I watched their second fight again today after another poster mentioned it on another thread. I wanted to check I had seen the same fight or if I had a bad memory. This is what I saw: Henry Cooper gave Ali another good fight. It was not a one sided beating by any means and some things startled me. One thing was that Cooper had no great difficulty getting into range against Ali(who was still quick in 1966). This kind of kills the argument that Ali was untouchable in his prime. There is also a point in the fight where Cooper lands 3 jabs on Ali in a row! Yet we are meant to believe that Joe Louis couldn't land a jab consistently on Ali? Cooper was a decent fighter, but he is nowhere near the class of Louis. Yet he was giving a good account until he got cut. Only when Henry was bleeding profusely did Ali really go to town on him. I think the Cooper fight shows that Louis could get into range and that gives him a great shot at Ali. I rate Ali as one of the finest heavyweights and have loads of books and DVD's about him. He was a great fighter, no doubt. I just can't see this "unbeatable" tag holding true. I know I'll get slaughtered for saying it, but I think Louis has at least a 50-50 chance against him. The Cooper fight confirmed it for me.
That's the same thing I see when I watch the fight. Ali was great but he wasn't unhittable, and fighters with good fundamentals could find him. Cooper's swift boxing and wiry slim build helped him too, probably. He wasn't lugging around too much or presenting a large target. To be fair, Ali stepped it up a bit against Cooper and a detectable gulf in ability is evident, but then again Cooper was second-rate, and once Cooper was cut he was done, just a matter of time again. But, yes, the idea that a 1966 Ali would make a fool of a Joe Louis, or even Jack Dempsey, doesn't hold true at all for me.
Ali, always had trouble with fighters with great left hooks. A fighter such as Norton, who could land with the jab also caused trouble for Ali. I think the modern behemoth heavyweights would be less of a problem to Ali. Pressure fighters like a Frazier, who threw a powerful left hook, and boxer/punchers like a Norton who had a good jab caused Ali issues. A Louis or a Holmes would be fighters who could beat an Ali. I also think pressure/swarmer fighters like Frazier, Marciano or Dempsey would also have a good chance with Ali. Henry Cooper, gave Ali some good fights. It's all about styles. Floyd Patterson, destroyed Cooper in there matchup.
That's all I am saying. I am not anti-Ali in any way, it's just that the Cooper fight got me thinking about Louis and other smaller heavyweights who might have given Ali trouble. He certainly coped well with the really big, heavy guys! Maybe Walcott or Charles could test him more than one would immediately think?
But Cooper had a shaky chin and Ali never looked like flooring him. The point I am trying to make is for some on here there is no allowing for the possibility of a peak Ali losing, whereas I acknowledge that Louis could be beaten and don't decry anyone for saying it.
Up until Ali came along it was the bigger they are the harder they fall. ALI changed all that. He was a big man with a smaller man's speed and pace who exploited a greater control of distance. It suited him that the division was getting bigger because he had all the advantages over men his own size. But it was the smaller guys who troubled him because they shortened the edge in speed and pace Ali had on bigger slower heavyweights.
A lot of fighters could take anybody out. But boxing isn't that simple. They only count if you can land them. Ali was very good at not being hit and very good at not going down when he was hit.
Does he really? Or does it just LOOK like he does? Clay / Ali was a master of dancing around the ring out of range of the other guy forcing him to " reach " with his punches knowing A that they would fall just short, and B that they were within his range to counter.
Yes he really did. Against smaller lighter opponents. Doug jones reached him, cooper and Folley. Yes he danced beautifully and yes he could retreat out of range preventing combinations from landing but Ali could be tagged. His elusiveness has grown to mythic proportions over the years because of his personality and importance during a very pivotal time in America's civil rights movement. However with footage of his fights more accessible than ever and the image quality improved upon by digitizing it's apparent that Ali could be hit. Sure he made old Liston look foolish reaching, and a shot Cleveland Williams but other fights bare out that he could be clipped.
nah he wooped cooper. cooper may have desperately landed some shots but im sure ali wasnt hurt. IN his prime ali is pretty much impossible to beat if he is focused. he has all the traits needed to be a perfect fighter when most fights only have a few. He is the quickest on his feet(obviously) He has fast head movement along with his feet. He has the quickest hands A good chin His legs alone make him unbeatable. youre not going to be able to hit him I remember watching cooper talk about how frustrating it was to fight him, he said he was too damn quick. he said one second he would seem like he is in range to get hit, then you throw a shot and hes already 4 feet away
I always felt Patterson should have given Ali a better fight. Especially the first time. He was fast. If there were two men Patterson let himself down against it was Ali and Liston. He never would have beat them but I just think he had more than that. Maybe it was psychological. I think a prime Tunney, Harold Johnson, Eddie Machen and Ezzard Charles would have been bad match ups for Ali. He still might beat them but they were tougher stylistically for him that Williams and Lyle types.
Nobody would be absolutely unbeatable. Even any great could lose on a particular night to another great,but you could just as easily claim that if Billy Conn could outbox Louis at various intervals,than Ali was more than capable of doing it even more effectively. He was bigger,stronger and even faster than Conn