Who do you consider the best heavyweight of all-time?

[Rumsfeld]

Just curious. I limited it to these two names, as I'm presupposing that most have these as #1 & #2, one way or another.

[ChrisPontius]

They're too close to seperate in my opinion, but i like Louis' style slightly better so i have him at #1, but Ali has just as much claim to that spot. Both incredible warriors.


By the way, Rumsfeld, what do you think about Ali not going to Vietnam?

[McGrain]

It's Ali, by distance, from Louis. It is my opinion that people who have Louis at #1 have made a mistake - i don't think it is that close. Ali is the more skilled on film. Ali has the better wins. They both have losses, they both went on to long. They both dominated the field.

Ali is ahead in ALL departments apart from longetivty.

I say this as one of the biggest Louis fans on the site, who isn't a fan of Ali, really.

[Rumsfeld]

By the way, Rumsfeld, what do you think about Ali not going to Vietnam?

As a boxing fan, I try to separate Ali the boxer from Ali the man, though, oftentimes, that is a rather daunting task, given the high-profile figure he was.

Let us just say that when compared to the service Joe Louis provided for his country, I prefer Louis the person over Ali the person.

[TommyV]

Muhammad Ali. Not by a huge distance, but clearly enough. I would have him ahead based on ability, although of course Louis' was a big puncher and a very good boxer aswell, on resume, again Louis' resume is very good though, and H2H, again I would rate Louis highly H2H aswell.

So as you can see, clearly enough but not by a great margin.

[ChrisPontius]

As a boxing fan, I try to separate Ali the boxer from Ali the man, though, oftentimes, that is a rather daunting task, given the high-profile figure he was.

Let us just say that when compared to the service Joe Louis provided for his country, I prefer Louis the person over Ali the person.

That's the most politically correct post i've ever seen you made. :lol: But i get it.

[Rumsfeld]

That's the most politically correct post i've ever seen you made. :lol:

:rofl:rofl:rofl

[teeto]

I have recently altered my number 1 from Louis to Ali, and in hindsight, i think i should have done it a while ago. Ali imo

[janitor]

I pick Louis personaly but I dont think there is a lot in it.

You could call them 1A and 1B for all practical purpouses.

Ali defeated better opposition but his record has the scars to show it.

[Rumsfeld]

You could call them 1A and 1B for all practical purpouses.

I don't disagree with this.

[Rumsfeld]

I have recently altered my number 1 from Louis to Ali, and in hindsight, i think i should have done it a while ago. Ali imo
Incidentally, I just made the reverse alteration on my list.

[McGrain]

I pick Louis personaly but I dont think there is a lot in it.

You could call them 1A and 1B for all practical purpouses.

Ali defeated better opposition but his record has the scars to show it.


Well 1A has every concievable advantage in terms of legacy over 1B aside from number of defences. This is arguably due, in part, to a political witch-hunt.

[McGrain]

Incidentally, I just made the reverse alteration on my list.

What promoted the change?

[Rumsfeld]

What promoted the change?

A combination of things, which mostly stem from me getting more recent exposure to Joe Louis.

But let it be known, my knowledge of heavyweight history pre-1960 is hardly on par with the experts (of whom I believe we have several right here in the Classic Forum) and my overall knowledge pre-1985 has a lot to be desired.

To be sure, I know quite a bit about heavyweight history, and I know a decent amount about many historical non-heavyweights, but I still do not consider myself an expert by any means, even if I do have opinions on anything and everything. I can concede my own limitations on such matters without regret (especially given I am trying to remedy such).

I do wish Tomato Can posted here, on an entirely unrelated note. That man knew his shit!

[teeto]

Incidentally, I just made the reverse alteration on my list.
Really? How things are balanced out in this universe aye? Ha!

[Rumsfeld]

Really? How things are balanced out in this universe aye? Ha!

:lol:

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]Well 1A has every concievable advantage in terms of legacy over 1B aside from number of defences.

I dont see it to be honest.

I agree that the best opponents Ali fought were better than the best Louis fought but he has the losses to show for it against Frazier and Norton.

Louis lost to Max Schmeling in his second year as a pro and to Ezzard Charles when he was old and in the fifteen years between these fights he basicaly held the division undser an iron heel.

Any member of the month club that beat Louis would have received historical standing comparable to Ken Norton by default regardless of any other deficiencies in his record.

So Louis dominated a weaker era but dominated it more thoroughly.


This is arguably due, in part, to a political witch-hunt.


Louis also lost title defences to the war to be fair.

[Rumsfeld]

other- Mike Tyson

:lol:

[McGrain]

I agree that the best opponents Ali fought were better than the best Louis fought but he has the losses to show for it against Frazier and Norton.

Both lost to the very best fighter they fought around, but not during, their absolute peaks. Ditching Louis' post retirement losses and Ali's post illness losses for the sake of ease gives Ali ONE additional loss. Here are a list of the fighters who are arguably top 10 in the history of this division that Ali beat

Liston x2
Frazier x3
Foreman x1

And Louis's:

Nobody.

One additional loss is nothing measured against this domination of world class competition.


So Louis dominated a weaker era but dominated it more thoroughly.

The only way to weigh this equation in favour of Louis is if you favour Louis. It is possible to be genuinely mistaken of course.



Louis also lost title defences to the war to be fair.

Yes, fair enough.

[round15]

Jack Johnson IMO is the #1 heavyweight of all time, considering the time he fought and all the black contenders that he beat that were very much capable of being heavyweight champion in different eras.

[ChrisPontius]

True McGrain, but it should also be noted that some people (not me, mind you) thought Liston was washed up or something for the Ali fights. Foreman was at his peak but Frazier was further away from his best than Ali was from his when Ali got the win, whereas he lost when both were closest to their prime. Also Louis would've never lost to Norton. It goes both ways. Ali lost 3 peak years in banishment, but that also gave Frazier, Quarry, Bonavena etc a chance to make a name for themselves and enhancing Ali's legacy when he beat them later.

[ChrisPontius]

Jack Johnson IMO is the #1 heavyweight of all time, considering the time he fought and all the black contenders that he beat that were very much capable of being heavyweight champion in different eras.
He avoided Langford, Jeanette and McVey when they entered their primes and when Johnson was champion. Gunboat Smith never got a shot either.


A "champion" (i find it hard to consider someone who avoids the best competition a champion) who ducked FOUR of the best contenders around has no business at the #1 spot. You may come up with reasons, excuses and magic shows now on how he already beat them when they had 10 fights or so, or how the fights weren't marketable, but all of that is irrelevant. I guess fighting with big money maker, or i should say, journeyman Jim Johnson was marketable of course. Bottom line is the fights didn't happen.

[McGrain]

True McGrain, but it should also be noted that some people (not me, mind you) thought Liston was washed up or something for the Ali fights. Foreman was at his peak but Frazier was further away from his best than Ali was from his when Ali got the win, whereas he lost when both were closest to their prime. Also Louis would've never lost to Norton. It goes both ways. Ali lost 3 peak years in banishment, but that also gave Frazier, Quarry, Bonavena etc a chance to make a name for themselves and enhancing Ali's legacy when he beat them later.


It's not unfair. Your post is reasonable. For me, I'm not happy with either Liston win. It's okay to lend a certain amount of weight to these arguments, but in the end the facts are the facts. Old Liston is better than anyone on Louis' resume IN MY OPINION (though i'm well aware you and I can argue all night about him and Walcott, who pushed Joe close twice).

Not only was Foreman an all time great at his absolute peak, but Ali was way, way past his. An incredible win. Imagine Joe Louis knocking out Rocky Marciano? Is that a fair comparison?

I love Joe, I have no desire to denigrate him, I just think that the arguments concerning his case have to be "worked". Ali's do not.

[Blacc Jesus]

Definitely Ali, IMO.

[mcvey]

It's not unfair. Your post is reasonable. For me, I'm not happy with either Liston win. It's okay to lend a certain amount of weight to these arguments, but in the end the facts are the facts. Old Liston is better than anyone on Louis' resume IN MY OPINION (though i'm well aware you and I can argue all night about him and Walcott, who pushed Joe close twice).

Not only was Foreman an all time great at his absolute peak, but Ali was way, way past his. An incredible win. Imagine Joe Louis knocking out Rocky Marciano? Is that a fair comparison?

I love Joe, I have no desire to denigrate him, I just think that the arguments concerning his case have to be "worked". Ali's do not.
Ali has the more solid resume,imo ,he beat three men who make most peoples top 10,and lots of rated heavies, many when past his prime.Louis only lost when he wasnt focused against Schmeling,and when he was past it against Charles and Marciano.Two great Champs Louis makes my no4 spot,Ali my no 1.

[Bokaj]

You asked me who the best was, not who had the strongest resume or who dodged the most drafts.

When are you going to Iraq, by the way? You seem to be in the right age for enlisting.:good

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]Both lost to the very best fighter they fought around, but not during, their absolute peaks. Ditching Louis' post retirement losses and Ali's post illness losses for the sake of ease gives Ali ONE additional loss. Here are a list of the fighters who are arguably top 10 in the history of this division that Ali beat

Liston x2
Frazier x3
Foreman x1


Louis dosnt have a Liston Frazier or Foreman on his resume but at the same time he dosnt have a loss to a Ken Norton type who didnt do much outside of beating him, or a fighter who gave him repeated competitive rematches.

Louis only lost when he was either verry inexperienced or verry old and only to fighters who won the lineal title outside of their fight with Louis. Though some of his oponents gave him close fights none of them were able to achieve anything in a rematch once Louis had a clear idea what he was up against.

I think we have to give Louis a clear edge in dominance to offset his weaker competition.


And Louis's:

Nobody.


Louis was the victim of his own sucess to some extent. He dominated the competition so thoroughly that he downgraded it.

Frazier is only seen as a top 10 heavyweight because he beat Ali and George Foreman is only seen as a top ten heavyweight because Frazier beat Ali. Ken Norton is nobody on an all time list if you take away his wins over Ali.

any member of the bum of the month club who beat Louis would routinely be ranked on top 20 lists or higher but they didnt so they are just another bum of the month. I would further suggest that Walcott might well crack the top 10 if he had been given the nod against Louis in their first fight.

[Bokaj]

Suzie Q brought up some good black fighters that Louis never faced in a recent thread. Walcott obviously claimed that one of them (I forget who) was the best fighter he ever met.

I think the fact that Louis never took on any of these fighters diminish his legacy somewhat. Ali fought just about anyone there was to fight.

[McGrain]

Louis dosnt have a Liston Frazier or Foreman on his resume but at the same time he dosnt have a loss to a Ken Norton type who didnt do much outside of beating him, or a fighter who gave him repeated competitive rematches.

Well if you weigh the Norton loss against wins over Frazier, Liston, Foreman...good luck to you!

Frazier is only seen as a top 10 heavyweight because he beat Ali and George Foreman is only seen as a top ten heavyweight because Frazier beat Ali. Ken Norton is nobody on an all time list if you take away his wins over Ali.

The Tyson nuthuggers try this one on too.

It's just as incorrect if not quite as unseemly to see it in Classic.

Frazier proved himself versus Muhammad Ali who proved himself versus Liston who proved himself against Patterson who proved himself against Johannson. All top 30. Foreman proved himself against Frazier. Top 5. Ali proved himself against Frazier, Foreman and Liston.

[McGrain]

the cycle of 1970's heavyweight overratedness is alive and well. Don't even try to deny it's existance.


