton beat is more comparable to the Louis that received a controversial decision against Walcott.

 

No way 71 Ali can run for as long as Conn, and Schmeling exploited a very specific stylistic bug, which was subsequently corrected and resulted in Schmeling getting destroyed in the rematch.

 

Fair enough, but I get the feeling they're not paying it sufficient heed. On the other side of the coin, I'm definitely not saying this one point is definitive entirely on its own. Far from it.

 

I think that by then, Louis would definitely have the tools to take it.

there are basically only two ways to fight Louis.

You either run like hell, or take the fight to him enough to disrupt his game.

This version of Ali, probably falls between the two stools.

A brave rally against Louis, is not going to be in Ali's interests here.

 

Agreed. There's not much between them and Ali post exile wasn't quite the same fighter as great as he was.

 

True. I think Ali would have more time and room to get off his jab and those follow up flurries. Joe Frazier applied so much pressure that it caused Ali`s legs to wilt by the mid rounds. Joe Louis was more of a stalker and Ali would be able to rest in a different way. He could use his jab from the outside and pick his shots.

 

Prime Louis would beat Prime Ali for me