Who beats Ali? No hedging your bets, who do YOU pick to straight up beat him?

I can give you my reasoning for making it a 50/50 type fight.

A. Louis has everything in the toolbox on paper. He is the most complete package the division has ever seen.

B. Louis is the ultimate executer of the fight plan. If he knows your game and comes with the right plan you are screwed.

The above factors are the resons why he always dominated rematches.

What do the two people who beat Ali meaningfully (Frazier & Norton) have in common?

They both had Eddie Futch in their corners who had Ali's number. Futch produced two seperate formulas for beating Ali one for a swarmer and one for a pressure counterpuncher.

It wouldnt be Louis Ali had to watch out for it would be Jack Blackburn.

 

Super man!!!!!!

 

I'm not sure I agree, but you make a very good case in any case. Good analysis as always, McGrain.

 

Would you make anyone else 50/50 or better against any of these two?

 

I couldnt honestly make anybody a clear favourite over this dynamic duo.

I might make a great who was a bad style match for one of them even money as in 49/51 or less.

I do think however that when you are matching guys from your top 20 all time heavyweights the odds can be prety close between #1 and #20.

 

The main thing I disagree somewhat with in your analysis is about Ali's jab, McGrain. While you're right that he could be a bit lazy with it (and with his other punches as well) he rarely was in the most important fights. Against Liston, Frazier and Foreman I think he made it count most of the times he threw it. Very few of those jabs were lazy.

The same goes for his economy. Louis was of course the more economical fighter, but Ali tended to be more disciplined with his movement in the big fights.

In round 1 in the first fight against Liston he skitted around the ring, but probably because of the nervousness he still could feel at that age. For the rest of the fight he was smarter with his movement and didn't expend a lot of energy.

And in the seond fight he showed more maturity ans self-assuredness in the first round (while it lasted). His movement, while still graceful, was obviously more disciplined and effective in the early stages of that fight than it was in the first.

Louis would get him in positions to unload on him now and then, though. So it's just a question of how Ali would deal with it and how much they would have left at that point. As you say, the effectiveness of Ali's jab may well be the crucial factor here.

 

I agree.

 

Yours and Mcgrain's posts have made some great points but I honestly can't see it. The man you speak of, Eddie Futch spoke of a way to beat Louis as well as Ali. Futch noted that Louis never threw a long punch. Always short punches. Also, that Louis never let a punch go unless both of his feet were squarely on the canvas. In speaking about his sparring with Louis "I stayed outside the arc of the short punches," he said,"When I moved to my left, Joe would turn to face me, then I'd move to my right and he'd turn back. For him to move, he [Louis] would have to pick up his feet. Now I had time but it had to split-second. I'd move left, then right. When he turned back, bing, I'd step inside, throw my punches and get out of there."
This sounds exactly like what Ali would be able to do and with his hand speed to boot I think he still wins this one.

 

The people who say Louis has no chance are idiots. Louis's fist knew no granite chin. He could knock Ali the **** out and it could be the only time Muhammad ever get's stop. I'm not saying he would beat Ali because he is the greatest puncher ever he has a chance. Ali would be winning on points but Louis could send him to sleep.

 

The observation should be made that Futch only sparred with Louis when the bomber was an amateur.

Still, I think Futch might have made a terible nemesis for a prime Louis also.

Would anybody in their right mind want that man in their oponents camp?

 

For twice.

Futch also handed Ali the Norton loss.

 

I have stated this before. Put Eddie Futch in the corner of Larry Holmes and he can decision the mythical Ali of 1968 and 1969. Zora Folley had success over the first three rounds against Muhammad, and blocked numerous punches from Ali with his high guard, the same high guard I expect Larry would use.

Holmes had the jab necessary to throw off Ali's rhythm, and he'd pay attention to Futch's instructions. I also believe he was smarter than Muhammad.

Eddie Futch taught Holmes how to unload his right lead without telegraphing it, and Folley was able to land successive right leads on Ali. Larry would not have been taken out like Folley was.

Stop Ali/Folley after the first three rounds, then listen to Muhammad's post fight comments in the ring. Important clues will emerge.

Unlike most, I don't put that much stock in Ali/Young. Muhammad was in really crappy shape for that one. He looked perfectly comfortable stalking after Blue Lewis, Jerry Quarry in their rematch, Joe Bugner, and over the first five rounds against Mac Foster.

Standing his ground to take Ali off his toes would be the best way for Larry to box him.

No, I do not believe that Frazier could have dethroned Muhammad in 1967, 1968 or 1969. (Nor do I believe that Ali could have taken Joe out.)

Holmes loses with Giachetti in his corner. When they fought, Larry was far more cautious against Ali than he would have been with Futch working for him at that time.

Unlike Ali, he boxed Norton's ears off over the first ten rounds, and should have had that one sewn up on the scorecards eight rounds to two after that interval.

 

Good post -succinct and compelling. While I don't give much weight to option B or C against a 1967 Ali, the first is a foil for his particular style. Thus, I'd make Frazier a slight favorite.

(I'm thinking long and hard about Evander. High pressure, a physical fighter, good stamina at his best, and a master counterpuncher.)