Check it out Janitor -

This is your boy!

[Bokaj]

Louis only lost when he was either verry inexperienced or verry old and only to fighters who won the lineal title outside of their fight with Louis.

But Ali only lost after a 3,5 year lay-off. That he unlike Louis didn't lose in his prime (or at least very close to it) should count for something.

Frazier is only seen as a top 10 heavyweight because he beat Ali

Well, he was a very highly regarded undefeated champ who had been breezing through most of his opposition before he met Ali.

[McGrain]

son,

:lol:

i'm the one who popularized the theory of the vicious cycle of 70's overratedness

Exactly my point!

[AlonzoGreene]

i'd go if i got drafted, well, i'd get a commision in the airforce if i was drafted.. Hell, ali would have been nothing but a PR man in a cushy non combat job and he still didnt go.


Don't speak on issues you know nothing about.

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]Well if you weigh the Norton loss against wins over Frazier, Liston, Foreman...good luck to you!

It is not that I weigh it against them.

I simply draw the conclusion that Ali was less dominant versus the Norton Norton level fighters than Louis was and this must to some extent offset the fact that Ali beat and somtimes lost to better fighters than Louis.


The Tyson nuthuggers try this one on too.

It's just as incorrect if not quite as unseemly to see it in Classic.


The crucial differnce here is that we are dealing with a fighter who has an equaly deep body of work and the main factor in his oppositions failure to get to the top is that fighter.

You cant totaly discount this.

Frazier proved himself versus Muhammad Ali who proved himself versus Liston who proved himself against Patterson who proved himself against Johannson. All top 30.

Ah but the version of Liston that Ali faced was no more a top 10 all time heavyweight than the version of Tyson that James Douglas beat so here the chain breaks down.

Foreman proved himself against Frazier. Top 5. Ali proved himself against Frazier, Foreman and Liston.

You still have to ask in each case where they stand without Ali.

Would anybody consider Frazier a top 10 heavyweight if he lost all three fights with Ali?

Would anybody consider George Foreman a top ten heavyweight if Frazier had never won the title and Foreman had got his bid for the title against Ali in Zaire?

Would anybody consider Ken Norton a top 30 all time heavyweight if he lost all three fights to Ali?

Louis simply never alowed a Frazier or Foreman to establish themself on his watch.

[teeto]

Don't speak on issues you know nothing about.
Speak on it then please, this is not a part of history that i know much on to be honest, would like to learn though if you are knowledgeable on the subject.

[janitor]

Check it out Janitor -

This is your boy!

He is a young man in a hurry.

[AlonzoGreene]

Speak on it then please, this is not a part of history that i know much on to be honest, would like to learn though if you are knowledgeable on the subject.

Basically, "drafting" Ali was a PR ploy by our government. There were many young people who were against the war, so the government figure if they could get a young african-american "radical" to go, hopefully they could dismantle the opposition to the war.

Ali knew he wasn't going to be in danger. Yet, he was a representative to many people. He knew that the government was simply trying to use them as one of their tools and Ali was really against this.

Not to mention all of the racial injustice occuring in America around this time. Remember, Ali could win a gold medal "for his country", but when he got back to America, he couldn't even be served food from several of the Louisville's diners.

[McGrain]

I simply draw the conclusion that Ali was less dominant versus the Norton Norton level fighters than Louis was and this must to some extent offset the fact that Ali beat and somtimes lost to better fighters than Louis.

Of course. But why does more dominant against good fighters outstrip more dominant against great fighters? Ali is 5-1 against top 10 hw's, all time.



Ah but the version of Liston that Ali faced was no more a top 10 all time heavyweight than the version of Tyson that James Douglas beat so here the chain breaks down.

Fair, and it's my thinking. But, again, they are still stupendous wins for a young heavyweight. Ali's wins against Liston, his first venture into top class heavyweight competition is more impressive than Louis' venture into top class competition with wins over past-peak Bear and the loss to Schmeling. Incredible wins.

Ali's win, whilst past his own peak, over absolutley peaked Foreman? Incredible. Louis has a similair win - over Walcott. But it is tarnished.



Would anybody consider Frazier a top 10 heavyweight if he lost all three fights with Ali?

Irrelevant.

Would anybody consider George Foreman a top ten heavyweight if Frazier had never won the title and Foreman had got his bid for the title against Ali in Zaire?

Irrelevant.

Would anybody consider Ken Norton a top 30 all time heavyweight if he lost all three fights to Ali?

Irrelevant

Louis simply never alowed a Frazier or Foreman to establish themself on his watch.

If Louis had fought peak Frazier instead of Walcott the first time, the same sort of time that ALi fought Frazier, I pick Frazier. Not convinced that Louis could have won the rematch.

Peak for peak, I agree, but it is not that simple.

[teeto]

Basically, "drafting" Ali was a PR ploy by our government. There were many young people who were against the war, so the government figure if they could get a young african-american "radical" to go, hopefully they could dismantle the opposition to the war.

Ali knew he wasn't going to be in danger. Yet, he was a representative to many people. He knew that the government was simply trying to use them as one of their tools and Ali was really against this.

Not to mention all of the racial injustice occuring in America around this time. Remember, Ali could win a gold medal "for his country", but when he got back to America, he couldn't even be served food from several of the Louisville's diners.
Oh, thanks. I always just took 'I aint got no quarrel with them Viet Cong' for face value. But what you're saying is that he knew he would have just been a puppet for the system and he said helll no.

Either way, he was a great man for his actions there imo.

[Bokaj]

I wouldn't call Ali a hero for refusing the draft, but I would sooner do that than call him a traitor or a coward. I can see why he didn't want to fight in a war he didn't believe in, for the benefit of a government he didn't believe in either. And he didn't run abroad or anything like that, but pleaded his case before the court instead.

Too bad, would have been something to have him in exile here in Sweden during his prime years, beating up on the local 'talent'.

[AlonzoGreene]

Oh, thanks. I always just took 'I aint got no quarrel with them Viet Cong' for face value. But what you're saying is that he knew he would have just been a puppet for the system and he said helll no.

Either way, he was a great man for his actions there imo.

Exactly. Ali knew he wasn't going to be "fighting" in any war. He knew that was not going to be in any real danger. Yet, he risked losing everything and facing possible jail time just for his beliefs. He never compromised what he believed in, and that's heroic for me.

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]Of course. But why does more dominant against good fighters outstrip more dominant against great fighters? Ali is 5-1 against top 10 hw's, all time.


A) If a fighter dose better against oponents of a common level then that suggests that he is better even if there were no great fighters around at the time.

B) I dont think it is that straightforward.

The best guys Louis beat sort of inhabit a zone between the Norton/Quarry teir and the Frazier Foreman teir.

I could argue that Louis's win over a prime Joe Walcott at the twilight of his career or his one round destruction of Max Schmeling is more impresive than Ali's win over Foreman or Frazier due to the circumstances/level of dominancce.



Fair, and it's my thinking. But, again, they are still stupendous wins for a young heavyweight. Ali's wins against Liston, his first venture into top class heavyweight competition is more impressive than Louis' venture into top class competition with wins over past-peak Bear and the loss to Schmeling. Incredible wins.


I disagree.

Louis had only been a pro for 14 months when he fought Max Baer. Ali was fighting tomato cans at this stage of his profesional career.

I think that if Liston trained the way he did against Ali against Max Schmeling he would take a bad beating and nobody would be verry surprized.


Irrelevant.



Irrelevant.



Irrelevant


I dont think it is irrelevant.


If Louis had fought peak Frazier instead of Walcott the first time, the same sort of time that ALi fought Frazier, I pick Frazier. Not convinced that Louis could have won the rematch.


I think Louis was much further removed from his peak for the Walcott fight than Ali was for any of the Frazier fights.


Peak for peak, I agree, but it is not that simple.


I have looked at the matter with a critical eye and concluded that Frazier and Foreman were better than guys Louis beat.

I am going to play devils advocate and say that perhaps Tami Maurellio was going to be the next all time great heavyweight but he was unlucky enough to come along on Louis's watch.

[ChrisPontius]

It's not unfair. Your post is reasonable. For me, I'm not happy with either Liston win. It's okay to lend a certain amount of weight to these arguments, but in the end the facts are the facts. Old Liston is better than anyone on Louis' resume IN MY OPINION (though i'm well aware you and I can argue all night about him and Walcott, who pushed Joe close twice).

Not only was Foreman an all time great at his absolute peak, but Ali was way, way past his. An incredible win. Imagine Joe Louis knocking out Rocky Marciano? Is that a fair comparison?




Not in my book as i consider Marciano to be greater and Foreman never dealt with a good, durable boxing type of opponent, but it is a valid point as there is a good amount of people who have Marciano and Foreman ranked close, or even Foreman higher. I was playing devil's advocate a little, because i do think Liston came off his career best win (KO1 Patterson), especially if you consider Ali was relatively green, it's amazing.

[AlonzoGreene]

A bunch of men hijacked planes and flew them into crowded office buildings for their beliefs.

does that make them heroic?

Damn, you are a dumbass.

Did Ali's actions kill thousands of people?

Think before you talk....damn.

[AlonzoGreene]

So according to Wealthy Elite, Ali is similar to a terrorist?

Damn what's your opinion of Rosa Parks?

[McGrain]

It's on...

[AlonzoGreene]

So standing up for your beliefs only makes you heroic when you agree with it?

His actions didn't hurt nobody, but you're acting like he is a terrorist. What correlation are you making?

[AlonzoGreene]

It's on...

:lol:

[teeto]

Oh It's On!!!!

[AlonzoGreene]

No. Either standing up for what you believe is always heroic or it never is.


Which is it.


That's a very simplistic way of looking at it. It's either black or white, no gray area.:lol: It's not always heroic, of course not. There are variables that come in to play. What you believe, how you stand up for the your rights are two of the obviously factors.

Killing innocent people because you disagree with a foreign government's policy is not righteous. Thus, terrorist attacks are not righteous because you are immediately infringing upon the rights of innocent people.

If you can't even understand how to differeniate actions, I'm not going to continue having this debate because it's a waste of time.

[Bokaj]

One pretty illuminating way of comparing their careers is to divide them into before and after their respective lay-off.

Louis beat more opponents during the first part of his career than Ali did. But he had a loss to Schmeling and tough fights against Godoy and Conn. Ali's only real difficult fight was against Jones when he was still very young. Cooper gave him a big scare as well, but except for that left hook Ali clearly dominated that fight.

His first win against Liston, who was considered invincible, also beats any of Louis's wins. Furthermore, Ali took on just about all the best fighters of that era (maybe with the exception of Machen) while Louis didn't fight some of the best black fighters of the day. Therefore, I give the first part of Ali's career a slight edge over the first part of Louis's, even if I can understand if you would have them even.

When it comes to the second parts of their respective careers, there's really no contest is there?

[groove]

Ali was undefeated before the exile. Frazier woulda fought a peak Ali in 69 or 70 if not for the exile. I only see one winner. Joe fought an Ali who was starting all over again and who had only 2 fights in 4 years (Joe had 12 fights in the time Ali was out of boxing). If that's not a massive advantage for Joe then i don't know what the hell is LOL :lol:

[McGrain]

A) If a fighter dose better against oponents of a common level then that suggests that he is better even if there were no great fighters around at the time.

I'm not given to excusing losses to good fighters, but i'm more given to it than to handing over comparable wins versus all time great fighters to determine legacy based on B-level (RELATIVE TERM) competition.

