The Great Heavyweight Debate: Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Louis - Who's the HW GOAT?

Yes i said Ettore was just inside the 10.

Risko beat Baer a full 6 years before he fought John Henry. Baer was 26-5, on the way up and losing some fights. You are disingenuously making a bigger thing out of Lewis beating Risko than it really was.

He beast Sharkey 9 1/2 years before he fought Lewis. Bringing these two names up in an effort to champion Lewis as a heavyweight is ridiculous really.

Ray hadn't hit his stride? He was a great many years from it.

Patterson achieved more and was a better heavyweight. He built up a very respectable resume. You can't hold Conn and Lewis not having very good heavyweight careers against Patterson because he did. Patterson fought at heavyweight exclusively from fight 27 on. Conn had 60 plus fights behind him when he eased into the big leagues. Lewis had a crack around the 80 fight mark.

Loads of fighters were forced to stop for the war. Louis and Conn turned pro the same year. Joe fought on for many years after the war and he too wasn't the same. Also Louis didn't retire after the rematch, not for good, he had two more fights - at heavyweight.

Patterson was far more dedicated to heavyweight and rated accordingly.

 

Ali 1, Louis 2

Louis would put Ali through hell though and IMO Ali would not sweep a multi-fight series.

 

Muhammad Ali is handicapped in this comparison. He was in exile for 3 and a half years, starting from the moment when he was the most superior in relation to the competition.

 

I've always been a Joe Louis man and doubt that will change in my lifetime.

 

The more you study Louis you less you view him as the usual 1b.

On the flipside of Ali's great opposition are lingering questions, ala Frazier and Norton. Now we know the usual post-exile rebuttal and so the question becomes where do you draw the line? Of course you can, as seems to be the trend, regurtitate the usual '60s Ali dances all night,' but then I could just as easily say this was a more experienced, stronger Ali who exelled in other, vital areas. That was his own argument afterall. The svelte, 31-year-old Ali who rematched Norton barely won by a whisker and he knew it. Many believe it is 2-1 to Kenny.

Does Ali ever beat FOTC Frazier? You will meet just as much resistance as Joe showed that night in those who declare, 'No!' Not a knock, but then it shows this imperious '66 Ali is a bit of an optimistic extrapolation.

When we get to Louis' tactical bogeyman, Walcott, he had the last say in the rematch, so if we play the 'what if' game then Louis simply becomes the first man to regain and still has the defence record at 23.

It's either Ali's highs or Louis' unquestionable superiority, and it's damn close.

 

No, it wasn't. He several times stated that the 60's version was superior, even when he was still active. Those that faced him in both decades agreed. As did just about everyone during that actual time. That was the viewpoint already going into the FOTC.

I don't know that it has ever been controversial except on this forum.

 

it is probable the GREATEST Heavyweight Dream Match in History and I think Joe Louie has everything proven to come out the victor here, even if it took a series...

then of course the winner has to go against the 2cd Greatest Heavyweight mythical match in History, the Winner vs. Iron Mike Tyson!

 

One fella beat two consensus top ten atgs and a bubble top ten atg, and the victories against the two top ten atgs came when he was on the wrong side of 30.

 

At least going into the fight he did. Physical strength can and does increase in your thirties. That was key in Ali's spoiling game, so there's an argument to the contrary. Either way, here we are discussing the unprovable truth. You don't have the same issue with Louis.

 

He was 212 when he beat Norton and Frazier the first time, the same weight for his best performances in the 60's so where did this new strength come from?

If you're thinking the fights against Mathis, MacFoster etc, yes, that Ali was quite a bit bigger, even in terms of lean mass. But when he had a big fight he shed that weight and opted for speed, but still never regained the speed and stamina he had had.

And Louis was probably a bit stronger in his 30's, but no one is saying he was as good. This is only applied to Ali, someone who relied on his speed. Because it was speed he relied on, not a spoiling game. When he had his speed and stamina he didn't need to spoil. And when he felt the need to hold, he was able to control Liston and Chuvalo without much problems.

That the version of Ali that was 220+ lbs was as good as the 60's version is nonsense tbh.

This is just clutching at straws.

 

I don't necesarily disagree but we can only credit the record. I suspect Floyd Mayweather would have beaten prime versions of every rival but it is was it is, and for Ali he lost the most important Frazier fight and very arguably lost to Norton 2-1.

 

I think this can be held against him to an extent while acknowledging that he was a bit past his best at this point (well, by a good margin for the third Norton fight).

This is one of the big unknowns with Ali - how would he have fared without the lay-off? It's far from unthinkable that he would have lost to to Frazier and/or Norton anyway, but without having any excuses. Personally, I see a 30+ Ali taking Norton lightly as a quite likely stumble lay-off or no lay-off.

 

Was Louis-Schmeling 1 "the most important fight"?

 

Ali's 60s opponents were more or less of the caliber of men Louis fought in the 30s and 40s and of roughly equal size. Bob Pastor wouldn't exactly have been dwarfed by say, Zora Foley.

Now, guys like Frazier and Foreman were arguably better than anyone Louis fought. But even guys like Norton and Quarry, weren't necessarily better than say Schmeling and Walcott if we're looking at them all at their best .