Joe Louis Versus Muhammad Ali

Neither claim is true. Boxing was huge in the 1930s and fighters were roughly the same size as 1960s fighters. Max Baer faced bigger opponents on average than Liston for example.

 

Very few fighters in his history can put short punches together like Joe Louis. However Ali had great heart and chin and had much faster hands and feet than Louis.

Ali by decision or a late stoppage after an accumulation of solid right hands.

 

At first glance it looks like the worst possible matchup for Louis. It may turn out that way. Muhammad Ali had quick feet, coordination, quickness, and good sharp straight punches. He could keep Louis on the outside looking for an opening the Joe may not get off.
The one intriguing Factor here in favor of Joe Louis is the way Ali kept his hands low. The Brown Bomber had great timing and his right hand was a laser. If he times Ali and catches him pulling back, chin in the air who knows what may happen?
Before anyone reminds me Ali's fought many good punchers he never faced anyone that had Joe's power, accuracy and precision. The reverse is also true that Louis never dealt with an opponent as big and fast Ali.
If I gotta wager...Ali by late TKO.

 

Joe Louis vs Muhammad Ali
​

Ali
Advantages - height, reach, foot speed & footwork, jab, elusiveness, long-range game

Louis
Advantages - power, timing, accuracy, inside-game, combination-punching

Keys To Victory
Ali - use constant lateral movement & feints, be active with the jab, throw quick & sharp 1s & 2s, punch with authority, keep it centre ring, stay off the ropes, taunt & show-boat to try & frustrate Louis.

Louis - cut the ring off, apply lots of pressure early, jab with Ali to break rhythm (ala Ken Norton), force him against the ropes, land combinations on the inside, wear him down with body shots, time his pace, be patiently aggressive, stay composed.

 

Excellent analysis.

Ali's path to victory, is just to turn up with his A game.

Louis's path to victory, is having the right fight plan.

If Louis figures it out as he goes along, as he sometimes did, then he is probably going to be on the wrong end of the argument.

Jack Blackburn might well be the deciding factor here!

 

Norton himself said the first fight couldn't have gone either way as well!

 

Norton won the first fight convincingly. The only fight of the 3 you can make a case for Ali is #2. He may have edged that one.

 

Norton and Ali had a rivalry that was altogether different than what Frazier's was. It was competitive but never ugly or nasty. Ken always liked Ali and he knows without him he wouldn't have made big $. Ali knew he really couldn't get away with making fun of Norton's looks or intelligence. They were good friends.

 

Prime Ali wins a UD but is floored by a hook and almost stopped in the middle rounds. His jab and feet save the day, and he lands some real sweet right leads.

 

Regardless of what you think of the first fight, Norton himself said it could've gone either way. I could pull up the quote if you like.

Regarding the 2nd fight, it's not a case of "he may have edged that one" he won quite convincingly and their is little room for debate. I made a thread on the very topic and Norton got less than half the votes Ali did https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/norton-vs-ali-ii.663954/. From recollection, nobody who voted for Norton was able to put fourth a reasonable scorecard for Norton. Also, many of those who voted for Norton mistakenly thought my thread was referring to their third fight.

As for the third fight, it is by definition wrong that you can't make a case for Ali winning, as many did just that including the three who mattered most.

 

How would Ali even get past the jab? Louis was the world's best combination puncher. he beat Carnera who was bigger than Ali. Louis is obviously the huge favourite here. Baer hit much harder than Ali and Louis destroyed him. How dare people pick Ali. I am offended.