I could argue that Louis's win over a prime Joe Walcott at the twilight of his career or his one round destruction of Max Schmeling is more impresive than Ali's win over Foreman or Frazier due to the circumstances/level of dominancce.

They are very special wins. How they can be seen to be comparable to Ali's victory over Foreman astounds me.




I disagree

Louis had only been a pro for 14 months when he fought Max Baer. Ali was fighting tomato cans at this stage of his profesional career.

I think that if Liston trained the way he did against Ali against Max Schmeling he would take a bad beating and nobody would be verry surprized.

To be clear - a win v Bear and a loss v Schmeling is GREATER THAN two victories over Liston in your mind?



I think Louis was much further removed from his peak for the Walcott fight than Ali was for any of the Frazier fights.

And I think peak Frazier is a nightmare forged in hell for any old heavywieght.



I have looked at the matter with a critical eye and concluded that Frazier and Foreman were better than guys Louis beat.

No lolipop for that one my friend.

I am going to play devils advocate and say that perhaps Tami Maurellio was going to be the next all time great heavyweight but he was unlucky enough to come along on Louis's watch.

See, I love and know Louis too, and I absolutely sympathise with your point of view and your understanding of the era and the man. But none of that matters. He might have been. He never proved it (not even in some supposedly circular fashion). The men Ali defeated proved it. There is not a lot between their respective losses, but the facts favour Louis. There's a shitload between their best wins and Ali also has a lot of very good contenders.

I think it's clear for Muhammad.

[TIGEREDGE]

LARRY HOLMES SHOULD BE AN OPTION IN YOUR POLL

he was a better all rounder than both louis and ali. ali was rather technically flawed and Louis never had the best of chins

Holmes was champ for a long time and had a long road to the top. did ali or louis ever fight and beat killers like williams and shavers with very little time to prepare?

Compared to Holmes, ALi and Louis were PAMPERED

He was a dangerous force on the world scene in his 40's (look at the holyfield fight and Mercer win). Ray was a really good fighter

My Top 10 (Based more on achievement)

Ali
Holmes
Louis
Foreman
Marciano
Frazier
Johnson
Tyson
Holyfield
Lewis

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain][/size]
They are very special wins. How they can be seen to be comparable to Ali's victory over Foreman astounds me.


Against Walcott Louis defeated a top 20 all time heavyweight at the peak of his abilities while his reflexes were verry much eroded. This could be argued to be more impresive than defeating a top 10 heavyweight while you are at your peak or close to it.

Against Schmeling Louis defeated a top 20 all time heavyweight in 124 seconds. This could be argued to be more impresive than going life and death with a top 10 heavyweight.



To be clear - a win v Bear and a loss v Schmeling is GREATER THAN two victories over Liston in your mind?


In some respects yes especialy if you take into acount Louis's lack of experience at the time. I think a win over Baer 14 months into your career is in many ways more impresive than beating a hungover Liston.


And I think peak Frazier is a nightmare forged in hell for any old heavywieght.


Agreed.


No lolipop for that one my friend.


It is by no means as clear cut as you might think.

Lets face it if we could pit fighters from diferent eras we would get some surprises for sure. It might be that Max Schmeling and Jack Sharkey would both have beaten George Foreman. You just dont know.

He might have been. He never proved it (not even in some supposedly circular fashion).

Louis proved everything he could with the oponents available to him. He proved himself mopre dominant relative to his era than Ali was relative to his.

That is the reality of what both fighters have literaly proved. We cannot prove that Alis oponents were better or by how much they were better.


The men Ali defeated proved it. There is not a lot between their respective losses, but the facts favour Louis. There's a shitload between their best wins and Ali also has a lot of very good contenders.

I think it's clear for Muhammad.


I think it is as clear as mud.

A fighters resume id fact but how contenders from diferent eras would fare against each other is speculative.

We can prove that Joe Louis dominated Johny Paycheck more thoroughly than Muhamad Ali dominated Ken Norton but we cant prove that Ken Norton would beat Johny Paycheck even if it is verry likley.

If we go on what is proved eg resume as oposed to matching up contenders from diferent eras then the pendulum swings towards Louis.

[AlonzoGreene]

LARRY HOLMES SHOULD BE AN OPTION IN YOUR POLL

he was a better all rounder than both louis and ali. ali was rather technically flawed and Louis never had the best of chins

Holmes was champ for a long time and had a long road to the top. did ali or louis ever fight and beat killers like williams and shavers with very little time to prepare?

Compared to Holmes, ALi and Louis were PAMPERED

He was a dangerous force on the world scene in his 40's (look at the holyfield fight and Mercer win). Ray was a really good fighter

My Top 10 (Based more on achievement)

Ali
Holmes
Louis
Foreman
Marciano
Frazier
Johnson
Tyson
Holyfield
Lewis


I love Holmes and think he is one of the most underrated Heavyweights, but no way can you put Holmes above Louis in regard to accomplishments. H2H maybe. But for me Ali is a clear number 1 with Louis being a clear number 2.

[Marciano Frazier]

Now, I think it would've been more respectful to at least list the names of the other potential candidates.

[AlonzoGreene]

Holmes was champ for a long time and had a long road to the top. did ali or louis ever fight and beat killers like williams and shavers with very little time to prepare?




A way past his prime Ali beat Ernie Shavers. Not helping your case too much.

[TIGEREDGE]

A way past his prime Ali beat Ernie Shavers. Not helping your case too much.

i rate ali as the best heavy of all time. i was just making a point about holmes having a very strong claim for mantle

Holmes beat a better fighter than shavers in ray mercer at aged 43

[janitor]

Compared to Holmes, ALi and Louis were PAMPERED


Louis was fighting former lineal champions from nine months after his pro debut.

That is not exactly pampering.

[TIGEREDGE]

I love Holmes and think he is one of the most underrated Heavyweights, but no way can you put Holmes above Louis in regard to accomplishments. H2H maybe. But for me Ali is a clear number 1 with Louis being a clear number 2.

Holmes reigned for 7 years (would of been longer if he was given the breaks) and was a top fighter well into his 40's. he has a strong claim to be better than both ali and louis

[TIGEREDGE]

Louis was fighting former lineal champions from nine months after his pro debut.

That is not exactly pampering.

primo canera was a joke champ but max baer was quality. so you have to credit louis there

[TIGEREDGE]

Louis never showed the great recovery holmes showed when he was sparked by shavers. IT WAS SIMPLY AMAZING TO SEE LARRY RECOVER FROM THAT

ali amazed me in the last round against frazier in 71

[AlonzoGreene]

Holmes reigned for 7 years (would of been longer if he was given the breaks) and was a top fighter well into his 40's. he has a strong claim to be better than both ali and louis

The heavyweight division was stronger in Louis' era and much stronger in Ali's than in the late 70's to mid 80's. Holme's is hindered by this fact unfortunately.

[janitor]

primo canera was a joke champ but max baer was quality. so you have to credit louis there

Even Carnera was a prety tough asignment for a kid nine months into his rookie season. He had been the champion only months ago and whatever you say about him he did legitimately knock out Jack Sharkey and beat about three ranked contenders to get his title shot.

[AlonzoGreene]

Louis never showed the great recovery holmes showed when he was sparked by shavers. IT WAS SIMPLY AMAZING TO SEE LARRY RECOVER FROM THAT

ali amazed me in the last round against frazier in 71

Even more shocking, Holmes began to control that round with his jab again before the round ended. Also Ali took an unbelievable shot from Shavers as well, but his great chin mixed with a good "acting" job allowed him to survive. Shavers tested both of their chins for sure.

[TIGEREDGE]

The heavyweight division was stronger in Louis' era and much stronger in Ali's than in the late 70's to mid 80's. Holme's is hindered by this fact unfortunately.
that is subject to a lot of debate. Have you heard of the BUM OF THE MONTH CLUB in louis day AND ALI was given some gift decisions (NORTON 3 and Jimmy Young

many believe that frazier beat him in the second fight and ken norton beat him in his second fight with him

[janitor]

Louis never showed the great recovery holmes showed when he was sparked by shavers. IT WAS SIMPLY AMAZING TO SEE LARRY RECOVER FROM THAT


I think Louis recovered from some prety dire straights also. Tami Maurellio had him hurt prety badly.

[janitor]

that is subject to a lot of debate. Have you heard of the BUM OF THE MONTH CLUB in louis day AND ALI was given some gift decisions (NORTON 3 and Jimmy Young

I would argue that what decisively drops Holmes out of the top two is the fact that he did not fight a few of the better contenders and did not give rematches when he needed to.

[TIGEREDGE]

I would argue that what decisively drops Holmes out of the top two is the fact that he did not fight a few of the better contenders and did not give rematches when he needed to.

who did he dodge from 78 to 82. i know that from 83 to 85 he probably decided to take it easy

[Maxmomer]

I voted Louis. I guess I just like his style a little more.

[AlonzoGreene]

that is subject to a lot of debate. Have you heard of the BUM OF THE MONTH CLUB in louis day AND ALI was given some gift decisions (NORTON 3 and Jimmy Young

many believe that frazier beat him in the second fight and ken norton beat him in his second fight with him

Ken Norton might have won the third fight, but no way Frazier won the second. But, just look at their best wins...

Ali: Liston 2x, Frazier 2x, Foreman, Norton 2x
Holmes: Norton (post Ali three fights to be fair), Shavers 2x, and Cooney.

[sthomas]

i'd go if i got drafted, well, i'd get a commision in the airforce if i was drafted.. Hell, ali would have been nothing but a PR man in a cushy non combat job and he still didnt go.

Not directing this to you in particular Wealthy Elite, but why does Ali get so much crap about this issue but his opponents never have to answer? were'nt Frazier, Foreman, Quarry etc. all of age to participate in Vietnam? Hell, even Rumsfeld and Chaney did not serve.

[TIGEREDGE]

I would argue that what decisively drops Holmes out of the top two is the fact that he did not fight a few of the better contenders and did not give rematches when he needed to.

what about ALI not giving foreman a rematch or norton after the robbery in 76 or jimmy young

if you hold it against holmes for not giving norton, weaver, cooney, snipes and co a rematch you have got to hold it against ali for not giving joe bugner, richard dunne AND ron lyle a rematch

[AlonzoGreene]

Not directing this to you in particular Wealthy Elite, but why does Ali get so much crap about this issue but his opponents never have to answer? were'nt Frazier, Foreman, Quarry etc. all of age to participate in Vietnam? Hell, even Rumsfeld and Chaney did not serve.

Whoa....don't stir that up again. It was on the verge of getting kind of ugly a few pages ago.

[janitor]

who did he dodge from 78 to 82. i know that from 83 to 85 he probably decided to take it easy

If Holmes wanted to be ranked up with Louis and Ali he should have mopped up the other beltholders like Greg Page, rematched people who gave him close fights like Witherspoon and, Williams.

If you fight in a weaker era and you want glory then you simpply have to do a proper number on it like Louis did.

[janitor]

what about ALI not giving foreman a rematch or norton after the robbery in 76 or jimmy young

if you hold it against holmes for not giving norton, weaver, cooney, snipes and co a rematch you have got to hold it against ali for not giving joe bugner, richard dunne AND ron lyle a rematch

I have some sympathy with this argument.

Esentialy I think that Holmes had a weaker era than Ali so he needed to do a more thorough number on it to compensate.

[TIGEREDGE]

Ken Norton might have won the third fight, but no way Frazier won the second. But, just look at their best wins...

