Louis Above Ali - Convince Me

I would agree with him ,but Walcott's herky jerky side to side "cakewalk",and his "walk away " might have seriously disrupted Ali's rythmn ,I dont think Jersey Joe would win ,but neither do I think Ali would look good against him.

 

Personaly I have Louis as my number 1 but I consider them to be so close in terms of resume that they are virtualy tied. I therfore dont feel the need to try to convince sombody who rates Ali as number 1 that they are wrong because their position is eminently plausible.

The key issue is this:

Any argument that Ali is equal to Louis depends on the assumption that his opposition was superior to Louis's because they were more competitive against him.

Any argument that Ali is better than Louis depends on the assumption that his opposition was significantly superior.

Now it might be reasonable to assume that Ali's opposition was superior but it is almost impossible to prove it in practice of judge to what extent they were superior.

 

Don't know if I really agree here. While Ali didn't have quite as good a record when it came to title fights as Louis, he did have sligthly more wins against ranked opponents.

Also; up to age 37, the age Louis retired at, Ali had had three defeats - just as Louis. Outside of the opponents he lost to Ali had had trouble with Jones, Young and Shavers. Louis had had trouble with Farr, Pastor, Godoy and Walcott, so It's quite even there. But one major difference is that with the exception of Walcott, all Louis' opponents listed above was guys he met in his prime. Conversely of Ali's opponents listed above you can argue that none met him in his prime. Louis was also beaten when was arguably closer to his prime than Ali was anytime he lost.

So I do think there's strong reason to have Ali equal to Louis even if you feel that there opposition was equal. Based on the argument that Ali fared better in his prime, you can even have Ali above Louis if you think that the quality of their opposition was equal.

 

Parallel to Janitors point, Louis' power cancelled out the option of helping a so-called 'weaker' era shine.

Whatever the validity to the point is unknown, but there is a case there.

 

It comes down to this:

Louis lost once 18 months after his profesional debut and twice when he was an empty shell. It must be noted that all these losses were against fighters who won the lineal title independantly of their fight with Louis. Something that Norton, Spinks and arguably Frazier didnt do. In between the Schmeling loss and the Charles loss you have a 15 year period where Louis's only questionable decision is a sd win over future champion Jersey Joe Walcott at the tail end of his career.

There is no equivalent on Louis's resume of the Frazier loss the Norton loss. There is also no fighter who achieved jack against him in a rematch while Frazier and Norton were taking Ali to the edge of disaster in every fight.

I think we have to regard Louis as being more dominant than Ali against a weaker crop of opposition. If you acept that then it turns on how you rate thir respective eras and how much better Ali's oponents were. Now I think that Frazier is somewhat better than anything put in front of Louis during his title reign but I dont think that Norton is. I think that Schmeling was significantly better than anything put in front of Ali at the equaivalent stage of his career and before he fought for the title.

 

It all depends on how you spin this. Yes, Ali wasn't as dominant when he avenged defeats as Louis was, but on the flipside he didn't loose as decisively in the first place. Yes, two of Louis defeats came when he was old and one when he was young (but still 22 with some 25 pro fights behind him), but ALL Ali's defeats came after he lost his best years to a lay-off. And Ali arguably never had trouble with an opponent when in his prime, which Louis did.

When it comes to how dominant they were against the opponents they met, you can make a pretty equal case for both depending on how you spin it.

 

I find it interesting that Ali said he was the greatest so often that people take him at his word without really studying his fights. In addition, his calling Louis smalll and slow seems to have resonated as well. It is completely false.

Joe Louis was about 6' 2" tall and in his prime was a good 205. Ali was 6' 3" and in his prime 212 - 214. Watch the prime Louis destroy Baer , Carnera and Sharkey and see his foot speed. He was not a dancer but knew how to cut odff a ring and how to get to his opponents. Too many base him on his highly viewed Walcott bouts late in his career and think he was slow and it is completely wrong.

A prime Ali would be in for the fight of his life against a prime Louis, especially over 15 rounds. Ali had monster problems with the speed and jab of Ken Norton. Louis jab was just as fast and harder. Ali lacked the power to seriously hurt Louis and Louis would chase him down and punch the **** out of him. I can easily see the match up resembling the secong half of Oscar / Tito ... in addition, Louis definately had the power to stop Ali ...

I feel the more they fought, the better Louis would do ... an Ali blow out is a joke.

 

Good point on Louis' ability to cut off the ring.

