things I hate about Louis vs Ali debate

Not that I disagree, but which opponent from '67 to '70 do u think would have proved Ali's peak?

 

I'd say Louis was as close to always set as a fighter ever was. And as long as Ali was throwing jabs and crosses, then those would be the very openings Joe would be waiting to sense. He won't need Ali to throw a haymaker before he could get his own combinations off

 

Are you serious? frazier had a hall of fame resume even without Ali. Liston and Foreman too. And he beat all 3 of them.

 

Who knows? He might have been Like Ricardo Lopez or Mayweather dominating over guys that are simply not on his level.

I was more pointing to his athletic prime. Considering how phenomenal he looked against Williams, Folley, and Liston his absolute peak in his late 20's would have been jaw dropping.

 

Ya, I once talked w/ my uncle about that very thing. He agreed w/ me that Ali was cheated of his peak. Then I remarked that if Ali had been around from '67 to '70 that Quarry, Bonavena, Ellis, and Mathis would have been beaten worse than they already were! Frazier was the only heavy in the late 60s I think that could have beat Ali, and I even believe that to be doubtful. It's incredible tho to imagine how much more dominant Ali would have been. I mean, he had already been dominant for 4 yrs, but mostly over aging or just plain old fighters, Ali retired right before it was time 2 make his real mark in the boxing world.

 

That's why his resume is crazy. Operated before his prime and past his prime and still dominated essentially 2 different eras.

 

I still think '64 to '67 was his prime, and '74 and '75 as well, but I just think in between would have been the peak of his peak if u know what I mean. However, if he had fought in those years when he was in exile, I essentially think that his great triumphs in Zaire and Manila would have come earlier. In fact, that would probably be around the time he declines, or hopefully, retires. It does make one wonder though, if Ali fought up until he lost for the first time, who would it take? Joe, still?

 

Its easy to say Frazier but people forget not only was Ali very rusty in the 1st fight, he proceeded to beat Frazier twice while past his prime yet people only give that excuse to Frazier as if Ali wasn't also getting older and had been in many wars (his career was actually longer than Frazier's).

So I'll go ahead and say something controversial: Ali beats Frazier in their 1st fight if he never goes into exile and doesn't slack off in training during what would have been his peak years. Who wins the rematch is anyone's guess since they are so evenly matched and so competitive, but looking at the facts, it seems silly to just write Ali off and assume Joe would win if they fought earlier.

Bonavena and Quarry simply get stopped sooner. Don't see much of a difference with Mathis and Ellis.

Lyle wouldn't be able to land a glove on prime Ali. Shavers would be swinging at air and gets stopped within 10 or loses a lopsided decision after a few exciting moments (might be similar to Holmes vs Shavers 1).

The Bugner fight probably doesn't look any different. Young would be real interesting tho.

The matches that are much harder to predict would be Norton and Foreman.

Norton was consistently a huge problem in all 3 fights. Unlike Frazier he arguably got robbed in their 3rd fight and Even the 2nd fight was very close. Even with a gun to my testicles I wouldn't be able to predict a winner. He just had such a good style to counter Ali's hands down stick and move style.

As for Foreman, the thing is Ali losing his speed might have been a blessing in disguise. Remember, during the fight Ali tried to use his legs in the 1st round and changed tactics because Foreman was so good at cutting off the ring. 70's Ali was a bit more creative and had better ring generalship as a necessity due to his declining athleticism. A younger Ali never had to actually think of a plan B since his footwork and reflexes were so crazy.

Am I saying Foreman cuts off the ring and stops an unprepared Ali who assumes Foreman is just a slow mindless slugger? It's certainly possible, but not the most likely scenario. Think about how Ali was writing him off in interviews and undermining his skill calling him a mummy but his expression changed as soon as the bell rung. Ali being overconfident and trying to weave Foreman's looping punches with fancy head movement the way he did against Terrel would be suicide as Foreman hit like 3x harder than Terrel and a single blow would turn the match around immediately.

It's quite possible Norton or Foreman humble him and he bounces back to beat them in rematches. Frazier certainly can't be written off either. And Jimmy Young could be the "dark horse" lurking in the rankings ready to shock the world. I don't think anyone else in the division during the late 60's to early 70's has a prayer of upsetting a hypothetical "peak" Ali.

 

He did not lack footwork, he was just very economically sound.

 

Ali’s competition was quite the step above Louis’s indeed, he broke the mould and never had someone fill it as a boxer.

 

I don't have a problem w/ the thought that Ali would have beaten Frazier. I don't think it's too sure myself.
I do think it's interesting that u bring up Norton, which makes sense. I think it is obvious from watching all three fights that under no circumstances would Ali ever be able to dominate Norton.

 

This content is protected

 

Not that much. Liston's legacy hardly rests on his fights with Ali. And while Ali is Frazier's top win, his wins against Ellis, Quarry, Bugner, Bonavena etc by themselves would make him very highly regarded. And Foreman's destruction of Frazier would therefore also be a huge accomplishment even if Frazier never had beaten Ali. And Foreman's unprecedented regaining of the title would be just as great even if Frazier and Norton never beat Ali, of course.

So however you splice it, he came back and beat two great fighters that were both younger than him and he dethroned Liston when he was regarded as nigh invisible. Louis doesn't have wins like that.

 

I dont see Louis having bad or slow footwork like alot of people. To me it was simply economical everything about the man was so why should the footwork be any different. The exact same thing could be said for Arguello who gets caught up in that same myth

 

Joe Louis had some of the best footwork ever.