Ali: Liston 2x, Frazier 2x, Foreman, Norton 2x
Holmes: Norton (post Ali three fights to be fair), Shavers 2x, and Cooney.
don't get me wrong, I believe that ALi was the g reatest HW

many people believe (and i) that Norton has 2 wins at leats over ali. frazier should of beat him twice when they were close to best) and I know a lot of people who believe that Foreman was cheated in Zaire

[sthomas]

Whoa....don't stir that up again. It was on the verge of getting kind of ugly a few pages ago.

I was just asking the question; Should Frazier, Foreman, Quarry etc, get heap loads of shit for not participating in Vietnam? as Ali has been so dumped on?

[Chinxkid]

I was just asking the question; Should Frazier, Foreman, Quarry etc, get heap loads of shit for not participating in Vietnam? as Ali has been so dumped on?

That's a question, why didn't they anyway?

[Addie]

Muhammad Ali by a clear margin.

He had a far better resume than Louis and I doubt anybody here is willing enough to argue with that point.

He has some spectacular accomplishments to accomply his ATG resume.

Three time heavyweight champion of the world, stopping a peak Foreman when he was past his prime, and clearing out the 70s division not once but twice. It is fairly clear to me.

[Bummy Davis]

Joe Louis fought the best, most defenses, good era, best record ...deep era.....one loss young vs a master Max S. rematched and dispatched...2 losses late vs ATG heavys...beat a lot of good fighters

[JohnThomas1]

If Holmes wanted to be ranked up with Louis and Ali he should have mopped up the other beltholders like Greg Page, rematched people who gave him close fights like Witherspoon and, Williams.

If you fight in a weaker era and you want glory then you simpply have to do a proper number on it like Louis did.

And that's exactly right. Holmes is 3 - 10 IMO.

I'm surprised more haven't pushed forth Marciano.

[JohnThomas1]

It's Ali for me, with his quality of top tier wins shading him over the line. Louis just behind and then IMO there's a bit of daylight unless someone picks Marciano on the right criteria.

Marciano really didn't do much wrong.

[redrooster]

I specified other but if it came down to Ali or Louis I'd go with ALi.

[redrooster]

If I were a fighter I'd rather have Louis' talent. But I noticed Ali was tougher than Louis. I don't think Ali would ever lose to Schmeling.

[JohnThomas1]

I specified other but if it came down to Ali or Louis I'd go with ALi.

Yeah, surprising Riddick Bowe wasn't there for you

:lol:

[Seamus]

Joe Louis
Lennox Lewis
Ali
Larry Holmes
Rocky Marciano

[JohnThomas1]

Joe Louis
Lennox Lewis
Ali
Larry Holmes
Rocky Marciano

That'd be my 5 too.

[COULDHAVEBEEN]

Nothing between them - and in most ways it's hard to make an apples vs apples comparison.

Perhaps Ali by a whisker and McGrain made some good points:

Ditching Louis' post retirement losses and Ali's post illness losses for the sake of ease gives Ali ONE additional loss - and that is offset by Ali's list of:
Liston x2
Frazier x3
Foreman x1

So it's Ali by a whisker for me!

[Holmes' Jab]

Louis, by a hairs breadth IMO.

[Holmes' Jab]

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Marciano or Liston

[ironchamp]

I pick Louis personaly but I dont think there is a lot in it.

You could call them 1A and 1B for all practical purpouses.

Ali defeated better opposition but his record has the scars to show it.

Nothing more to add there.

[Bummy Davis]

Louis
Marciano
Ali

[fists of fury]

For me it's Louis, although like most I'd say there's not much in it.

Records and quality of opposition aside for a minute, I don't think anyone has had a bigger infulence on heavyweight boxing as has Joe Louis.
Without Louis, black heavyweights would have been set back another 20 or 30 years. They all (all black fighters) owe Louis a huge debt of gratitude for the way he set the foundations for blacks in boxing to flourish.

Let's not forget that in the 30's and 40's, there was also probably nobody alive who was more famous. These things have tended to diminish in the memory as the years have rolled on, but Louis for me did far more than Ali outside the ring, and arguably more inside it too.

[natonic]

Muhammed Ali of the mid to late 60's was the best fighter I've ever seen at any weight. He was destroying guys. The argument against is that he wasn't well rounded and not a great in-fighter. He didn't have to be because his skills were so overwhelming at the time.

[Addie]

Ali is #4 ATG, a great fighter but very over rated.

:patsch

[Stonehands89]

It's Ali, by distance, from Louis. It is my opinion that people who have Louis at #1 have made a mistake - i don't think it is that close. Ali is the more skilled on film. Ali has the better wins. They both have losses, they both went on to long. They both dominated the field.

Ali is ahead in ALL departments apart from longetivty.

I say this as one of the biggest Louis fans on the site, who isn't a fan of Ali, really.
Ali is slightly favored here due to quality of conquests...

However, Louis was more skilled than Ali -and not by a little. Louis's reportoire included pivots and subtle shifts and short combinations that are hard to appreciate on grainy old films.

Ali had a flashier style and great gams but Futch was not off when he saw numerous technical shortcomings in Ali or when he asserted that Ali "does the same thing over and over" -he was spectacular at it, but let's not call it skill. It was speed and flashiness. It was talent.

Think about how suggestive it is that Futch, who served his apprenticeship with Louis, and was a contemporary of Louis, so easily devised strategies to defeat Ali and did so with otherwise flawed fighters in Frazier and Norton.

[Totomabs]

cassius for me

[LennoxGOAT]

Ali is the GOAT, but he would finish second in a H2H tournament.

I like Louis, and he is a Top 3 on resume, but I think he would struggle in the 70's and 90's against the top tier.

[Addie]

Ali is slightly favored here due to quality of conquests...

However, Louis was more skilled than Ali -and not by a little. Louis's reportoire included pivots and subtle shifts and short combinations that are hard to appreciate on grainy old films.

Ali had a flashier style and great gams but Futch was not off when he saw numerous technical shortcomings in Ali or when he asserted that Ali "does the same thing over and over" -he was spectacular at it, but let's not call it skill. It was speed and flashiness. It was talent.

Think about how suggestive it is that Futch, who served his apprenticeship with Louis, and was a contemporary of Louis, so easily devised strategies to defeat Ali and did so with otherwise flawed fighters in Frazier and Norton.

Ali UD15.

Flat-footed Louis wouldn't be able to handle Ali's boxing ability if he was getting schooled by Conn.

Regardless of how skilled Louis was, his resume doesn't back it up to the extent of Ali's, and in a h2h matchup, I favor Ali.

[janitor]

I like Louis, and he is a Top 3 on resume, but I think he would struggle in the 70's and 90's against the top tier.

Who wouldnt?

[LennoxGOAT]

Who wouldnt?

True, but I feel he would be on the lower end of the spectrum of the elites. Below the third tier of Frazier and Tyson.

[janitor]

True, but I feel he would be on the lower end of the spectrum of the elites. Below the third tier of Frazier and Tyson.

I find that verry unlikley.

He had more tools on paper than either of them and more importantly he did not loose his focus once the title was in his hands like they did.

I dont know if anybody in the 70s or 90s would have beaten him at their best and even if they could he would have had a much longer prime which which would have overlaped with a point when they were not at their best.

[LennoxGOAT]

I find that verry unlikley.

He had more tools on paper than either of them and more importantly he did not loose his focus once the title was in his hands like they did.

Just agree to disagree. I think Louis' athleticism and footwork is highly overrated and like you said, his mental toughness is highly underrated. Of course the latter is kryptonite to Tyson. So I guess you never know.

But I definitely would not bet on Louis beating the first and second tier of those eras.

[Ezzard]

let's not call it skill. It was speed and flashiness. It was talent.


the context aside I like it that someone is making this statement. these get confused all the time. When speed and reflexes go skill remains. Which is why some guys' careers just seem to go off a cliff and others like Duran, Charles, Holmes, Griffiths seem to be able to pull out performances in the winter of their careers they have no right to...

[janitor]

Just agree to disagree. I think Louis' athleticism and footwork is highly overrated and like you said, his mental toughness is highly underrated. Of course the latter is kryptonite to Tyson. So I guess you never know.

But I definitely would not bet on Louis beating the first and second tier of those eras.

I cant honestly see what there is to criticise in Louis's athleticism.

He is the closest thing to a perfect heavyweight there has ever been on paper. Fighters like Frazier or Holyfield might match him in a single parameter such as left hook but that is about all you can say in their favour.

If the only think Baring Louis's ascent to the top was one of the weaker champions of the 90s you might as well surrender the blet to him at the press conference.

[Bokaj]

Ali is slightly favored here due to quality of conquests...

However, Louis was more skilled than Ali -and not by a little. Louis's reportoire included pivots and subtle shifts and short combinations that are hard to appreciate on grainy old films.

Ali had a flashier style and great gams but Futch was not off when he saw numerous technical shortcomings in Ali or when he asserted that Ali "does the same thing over and over" -he was spectacular at it, but let's not call it skill. It was speed and flashiness. It was talent.

Think about how suggestive it is that Futch, who served his apprenticeship with Louis, and was a contemporary of Louis, so easily devised strategies to defeat Ali and did so with otherwise flawed fighters in Frazier and Norton.

I think the notion that Ali lacked skill is the most overused and off the mark cliché in this forum. I could go on about the many subtle techniques in his repertoir, but I'm short of time, so I'll just say that no other, absoluteley none, did as well with diminished physical assets that Ali did. If he was just flash and talent he would never continued to dominate into the late 70's. Never.

[LennoxGOAT]

I cant honestly see what there is to criticise in Louis's athleticism.

He is the closest thing to a perfect heavyweight there has ever been on paper. Fighters like Frazier or Holyfield might match him in a single parameter such as left hook but that is about all you can say in their favour.

If the only think Baring Louis's ascent to the top was one of the weaker champions of the 90s you might as well surrender the blet to him at the press conference.


Lennox beats Louis, and on paper, beats Louis in many more categories. And I also think Evander beats Louis as well. Tyson has a chance, and other fighters of the 90's would give him fits though Louis would be the favorite.

[Stonehands89]

Flat-footed Louis wouldn't be able to handle Ali's boxing ability if he was getting schooled by Conn.
That's the company line that's been thrown around by Ali and his fans since the 60s. I'm just not so sure.

[OLD FOGEY]

Louis never showed the great recovery holmes showed when he was sparked by shavers. IT WAS SIMPLY AMAZING TO SEE LARRY RECOVER FROM THAT

ali amazed me in the last round against frazier in 71

Oh. Big Buddy Baer knocked Louis out of the ring and Louis came back to destoy him. It is, after all, only an opinion that Shavers punched harder than Max Baer or the 250 lb Buddy Baer. The one thing we know for certain is that Shavers dropped Holmes and hurt him much more badly than either of the Baers were able to hurt Louis.

[janitor]

[quote=LennoxGOAT]Lennox beats Louis, and on paper, beats Louis in many more categories.

The only tangible advantage that Lennox has over Joe is size. Louis is the far more complete heavyweight package of course you cant say how the fight would unfold because their are too many uncertainties.

And I also think Evander beats Louis as well.

Evander is a poor mand Louis with no punch. The only thing he dose better is spawn ilegitimate children. I dont think he would even have a punchers chance to be honest.


Tyson has a chance, and other fighters of the 90's would give him fits though Louis would be the favorite.


To be honest with you Tyson is the one of the three that I would see as the greatest threat.