The problem for Louis as I see it in a fight with Ali is that good movers gave Louis problems. Pastor (not a mover in general, but he got on his bike for the first fight), Conn, Farr, Walcott - they all gave Louis a difficult evening. Ali was better than any of these guys, and a good deal bigger than Farr and Conn.
(Joe was getting on when he fought Walcott sure, but I think it was as much a question of Walcott's style giving Louis problems as it was age related.)

What would concern me is that while Louis is stalking Ali and waiting for an opening, Ali is piling up the points.

I also agree that Louis has the capacity to stop Ali, but still the chances of it happening are remote.

 

I just think the difference of quality between Liston, Frazier, Foreman and even Norton, is too big to rank Louis above Ali. Two of those, Frazier and Foreman, are probably better than Louis was and all four are better than the best heavyweights Louis beat.

If you ignore Ali's best wins and just look at his victories over the likes of Shavers, Lyle, Young and Quarry etc., then you could compare resumes.

 

What makes you say that? Each to their own of course, but I find that statement rather perplexing.

 

I can't imagine why. Godoy put up a good fight and made Louis look quite ordinary, but the decision was a fair one, in my view.

 

Let's talk about the fights where Ali looked beatable...

Doug Jones, a blown up light heavy, who almost floored Ali in the first and lost a razor thin decision.

Cooper 1, where he was basically knocked out.

Mildenberger where he was tagged often and struggled.

Folley, a 35 year old small heavyweight who managed to tag Ali more than once with the right ..

Forget Bonavena as Ali was terribly out of shape.

Forget Frazier 1 for same reason.

Norton 1 and Norton 2.

I won't even comment on Norton 3, Jimmy Young, Evangelista and Shavers, all of which many thought he lost.


Farr was a very good fighter who fought to survive and lost a big decision.

Conn fought a dried out Louis. I personally that fight was the one out of ten where Conn might have fought such a fight. The rematch was far more definative.

Walcott was a great fighter, extremely cute and tricky with a hell of a punch against a much slower, unfocused Louis ... and Joe still flattened him in the rematch ...

To say Foreman and fRAZIER WERE BETTER THAN lOUIS IS A BIT OF A REACH TO ME ...

 

I know we go back and forth about Louis's loss to Schmeling as deserving of a pass, due to his only being a pro 18 months, but this can't just be simplified to a mere issue of inexperience. Joe Louis entered the pros with some 55 amateur fights and was carefully managed from the very beginning. Upon facing Schmeling, he was 27-0 with wins over two world champions in their primes, along with a handful of respectable contenders. Meanwhile, Schmeling was a former lightheavyweight who was off for a full year, had only won 4 of his last 8 matches and was a citizen of Germany fighting on American soil during a time when it probably didn't pay to do so. All this, and thoroughly dominated a young Louis.

Muhammad Ali was a recognized champion, with more years as a pro when he fought Frazier, but there are some key factors here. Ali had spent nearly 4 years out of the ring, save only two fights that he had within months of the Frazier bout. In addition, he was facing a natural heavyweight who was undefeated, and a concensus top 10 all time great. In addition, the fight went the distance in a very competitive contest, whereas Louis was anialated by Schmeling. Therefore, the comparison really does not call for giving Louis a pass while holding Ali accountable for HIS loss.

I will also ad that none of the 1970's heavyweights ever truly met a fully primed Ali, yet many of the stars during that period are commonly viewed as being better fighters than the best men Louis beat in his prime, yet Ali prevailed against ALL...

Muhammad's wins over Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, Goerge Foreman, and Floyd Patterson, basically trump anything that Louis did, and even his secondary wins over Norton, Ellis, Quarry, Shavers, Terrell, and Young ( possible robbery ), give Louis a pretty good run even at his upper tier level.

All in all, Muhammad Ali beat at least 3 men who quite often appear on most people's top 10 list, and at least 1 or 2 men who may fit into a top 20-25.. He also beat most of these guys when they were at their best or near it.. Ali never acheived the lengthy reign that Louis put together, but let's not forget that his career was broken into two parts, separated by years of inactivity, and many obstacles in between in the form of some of the greatest heavyweight talent of all time.....

Lastly, it could be legitimately stated that Ali defeated the very best men of two separate eras, whereas Louis defeated the best men who were RANKED... The rating system of that period however, left something to be desired. While Louis may have DIMINISHED the colour line, it was still far from DISSOLVED, as men like Lem Franklin, Elmer Ray, and a few others were clearly better than some of their white counterparts who received title fights, while they did not.....

 

There is no doubt that Ali was an exceptional fighter ... size, speed, chin, strength, stamina, heart , physical attributes all A Plus ... just not completely unbeatable ...