Who has better resume; Joe Louis or Muhammad Ali?

I know I asked you this before but don't think I got an answer: Do you dismiss the result of every fight where there's been a confirmed injury? For example Tyson-Tucker, Floyd-Pac and Pac-Bradley 2? Loma-Lopez, Lopez-Kambosas? Ali's documented hand problems through his second career, do they mean that Frazier's and Norton's wins over him are to be dismissed?

Personally, I do it see it that black and white. Knowing that injuries are part of the game and fighters often carry some sort of problem I want a clear indication in the fight that an injury played a part in the result.

Liston wings that left freely as long as the fight lasts. It's not like Cerdan against LaMotta where he's clearly one-armed but still arguably more competitive.

Patterson had long time back issues, I think, so it wasn't a matter of timing. Dundee suggested that his problems was aggravated against Ali since his blows landed on a crouching Patterson's forehead and transplanted the force through his back, and that that had happened to several of Ali's sparring partners.

Make of that what you will, since Dundee hardly is a neutral party here, but crucial for me is that Patterson was dominated for five rounds before the injury happened. It wasn't a competitive fight that turned on that injury.

Terrell's injury is a weird one, yes, and hard to know how it happened or when. But that was also a fight that never changed in character, but looked pretty much the same for all the 15 rds.

EDIT: It does seem there was an incident in rd 4. This is what I wrote about some years ago after reviewing the film:

"I think the thumb that seemed to happen in rd 4 quite likely worsened the injury to Ernie's eye to some degree. It is swelling fast in the corner after the round. But it's hard to know just what difference the possible thumbing made. Ali was after all constantly landing clean blows to the eye as well."

 

Ali was lucky Terrell got injured. He wouldn’t have stood a chance otherwise! /s

 

Confirmed injuries before the fight, depending on the strength of the evidence, should be taken into account when assessing the quality of the win. For both fighters. As you say elsewhere in your post, it's not black and white.

Depends what you mean by "dismissed," though. I mean, obviously Ali won those fights fair and square. You can only beat the guy in front of you.

 

Which is of course not what I said.

We're talking about dominance over the opposition. It's easier to beat an injured guy than an uninjured guy.

 

Dismissed as irrelevant for the resume. Because that seems to be how you see them when you have mentioned those Ali fights in this thread and other.

 

Depends on which fight you're referring to. I didn't say they were all irrelevant.

Liston I, Liston was the champion. He ultimately quit on a shoulder injury like Vitali did against Byrd. But he was obviously still very good even with the injury.

Liston II, I'm sorry, but Liston quit in weird circumstances. That fight didn't mean much.

Patterson, Ali still had to perform well up until Patterson's back gave out, whenever you want to say that happened. But it wasn't a complete picture of what Ali vs a younger Patterson might have looked like.

Terrell, an injury that jammed an eyeball would significantly degrade his fighting abilities.

Williams was still a legit contender. Just no longer a very good one.

 

Vitaly was well ahead against Byrd and didn't seem to be in much distress. Liston wasn't behind, but tiring rapidly and getting hit with just about everything Ali threw. He looked close to done. So I wouldn't equal them.

As for Patterson, it would have been preferable with no injury of course, but looking at the injury free rounds Floyd had to pull something dramatic out of the bag to change the course of the fight.

The Terrell fight is a weird one. Fighters usually reacts in a very clear fashion to eye pokes (I do as well when sparring), but nothing like that from Terrell from what I can recall so if it was a singular trauma like that it's very hard to know when it happened. There's no real change in Terrell or the fight at any point. The first is a bit of a feel out round for Ali, as he often started, but then he takes over and rarely let's up.

 

It's Ali for me and not really that close honestly. Ali's career is like Louis' career if Louis came back, beat Marciano, and remained at the top of the division for another several years

 

For the time and place they were fought, Ali does, but Louis' p4p names are actually incredible. If there was no Joe Louis, and you saw Bivins, Walcot x2, Conn x2, John Henry Lewis, Schmeling, and the dude who did Take This Job and Shove It, you'd be like whoa. Look at dat resume. I'd tap dat resume azz.

 

If Terrell was injured prior to the bout, you'd have an argument. But Terrell was injured during the bout because of a punch. It's essentially the same as asking, would the fight have been different if Terrell didn't get hit.

 

You're clearly having trouble grasping my point. Because of Louis's numerous knockdowns, it's silly to say he stood head and shoulders above his opponents to a degree Ali didn't.

I'm not comparing Ali to Louis's opponents. I'm comparing Ali's opponents to Louis's opponents which is exactly the point of the thread. At the end of the day Ali's opponents were much better than Louis's regardless of the manner he beat them. He beat imo three top ten fighters and 4 top 20 fighters. Louis beat 0 top ten fighters and maybe 2 fighters in the top 20.

 

Not really, because Ali's punches inflicted a really rare, lucky injury. Out of the thousands of punches Ali threw over the course of his career, how many jammed an eyeball into immobility?

It doesn't happen often in fights between heavyweight contenders, period.

 

Nope. That's the point I replied to.

I don't buy it. Getting knocked down occasionally against guys you KO -- most in one-sided fashion -- isn't a big problem for dominance.

Much less of a problem than (70s) Ali losing more than once at his 70s best, and not even holding the title for half the decade.

You're weighting knockdowns way too heavily, IMO.

Who said anything about comparing Ali to Louis's opponents?

You were doing a head to head comparison of both men's contenders/challengers. You were saying Ali's were a lot better. I don't think that kind of cross-era comparison works when assessing dominance, since obviously Louis never fought Frazier, Norton, etc.

 

Excellent post.

 

I am going with Ali, he just about fought everyone in the division at that time. Joe did miss a couple of guys that he could have fought, but it may have been a political thing.