Tis diferences of opinions that make for horse races as Mark Twain said.

[Minotauro]

Ali does have the better wins but Louis showed more consistency. Louis has the most title defences in the history of the sport. The Norton loss is a bad loss while you could say Ken was a difficult style the same can be said about Conn in comparison to Louis yet Joe still found a way to win. For me it’s probably the closest in terms of 1 and 2 out of any of the original weight classes.

[Robbi]

Ali

[Minotauro]

Suzie Q brought up some good black fighters that Louis never faced in a recent thread. Walcott obviously claimed that one of them (I forget who) was the best fighter he ever met.

I think the fact that Louis never took on any of these fighters diminish his legacy somewhat. Ali fought just about anyone there was to fight.

The fighter Walcott was talking about was Tiger Jack Fox while a great fighter his best days were probably before Louis won the title and Joe fought Baer, Carnera, Schmeling, Uzcudun and Sharkely on his way to the belt so it not like he took the easy road. And John Henry Lewis did beat Fox easily when they met and of course Joe would later take John Henry Lewis out in one round.

[he grant]

Jess Willard edges out Carnera ...

[McGrain]

Against Walcott Louis defeated a top 20 all time heavyweight at the peak of his abilities while his reflexes were verry much eroded.

Ali did exactly this against Foreman, who is above Walcott on every sane HW list I have ever seen.

Against Schmeling Louis defeated a top 20 all time heavyweight in 124 seconds. This could be argued to be more impresive than going life and death with a top 10 heavyweight.

First off, you've described Liston as "not being a top ten heavyweight when Ali beat him". Fair enough. But Schmeling was an all time top 20 heavyweight when Louis beat him? He was past his best, was he not, when Louis dismantled him?

Secondly, styles. Ali's style would never allow him to destroy a great in a single round (Though he did it...).

How to find for Ali over these comparisons....you say it is "arguable" that Louis' results are somehow better, to me it is inarguable.




In some respects yes especialy if you take into acount Louis's lack of experience at the time. I think a win over Baer 14 months into your career is in many ways more impresive than beating a hungover Liston.

Again, you are being disingenous in my opinion. Here is a more accurate appraisal:

Louis beat an undermotivated and frightend Max Baer 25 fights into his pro-career.

Ali beat the incumbant heavyweight champion of the world 20 fights into his pro career.

Ali was stepped up more quickly than Joe Louis. It's quite possible that there was something funny about Liston I. It's quite probably that Liston was hungover. If we treat the result as clean, how anyone can see beating the heavyweight champion of the world 20 fights into your pro-career as a worse result than beating a less illustrious past-prime ex-champion twenty-five fights into your pro-career is beyond me.

Liston II v Schmeling I - not touching that one. Saying a loss is better than a win because Louis was stepped up more quickly - which he wasn't - is pretty ludicrous, really.


Lets face it if we could pit fighters from diferent eras we would get some surprises for sure. It might be that Max Schmeling and Jack Sharkey would both have beaten George Foreman. You just dont know.


This is not unreasonable, but it is also in arguable that Muhammad Ali beat better men than Joe Louis.

[McGrain]

Louis was fighting former lineal champions from nine months after his pro debut.

I think you are overestimating the relevance of time in this matter. Louis had plenty of experience when he went into these fights and was physicaly mature. His style was not complete, but that is a matter of experience, not time. When he fought Schmeling he fought the kind of fighter that young fighters often come undone against. Cerebral, capable and very calm.

Do you feel Louis was given proper time to prepare for his fights? Or that he was rushed into fights with lineal champions whilst exhausted or hurt from previous encounters?

[McGrain]

I think Louis recovered from some prety dire straights also. Tami Maurellio had him hurt prety badly.

Maybe most impressive is his semi-conscious efforts against Scmeling.

[McGrain]

However, Louis was more skilled than Ali -and not by a little. Louis's reportoire included pivots and subtle shifts and short combinations that are hard to appreciate on grainy old films.


Have you seen this?




R78hdxpRfws

[McGrain]

Regardless of how skilled Louis was, his resume doesn't back it up to the extent of Ali's, and in a h2h matchup, I favor Ali.

Despite all the shouting i've done about Ali being the clear choice for #1 I have Louis stopping Ali!

I think Ali would do better overall against the field though.

[McGrain]

I dont know if anybody in the 70s or 90s would have beaten him at their best and even if they could he would have had a much longer prime which which would have overlaped with a point when they were not at their best.

I tend to beleive that Tyson was to quick and explosive for Louis to get through a trilogy with him without dropping one. I agree that he would have dominated the 70's though, and he would been a serious favourite to beat post-prison Tyson 2 for 2, so it's quite possible he would dominate the 90's too. I think Bowe presents a stylistic difficulty for him though.

[McGrain]

And I also think Evander beats Louis as well.

This is interesting, why? I've always dismissed any chance for Evander based upon the fact that he can be drawn into punching with an opponent.

[SuzieQ49]

Mcgrain u make some wonderful points........but take this into considation. while joe louis in his first year as a pro took on the worlds very best heavyweights/linear champions.........ali literally did not fight any top rated dangerous contenders until 4 years after being a pro. Fighters like harold johnson, C williams, folley, machen, ali avoided fighting all these men in the early 1960s for smart management. Louis however was thrown against the wolves early on.

[McGrain]

Mcgrain u make some wonderful points........but take this into considation. while joe louis in his first year as a pro took on the worlds very best heavyweights/linear champions.........ali literally did not fight any top rated dangerous contenders until 4 years after being a pro. Fighters like harold johnson, C williams, folley, machen, ali avoided fighting all these men in the early 1960s for smart management. Louis however was thrown against the wolves early on.


It's true, but i'll say two things about this -


One, Louis and Ali had around the same number of pro fights when they stepped up to the very highest level, it was only the time frame that favoured Muhammad

Two, Ali took a risk in fighting ancient Archie Moore so early. Of course he should win with the age Archie is but I don't think he gets enough credit for that win, it's just the type of fight a prospect comes undone in, the physically overmatched but crafty craftsman out for one last payday.

I was looking through photographs of Moore this morning. There's an astonishing array of pictures of him throughout the years, not a punch he didn't have, what a warrior.

[Hatesrats]

"The Brown Bomber" Joe Louis

[Stonehands89]

Have you seen this?




R78hdxpRfws
Cox has the best boxing videos on youtube. So yes, I've seen it. More to the point -you have seen it... so let's join hands and sing of the superiority of Joe's skill over Ali's:

Alleluia! Alleluia! [I don't hear you McGrainy!]

[natonic]

Thanks for that awesome clip McGrain. Awesome stuff. I saw Lennox Lewis thrown in to the conversation at some point. I think a problem we encounter when comparing different generations is the size factor. Lennox was huge compared to Louis and it's the only reason he'd have a chance. All things being equal, I can't imagine Lennox navigating 15 rounds with Louis given his suspect chin.

[SuzieQ49]

Two, Ali took a risk in fighting ancient Archie Moore so early. Of course he should win with the age Archie is but I don't think he gets enough credit for that win, it's just the type of fight a prospect comes undone in, the physically overmatched but crafty craftsman out for one last payday.

I was looking through photographs of Moore this morning. There's an astonishing array of pictures of him throughout the years, not a punch he didn't have, what a warrior.

I do agree Mcgrain. since the patterson loss, Archie had gone 40-2 in his last 6 years without being knocked out and archie recently knocked unconsious 6'4 212lb contender alejandro lavorante putting him in a coma and drew with Champion Willie Pastrano. moore moved up to # 4 in heavyweight rankings. Moore even at 46 was still a dangerous fighter, althought with clays speed youthness and movement he was a stylistic nightmare for archie by 62. But I think its an underated win.

[guilalah]

I picked Ali. I have no problem with anyone picking Louis. I'm fonder of Louis, and I'd pull for Louis if they fought.
I have the feeling that, at their best, other top 15 heavies have a little better chance against Louis at his best, than against Ali at his best.

[Bokaj]

Cox has the best boxing videos on youtube. So yes, I've seen it. More to the point -you have seen it... so let's join hands and sing of the superiority of Joe's skill over Ali's:

Alleluia! Alleluia! [I don't hear you McGrainy!]

You could put together a pretty good video of Ali's skills as well.

Him somehow not letting Liston set him up for the finish while having him blinded, him knocking down Williams while going backwards, him KO'ing Folley with "punches I had no reason getting hit with", him schooling Quarry in their second fight - tormenting him with the jab and keeping him from coming in with short, sharp hooks and uppercuts -, him hitting Foreman with right hand leads in the first round, not letting Foreman positioning himself in a comfortable position to let go at Ali and finally taking him out with a devastating pinpoint combination after almost eight gruelling rounds. Etc, etc.

Now, that would be a good video.

[janitor]

I think you are overestimating the relevance of time in this matter. Louis had plenty of experience when he went into these fights and was physicaly mature. His style was not complete, but that is a matter of experience, not time. When he fought Schmeling he fought the kind of fighter that young fighters often come undone against. Cerebral, capable and very calm.

Do you feel Louis was given proper time to prepare for his fights? Or that he was rushed into fights with lineal champions whilst exhausted or hurt from previous encounters?

I think that Louis had the kind of backing that no previous fighter had up to that point, in terms of resources and suport, and I think he was given adequate time to recover between bouts.

He was brought along at a ridiculous pace though. Ali was still fighting guys with loosing records 9 or even 14 months into his career. Louis was fighting former champions.

His backing came at a high price. His backers expected a puick return.

In fact can you name any fighter from any era who beat two former champions in their first 18 months as pro let alone two who had been "the man" only a few months earlier?

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]Ali did exactly this against Foreman, who is above Walcott on every sane HW list I have ever seen.


I dont think that you can compare the Louis of the Walcott fights to the Ali of the Foreman fight.

The post Manilla Ali would be a more realistic comparison.


First off, you've described Liston as "not being a top ten heavyweight when Ali beat him". Fair enough. But Schmeling was an all time top 20 heavyweight when Louis beat him? He was past his best, was he not, when Louis dismantled him?


It is hard to judge.

He was at the verry least well prepared, well conditioned and on a winning streak. He also went on to perform a brutal demolition of Adolph Heuser.

There is no reason why he could not have been close to his best.


Secondly, styles. Ali's style would never allow him to destroy a great in a single round (Though he did it...).


I am fairly certain that Liston took a dive in the second Ali fight.

If I believed otherwise it would afect my position.


How to find for Ali over these comparisons....you say it is "arguable" that Louis' results are somehow better, to me it is inarguable.


Which in itself makes your asignment tougher than mine.


Again, you are being disingenous in my opinion. Here is a more accurate appraisal:

Louis beat an undermotivated and frightend Max Baer 25 fights into his pro-career.

Ali beat the incumbant heavyweight champion of the world 20 fights into his pro career.

Ali was stepped up more quickly than Joe Louis.


Come on now.

Just because Ali had the same number of fights dose not mean that he was equaly inexperienced. He would have had a lot more time for training and sparring between each fight and would have been a more prepared and matured fighter taking each step. As well as spending less sparring and training hours between fights Louis would have been worked much harder.

The comparison is just not realistic.

Louis was basicaly made to do much of his sparring in real fights.


It's quite possible that there was something funny about Liston I. It's quite probably that Liston was hungover. If we treat the result as clean, how anyone can see beating the heavyweight champion of the world 20 fights into your pro-career as a worse result than beating a less illustrious past-prime ex-champion twenty-five fights into your pro-career is beyond me.


Frankly even if Liston was at his absolute peak I would feel that Ali had been steered towards him on a far more forgiving schedule than Louis towards Baer, and even if the fights had taken place the same distance into their respective careers I would question whether a unconditioned Liston posed a greater challenge than a conditioned Baer.


Liston II v Schmeling I - not touching that one. Saying a loss is better than a win because Louis was stepped up more quickly - which he wasn't - is pretty ludicrous, really.


I am not saying it is better.

I am saying that Ali simply wasnt put in with that kind of oponent at that stage in his career.

If he had to fight Baer or Schmeling instead of Jones Banks or Cooper he might have picked up a loss also.


This is not unreasonable, but it is also in arguable that Muhammad Ali beat better men than Joe Louis.


This was never in dispute.

[Bokaj]

If Louis's skill was so superior Ali's he should have done better after the lay-off than Ali. He not only had his supposedly superior skill to fall back on, but his most important physical asset - power - is also the last go. Ali's most important assets - speed and reflexes - are on the other hand the first ones to diminish.

So Louis should have been much better off after his lay-off, but in reality the opposite seems to be more true.

[janitor]

If Louis's skill was so superior Ali's he should have done better after the lay-off than Ali. He not only had his supposedly superior skill to fall back on, but his most important physical asset - power - is also the last go. Ali's most important assets - speed and reflexes - are on the other hand the first ones to diminish.

So Louis should have been much better off after his lay-off, but in reality the opposite seems to be more true.

There are a whole raft of factors at work.

Louis's decline is atributable not just to the layoff but also to shopwear. He had been fighting a ridiculous schedule for many years by the time the war broke out, and his profesional fights were just the tip of the iceberg. He fought litteraly dozens of exhibitions between his title defences which were basicaly four round fights that usualy ended in a knockout. During the war alone Louis fought 93 exhibitions to raise money for the army/navy releif funds and other charities.

It is dificult to pinpoint exactly when Louis's decline took place but it can be atributed to a combination of shopwear and intermitent layoffs. I think that even if the war had not happened he would have started to loose a little over the next years. Louis himself thought that the Maurellio fight post war was the last time he felt his former self, but it dosnt tell us much because of how it unfolded so quickly.

By the Walcott fight Louis had lost his timing and reflexes, and had to fall back on his power and technical fundamentals.

It has to be added that one asset that Ali had to fall back on when his skills eroded which Louis didnt was his ungodly durability. Once Louis had to soak up as much punishment as his oponents he sudenly found himself on a level playing field.

[Bokaj]

There are a whole raft of factors at work.

Louis's decline is atributable not just to the layoff but also to shopwear. He had been fighting a ridiculous schedule for many years by the time the war broke out, and his profesional fights were just the tip of the iceberg. He fought litteraly dozens of exhibitions between his title defences which were basicaly four round fights that usualy ended in a knockout. During the war alone Louis fought 93 exhibitions to raise money for the army/navy releif funds and other charities.

But you could also argue that Louis's many exhibitions kept him sharper. Ali did just about nothing for 3,5 years. He had a couple of exhibitions but not much, and therefore it seems reasonable that his reflexes and instincts should have dulled more. (They still seemed pretty sharp during the first half of the 70's, though)

[janitor]

But you could also argue that Louis's many exhibitions kept him sharper. Ali did just about nothing for 3,5 years. He had a couple of exhibitions but not much, and therefore it seems reasonable that his reflexes and instincts should have dulled more. (They still seemed pretty sharp during the first half of the 70's, though)

Louis was fairly active over much of the war for reasons that I have stated, but he was taking ringwear much faster than Ali early in his career.

I think it is fair to say however that Louis was further gone after his layoff than Ali was after his. Louis's layoff came somewhat later in his career cycle, relativley speaking, even if he was not much older.

Having said that it is dificult to tell whether the rot really set in during the period from 1941-45, or the period from 1945-48.

Again it also has to be noted that Louis was less durable than Ali and as such depended more on his superiority of speed over his opponents.

[OLD FOGEY]

If Louis's skill was so superior Ali's he should have done better after the lay-off than Ali. He not only had his supposedly superior skill to fall back on, but his most important physical asset - power - is also the last go. Ali's most important assets - speed and reflexes - are on the other hand the first ones to diminish.

So Louis should have been much better off after his lay-off, but in reality the opposite seems to be more true.

I would challenge your premise. Louis scored knockouts over the top-rated Conn (who had also layed off but was much younger) and Mauriello in 1946 at 32. At 33 in 1947 he had the poor fight against Walcott, but Louis had also been inactive for 15 months. His performance at 34 against Walcott in 1948 was more impressive in my judgement than anything Ali did from the age of 34 or up. I think it is actually more impressive than Ali's performance in the 3rd Frazier fight.

Louis retired and so didn't fight officially at 35 but he did stop Elmer Ray in a "shooting match" exhibition and there is a film of an impressive ko of Pat Valentino in an exhibition.

At 36 Louis loses to top 25 ATG Ezzard Charles and Ali loses to Leon Spinks. Ali looks better but not really that good in the rematch which he wins. Spinks would probably be viewed as at best a fringe contender were it not for the first Ali fight, basically on par with Pete Rademacher.

At 37 Louis wins 8 in a row, including an impressive ko of Savold and a decision over Bivins. He puts up a decent fight against the up and coming Marciano. Ali does not win a fight after 36 and is not at all competitive with Holmes at 38. He loses to Berbick at 39.

I think Louis has the edge at 34 and older, myself.

[OLD FOGEY]

But you could also argue that Louis's many exhibitions kept him sharper. Ali did just about nothing for 3,5 years. He had a couple of exhibitions but not much, and therefore it seems reasonable that his reflexes and instincts should have dulled more. (They still seemed pretty sharp during the first half of the 70's, though)

Louis was much older and laid off longer. I don't think this is a very solid point. Ali was still in his twenties when he started his comeback.

Ali started his comeback at age 28 while Louis began his four year layoff at age 28.

[Bokaj]

I think it is fair to say however that Louis was further gone after his layoff than Ali was after his.

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But I still find it very unrealistic to claim that Ali would do as well as he did in his second career if he didn't have a lot of skill. Louis's skill was more textbook, for sure, but I don't think it was greater.

I think Mailer put it the best when he writes about Ali's decision to start with right-hand leads against such a deadly puncher as Foreman, a decision that is anything but textbook.

"Classic maxims of boxing [not starting with right-hand leads]. All fight writers know them. Off these principles they take their interpretation. They are good engineers at Indianapolis but Ali is on his way to the moon."

Or as Zora Folley puts it:

"The right hands Ali hit me with just had no business landing, but they did. They came from nowhere. Many times he was in the wrong position but he hit me anyway. I've never seen anyone who could do that ... The trickiest fighter I've seen. He's had twenty-nine fights and acts like he's had a hundred. He could write the book on boxing, and anyone who fights him should be made to read it."

[Bokaj]

I would challenge your premise. Louis scored knockouts over the top-rated Conn (who had also layed off but was much younger) and Mauriello in 1946 at 32. At 33 in 1947 he had the poor fight against Walcott, but Louis had also been inactive for 15 months. His performance at 34 against Walcott in 1948 was more impressive in my judgement than anything Ali did from the age of 34 or up. I think it is actually more impressive than Ali's performance in the 3rd Frazier fight.

Louis retired and so didn't fight officially at 35 but he did stop Elmer Ray in a "shooting match" exhibition and there is a film of an impressive ko of Pat Valentino in an exhibition.

At 36 Louis loses to top 25 ATG Ezzard Charles and Ali loses to Leon Spinks. Ali looks better but not really that good in the rematch which he wins. Spinks would probably be viewed as at best a fringe contender were it not for the first Ali fight, basically on par with Pete Rademacher.

At 37 Louis wins 8 in a row, including an impressive ko of Savold and a decision over Bivins. He puts up a decent fight against the up and coming Marciano. Ali does not win a fight after 36 and is not at all competitive with Holmes at 38. He loses to Berbick at 39.

I think Louis has the edge at 34 and older, myself.

Yes, Louis might very well have the edge from 34 onwards. But I just said that Ali accomplished more in his second career, after a lay-off during which he was much less active than Louis. At 34 Ali was clearly showing the effects of his tough fights against Frazier, mainly the one in Manilla. He faded very fast after Manilla.

[OLD FOGEY]

Yes, Louis might very well have the edge from 34 onwards. But I just said that Ali accomplished more in his second career, after a lay-off during which he was much less active than Louis. At 34 Ali was clearly showing the effects of his tough fights against Frazier, mainly the one in Manilla. He faded very fast after Manilla.

His comeback started at 28, though. I don't know how you can directly compare their second careers when Louis began his when four years older.

I will put it this way, if Ali had fought straight through to 1970, he might never have lost to Frazier. If he had then laid off until 1974, I think it probable he would never have defeated Foreman or Norton.

[Bokaj]

His comeback started at 28, though. I don't know how you can directly compare their second careers when Louis began his when four years older.

I will put it this way, if Ali had fought straight through to 1970, he might never have lost to Frazier. If he had then laid off until 1974, I think it probable he would never have defeated Foreman or Norton.

Well, if he had one pro fight and 80 exhibitions during that time he might well have. Though I give him a better chance against Foreman than Norton. That man was Ali's cryptonite even more than Frazier.

[janitor]

[quote=Bokaj]Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But I still find it very unrealistic to claim that Ali would do as well as he did in his second career if he didn't have a lot of skill. Louis's skill was more textbook, for sure, but I don't think it was greater.


OK

Lets take away both their physical assets. Give them equal, power, handspeed, durability, reflexes etc.

I think Louis would be the better fighter on this basis.

My conclusion is that what Ali had was more about reflexes and other physical assets than technique.


I think Mailer put it the best when he writes about Ali's decision to start with right-hand leads against such a deadly puncher as Foreman, a decision that is anything but textbook.

"Classic maxims of boxing [not starting with right-hand leads]. All fight writers know them. Off these principles they take their interpretation. They are good engineers at Indianapolis but Ali is on his way to the moon."

Or as Zora Folley puts it:

"The right hands Ali hit me with just had no business landing, but they did. They came from nowhere. Many times he was in the wrong position but he hit me anyway. I've never seen anyone who could do that ... The trickiest fighter I've seen. He's had twenty-nine fights and acts like he's had a hundred. He could write the book on boxing, and anyone who fights him should be made to read it."


And I think you and I are saying the same thing essentialy.

To put what I said earlier about Louis's unoficial fights into perspective, consider that he was involved in 26 exhibitions (mainly four rounds) in which he knocked his oponent out (a few of them world class). The fact that these exhibitions were over four rounds and he was getting knockouts suggests he probably wasnt giving much quater. He also got knocked down himself in a number which suggests that he was getting verry little quater himself.

How many more of his exhibitions were live fire events but simply didnt end in a knockout because he only had four rounds to do it?

In adition Louis was involved in some 10 round ND bouts which are not listed on boxrec.

[Bokaj]

[quote]


OK

Lets take away both their physical assets. Give them equal, power, handspeed, durability, reflexes etc.

I think Louis would be the better fighter on this basis.

My conclusion is that what Ali had was more about reflexes and other physical assets than technique.



And I think you are saying the same thing essentialy.

No. I think Ali would have done just as well or better than Louis with equal physical assets. His physical assets was of course crucial for him being the fighter he was in his prime, but I think he had much, much more. And I think he showed that by doing so well with diminished assets. Very few fighters are his equal in this respect. That's what I'm saying.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]

No. I think Ali would have done just as well or better than Louis with equal physical assets. His physical assets was of course crucial for him being the fighter he was in his prime, but I think he had much, much more. And I think he showed that by doing so well with diminished assets. Very few fighters are his equal in this respect. That's what I'm saying.

The conventional wisdom is that virtualy any other fighter in history would get killed trying to replicate Ali's methods.

[Bokaj]

[quote=Bokaj]

The conventional wisdom is that virtualy any other fighter in history would get killed trying to replicate Ali's methods.

Yes, but as Mailer said, he's not just a good engineer at Indianopolis, he's aiming at the moon. And the fact that he got there should tell us something.

But, of course, if you're a boxing trainer and try to make your adepts fight like Ali, you should get indicted.

[McGrain]

Cox has the best boxing videos on youtube. So yes, I've seen it. More to the point -you have seen it... so let's join hands and sing of the superiority of Joe's skill over Ali's:

Alleluia! Alleluia! [I don't hear you McGrainy!]





McGrainy?!?!? :twisted:

I think it's debatable.



Footwork. Louis has absolutley the perfect footwork for his style. It is underated. It allowed him to be consistantly in punching position. It allowed him to stalk opponents properly. Nobody creates space for punches like Joe, and that is partly footwork. The economy of movement is one of the main reasons he consistantly carried his power late. Compare that with Ali's wreckless, dancing footwork. But Ali's allowed him to close the distance more quickly. It helped him to flumox opponents more readily. It allowed him, too, to create some of the opportunities that were born to Louis via his balance and power, proper punching off short notice, but in addition allowed him proper adjustments during combination punching, see the Foreman fight. It's debatable, each man's footwork serves him so well given his style, but I would plump for Ali in this department.


Punching. Louis has more, of course, but I think that Ali shouldn't be underestimated - he's almost purely a headhunter, of course, but his right hand is HUGELY underated...not too keen on those uppercuts though. Louis is probably the best composite puncher in history though...ah, it ain't close, is it?


Feinting. Louis has some beautiful feints, but so does Ali! Ali tends to sell his less subtely, but he is also the master of the double-cross. He sells with eyes, body,feet and hands, Louis is primarily a footwork & punching feinter from what I have seen. I think that Ali is the better pure feinter. I think that Louis tends to buy more with his individual feint. But there is a theory in poker whereby a player will play a series of hands differently to keep his opponent on the backfoot, uncertain. Ali is a master of this - some of his feints are meaningless, yes, but it allows for a double-double cross if you see what I mean.


In-fighting. Wife Swap is on tv. It's fucking terrible.


Backfoot. In the strictest terms this should be foung pretty cleanly for Ali, but Louis was so wonderful at changing from back to front foot with the maximum affect, I like to think that this one is closer too...but I have no problem with someone finding cleanly for Muhammad.



This is not exhaustive, of course, but here are some areas where the two can be matched very closely overall. Muhammad has the better athleticism for delivering his skills but he proved in his second career that he had a close to unparalleled set of skills in my view. Close, close, close.

[McGrain]

I do agree Mcgrain. since the patterson loss, Archie had gone 40-2 in his last 6 years without being knocked out and archie recently knocked unconsious 6'4 212lb contender alejandro lavorante putting him in a coma and drew with Champion Willie Pastrano. moore moved up to # 4 in heavyweight rankings. Moore even at 46 was still a dangerous fighter, althought with clays speed youthness and movement he was a stylistic nightmare for archie by 62. But I think its an underated win.


Yeah, good post. Ali should always win, but he should be allowed some credit for that win nevertheless, if that makes sense. Moore had a bit of an axe to grind with the young pretender.

It's funny that this was his second to last fight and this great, great showman lost to another great, great showman. Talk about passing of the torch! For me, great as he was, the only real difference between Moore and some of his peers, Burley, Williams, Marshall etc., was his sense of showmanship - and his longevity, of course.

[McGrain]

I think that Louis had the kind of backing that no previous fighter had up to that point, in terms of resources and suport, and I think he was given adequate time to recover between bouts.


I agree.


He was brought along at a ridiculous pace though. Ali was still fighting guys with loosing records 9 or even 14 months into his career. Louis was fighting former champions.

I know this. But the point is that Ali fought great fighters EARLIER in his career in terms of fights fought than Louis did. This is a fact.


In fact can you name any fighter from any era who beat two former champions in their first 18 months as pro let alone two who had been "the man" only a few months earlier?

It was an extraordinary rate - but then he was an extraordinary athlete.

[Bokaj]

McGrainy?!?!? :twisted:

I think it's debatable.



Footwork. Louis has absolutley the perfect footwork for his style. It is underated. It allowed him to be consistantly in punching position. It allowed him to stalk opponents properly. Nobody creates space for punches like Joe, and that is partly footwork. The economy of movement is one of the main reasons he consistantly carried his power late. Compare that with Ali's wreckless, dancing footwork. But Ali's allowed him to close the distance more quickly. It helped him to flumox opponents more readily. It allowed him, too, to create some of the opportunities that were born to Louis via his balance and power, proper punching off short notice, but in addition allowed him proper adjustments during combination punching, see the Foreman fight. It's debatable, each man's footwork serves him so well given his style, but I would plump for Ali in this department.


Punching. Louis has more, of course, but I think that Ali shouldn't be underestimated - he's almost purely a headhunter, of course, but his right hand is HUGELY underated...not too keen on those uppercuts though. Louis is probably the best composite puncher in history though...ah, it ain't close, is it?


Feinting. Louis has some beautiful feints, but so does Ali! Ali tends to sell his less subtely, but he is also the master of the double-cross. He sells with eyes, body,feet and hands, Louis is primarily a footwork & punching feinter from what I have seen. I think that Ali is the better pure feinter. I think that Louis tends to buy more with his individual feint. But there is a theory in poker whereby a player will play a series of hands differently to keep his opponent on the backfoot, uncertain. Ali is a master of this - some of his feints are meaningless, yes, but it allows for a double-double cross if you see what I mean.


In-fighting. Wife Swap is on tv. It's fucking terrible.


Backfoot. In the strictest terms this should be foung pretty cleanly for Ali, but Louis was so wonderful at changing from back to front foot with the maximum affect, I like to think that this one is closer too...but I have no problem with someone finding cleanly for Muhammad.



This is not exhaustive, of course, but here are some areas where the two can be matched very closely overall. Muhammad has the better athleticism for delivering his skills but he proved in his second career that he had a close to unparalleled set of skills in my view. Close, close, close.

Beautiful analysis, McGrain. Although my knowledge in most areas of boxing history is humble relative to most other's on this forum, I do fancy my knowledge of Ali. But you have done an analysis of both fighters that outstrips what I've done even on Ali alone. I'm very impressed.

[McGrain]

I dont think that you can compare the Louis of the Walcott fights to the Ali of the Foreman fight.

The post Manilla Ali would be a more realistic comparison.


Louis had fought more, but ther are other factors. Ali had been in wars with heavy volume heavyweight Joe Frazier in a brave losing effort in New York and had been in a second, less difficult fight with all time great Joe. He had been in two very difficult fights with Ken Norton, who had broken his jaw. Ali was using a style totally at odds with his original style due to the ravages of age. Louis was using basically the same style. I personally don't accept that Louis was the more shopworn - certainly Ali had been involved in the more drainging fights, and his style had been more dramatically morphed. I don't see why you draw the Manilla parallel given the stats and the facts.



It is hard to judge.

He was at the verry least well prepared, well conditioned and on a winning streak. He also went on to perform a brutal demolition of Adolph Heuser.

There is no reason why he could not have been close to his best.


One way to see it. Not unreasonable.



Just because Ali had the same number of fights dose not mean that he was equaly inexperienced. He would have had a lot more time for training and sparring between each fight and would have been a more prepared and matured fighter taking each step. As well as spending less sparring and training hours between fights Louis would have been worked much harder.

This works both ways - Joe is enjoying a workout straight from the Harry Greb school of boxing. Living it and breathing it. I would speculate, given Ali's personality and Louis's style that each set of circumstances suited each fighter down to the ground.


Frankly even if Liston was at his absolute peak I would feel that Ali had been steered towards him on a far more forgiving schedule than Louis towards Baer, and even if the fights had taken place the same distance into their respective careers I would question whether a unconditioned Liston posed a greater challenge than a conditioned Baer.

This is fair - my argument was that Ali was pitched into the absolute top leage more quickly (in terms of the stage of his career it happened at) than Louis was. Yes, Louis was steered towards the title by a more difficult route, but this allowed him to be "more ready", or it should have. TO watch the two fights, Joe is the one who looks greener.

As for the unconditioned Liston/conditioned Liston argument - I disagree. I consider that Louis would have struggled more with Old Liston than he did with Baer, and I consider Ali would have had less trouble with that version of Baer than he did with Sonny.



This was never in dispute.

I understand, but sometimes to hear you speak (or read you write), I feel that you forget it sometimes.

[McGrain]

If Louis's skill was so superior Ali's he should have done better after the lay-off than Ali. He not only had his supposedly superior skill to fall back on, but his most important physical asset - power - is also the last go. Ali's most important assets - speed and reflexes - are on the other hand the first ones to diminish.

So Louis should have been much better off after his lay-off, but in reality the opposite seems to be more true.


There is definitely something in this. I will just say that Ali found that he had other attributes - durability, heart and genius - just as affective for winning as his speed and movement, or nearly.

Unfortunately they wrere also more costly to the man himself and his failties.

[McGrain]

By the Walcott fight Louis had lost his timing and reflexes, and had to fall back on his power and technical fundamentals.

"Lost" is not the right word, but you've hit the nail on the head as usual. Interestingly though, it is timing and refelxes that gets him out of trouble in Walcott II with a raft of beautifully timed but technically sloppy - relative term you understand - punches.

Don't you think this Walott would always have given Louis, even the peak version, serious trouble?

[Bokaj]

There is definitely something in this. I will just say that Ali found that he had other attributes - durability, heart and genius - just as affective for winning as his speed and movement, or nearly.

Unfortunately they wrere also more costly to the man himself and his failties.

This is of course true.

I hope you saw the cudos I gave you for a previous post where you compared Ali's and Louis's skill sets, by the way. It was very impressive.

[McGrain]

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But I still find it very unrealistic to claim that Ali would do as well as he did in his second career if he didn't have a lot of skill. Louis's skill was more textbook, for sure, but I don't think it was greater.

I think Mailer put it the best when he writes about Ali's decision to start with right-hand leads against such a deadly puncher as Foreman, a decision that is anything but textbook.

"Classic maxims of boxing [not starting with right-hand leads]. All fight writers know them. Off these principles they take their interpretation. They are good engineers at Indianapolis but Ali is on his way to the moon."

Or as Zora Folley puts it:

"The right hands Ali hit me with just had no business landing, but they did. They came from nowhere. Many times he was in the wrong position but he hit me anyway. I've never seen anyone who could do that ... The trickiest fighter I've seen. He's had twenty-nine fights and acts like he's had a hundred. He could write the book on boxing, and anyone who fights him should be made to read it."


Very good post in my opinion.

Louis makes all the traditional angles for all the traditional punches and his hands are positioned ideally for doing this given his punching stlye and the sort of distances involved in those punches.

Ali had fewer great punches but in my opinion like Greb, like Jones, like Burley, he could make those punches happen in strange and wonderful ways.

Fighting Louis should be thought of like fighting a tiger - you know exactly what he is going to do and stopping it is going to be nearly impossible.

Ali is less predictable, and although he is less lethal because of his limitations on offence, he is more dangerous in terms of avoiding what is coming your way

[McGrain]

His comeback started at 28, though. I don't know how you can directly compare their second careers when Louis began his when four years older.

This is only half the story.

Ali had fought more wars, I wonder had he fought more rounds?.

[McGrain]

Beautiful analysis, McGrain. Although my knowledge in most areas of boxing history is humble relative to most other's on this forum, I do fancy my knowledge of Ali. But you have done an analysis of both fighters that outstrips what I've done even on Ali alone. I'm very impressed.


Thanks for saying so buddy.

I've enjoyed your posts on Ali in this thread.

[McGrain]

This is of course true.

I hope you saw the cudos I gave you for a previous post where you compared Ali's and Louis's skill sets, by the way. It was very impressive.


:good

[SuzieQ49]

wow mcgrain u brought ur A game in this thread impressive stuff! keep up the great work.


please stay tuned for my mini article coming out on the top 12 heavyweights 1950-1955 a breakdown of there styles and evertyhing, i think you will like it

[McGrain]

wow mcgrain u brought ur A game in this thread impressive stuff! keep up the great work.


please stay tuned for my mini article coming out on the top 12 heavyweights 1950-1955 a breakdown of there styles and evertyhing, i think you will like it



Thanks SQ.

When you put in that type of effort your stuff is unmissable, i'll keep an eye out.

[OLD FOGEY]

This is only half the story.

Ali had fought more wars, I wonder had he fought more rounds?.

Perhaps if he punched as hard as Louis, he would not have needed to fight so many wars. Your criticism is directed at the wrong man.

[Mendoza]

I think you have to pick Ali. Who else holds stoppage wins over better fighters than Liston, Frazier, and Foreman?!

Mix in wins over Lyle, Young, Quarry, and Norton, and there is no doubt Ali is the most battle tested / big win heavyweight.

[frankwornank]

Rocky Marciano. We will never know what it would have taken to defeat him. As a pro, he always did what it took to win. 49-0

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]
I know this. But the point is that Ali fought great fighters EARLIER in his career in terms of fights fought than Louis did. This is a fact.


You seem to be arguing that they were at similar stages of their respective careers because they had a similar number of fights despite the fact that in Alis case those fights took place over 3 abd a half years and in Louis's case they took place over 14 months.

That is tantamount to arguing that you could condense the first 3.5 years of Alis career into 14 months without adversley afecting him.

I find it baffling that you dont see it this way.


It was an extraordinary rate - but then he was an extraordinary athlete.


Lets look at it from another angle.

Louis actualy had less time between his profesional debut and fighting for the title (two years) than Jim Jeffries who retired with a career total of less than the 25 fights that Louis had going into the Baer fight.

Louis effectivley condensed Alis schedule into Jeffries timetable.

[Stonehands89]

You could put together a pretty good video of Ali's skills as well.

Him somehow not letting Liston set him up for the finish while having him blinded, him knocking down Williams while going backwards, him KO'ing Folley with "punches I had no reason getting hit with", him schooling Quarry in their second fight - tormenting him with the jab and keeping him from coming in with short, sharp hooks and uppercuts -, him hitting Foreman with right hand leads in the first round, not letting Foreman positioning himself in a comfortable position to let go at Ali and finally taking him out with a devastating pinpoint combination after almost eight gruelling rounds. Etc, etc.

Now, that would be a good video.
That video would be a testimony to Ali's speed of hand and foot, timing, and reflexes. Ali was anything but a technician. He was adaptable -in the 60s it was all speed and grace and timing, in the 70s he relied on heart, will, and durability... and clinching.

Ali, like Jones, like Hamed, like Klitschko, like 70s Foreman, and to a lesser degree Lennox Lewis, are not devoid of skill, but they are absolutely not technicans. They rely on physical gifts -be they speed and hand-eye coordination or great size and strength or power.

Technicians are guys like McCallum, Moore, Ortiz, Jofre, Barrera, Duran, Marquez, Chavez, McGirt, McGuigan.

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]Louis had fought more, but ther are other factors. Ali had been in wars with heavy volume heavyweight Joe Frazier in a brave losing effort in New York and had been in a second, less difficult fight with all time great Joe. He had been in two very difficult fights with Ken Norton, who had broken his jaw. Ali was using a style totally at odds with his original style due to the ravages of age.

These are fair observations but I would suggest that Louis's loss to Schmeling could have been a career ending beating for some fighters. Steve Hamas never recovered from his Schmeling inflicted battering.


Louis was using basically the same style. I personally don't accept that Louis was the more shopworn - certainly Ali had been involved in the more drainging fights, and his style had been more dramatically morphed. I don't see why you draw the Manilla parallel given the stats and the facts.


Louis said that in the first Walcott fight he could see openings but he couldnt exploit them because his reflexes had gone.

I dont think that this was the case of the Ali of Zaire or even Manilla.

He felt that his skills had eroded to the point where it was time to retire before he had one too many fights.


This is fair - my argument was that Ali was pitched into the absolute top leage more quickly (in terms of the stage of his career it happened at) than Louis was. Yes, Louis was steered towards the title by a more difficult route, but this allowed him to be "more ready", or it should have. TO watch the two fights, Joe is the one who looks greener.


Perhaps this is because Louis is a fighter in his second year as a pro who has had a lot of fights but comparativley little sparring time between fights?


As for the unconditioned Liston/conditioned Liston argument - I disagree. I consider that Louis would have struggled more with Old Liston than he did with Baer, and I consider Ali would have had less trouble with that version of Baer than he did with Sonny.


If Liston was foolish enough to come into the ring against Louis in that condition he would be lucky to get the chance to quit on his stool. He might give Louis more trouble than Baer did for stylistic reasons.

Put a focused Baer in against the Ali of the Liston fight and you would be looking at a much longer fight that might go to the score cards.

A more pertinant question would be hungover Liston vs focused Baer with crushed self esteem.

Or indeed this Ali vs Peak Ali and this Louis vs peak Louis.

[janitor]

"Lost" is not the right word, but you've hit the nail on the head as usual. Interestingly though, it is timing and refelxes that gets him out of trouble in Walcott II with a raft of beautifully timed but technically sloppy - relative term you understand - punches.

Don't you think this Walott would always have given Louis, even the peak version, serious trouble?

Yes I do, but I think that Louis's reflexes might have bailed him out earlier and made the fight look more elegant up to that point.

[Stonehands89]

McGrainy?!?!? :twisted:

I think it's debatable.

Footwork. Louis has absolutley the perfect footwork for his style. It is underated. It allowed him to be consistantly in punching position. It allowed him to stalk opponents properly. Nobody creates space for punches like Joe, and that is partly footwork. The economy of movement is one of the main reasons he consistantly carried his power late. Compare that with Ali's wreckless, dancing footwork. But Ali's allowed him to close the distance more quickly. It helped him to flumox opponents more readily. It allowed him, too, to create some of the opportunities that were born to Louis via his balance and power, proper punching off short notice, but in addition allowed him proper adjustments during combination punching, see the Foreman fight. It's debatable, each man's footwork serves him so well given his style, but I would plump for Ali in this department.
Ali was graceful and moved like a pretty dancer. That's style. Most of time you see those graceful gams, he's out of range. How many times have you seen Ali throw a three shot combination in close, slip, counter, and then angle off with a pivot? You don't see it.

Watch the tapes closely, McGrain, you have an analyst's eyes: once you can get past the flash and the speed, you see that his style was actually pretty simple, and he had more than a few deficient fundamentals.

Punching. Louis has more, of course, but I think that Ali shouldn't be underestimated - he's almost purely a headhunter, of course, but his right hand is HUGELY underated...not too keen on those uppercuts though. Louis is probably the best composite puncher in history though...ah, it ain't close, is it?
Nope! Louis' offensive repertoire made Ali's look like a large tool box with 3 tools.

Feinting. Louis has some beautiful feints, but so does Ali! Ali tends to sell his less subtely, but he is also the master of the double-cross. He sells with eyes, body,feet and hands, Louis is primarily a footwork & punching feinter from what I have seen. I think that Ali is the better pure feinter. I think that Louis tends to buy more with his individual feint. But there is a theory in poker whereby a player will play a series of hands differently to keep his opponent on the backfoot, uncertain. Ali is a master of this - some of his feints are meaningless, yes, but it allows for a double-double cross if you see what I mean.
Ali wasn't a technician, but he was a psycologist in there. His feints were excellent, but I'd count them more as athleticism than anything technical: It's easy to teach what a feint looks like, but how to teach a fighter when to use it? It comes naturally to some guys.

In-fighting. Wife Swap is on tv. It's fucking terrible.
Too funny!

A note: Infighting, in my way of thinking really is what separates the good from the basic -the men from the boys in terms of boxing sophistication.

You show me a technician who cannot fight inside, and I'll show you the Loch Ness Monster.

Backfoot. In the strictest terms this should be foung pretty cleanly for Ali, but Louis was so wonderful at changing from back to front foot with the maximum affect, I like to think that this one is closer too...but I have no problem with someone finding cleanly for Muhammad.
Ahhhh... I think I see something different. Ali would back straight up and lure guys in to pop them -but it was all speed and timing... not technique.

This is not exhaustive, of course, but here are some areas where the two can be matched very closely overall. Muhammad has the better athleticism for delivering his skills but he proved in his second career that he had a close to unparalleled set of skills in my view. Close, close, close.[/quote]
We are usually in the same corner, but I don't see it as close at all. I don't believe that Ali was anything but an instinctive athlete with a lion's heart. He relied on things that no trainer in their right mind would teach an aspiring fighter. His style flicked its nose at fundamentals and really cannot be emulated.... that tells much.

See, that is not the mark of a technician but the mark of a savant.

Futch said this:
"Technically, Ali was more limited than a lot of fighters on the scene. For me, his style was simple... he did the same thing over and over again. He did it very well but..."

...and so his guys Joe and Kenny both beat Ali.

I would strenuously argue that Futch saw the same technical flaws in Jones, another excellent athlete, and you saw what he was able to do through the very limited Montell Griffin in the first fight.

[Addie]

Ali was graceful and moved like a pretty dancer. That's style. Most of time you see those graceful gams, he's out of range. How many times have you seen Ali throw a three shot combination in close, slip, counter, and then angle off with a pivot? You don't see it.

Watch the tapes closely, McGrain, you have an analyst's eyes: once you can get past the flash and the speed, you see that his style was actually pretty simple, and he had more than a few deficient fundamentals.


Nope! Louis' offensive repertoire made Ali's look like a large tool box with 3 tools.


Ali wasn't a technician, but he was a psycologist in there. His feints were excellent, but I'd count them more as athleticism than anything technical: It's easy to teach what a feint looks like, but how to teach a fighter when to use it? It comes naturally to some guys.


Too funny!

A note: Infighting, in my way of thinking really is what separates the good from the basic -the men from the boys in terms of boxing sophistication.

You show me a technician who cannot fight inside, and I'll show you the Loch Ness Monster.


Ahhhh... I think I see something different. Ali would back straight up and lure guys in to pop them -but it was all speed and timing... not technique.

This is not exhaustive, of course, but here are some areas where the two can be matched very closely overall. Muhammad has the better athleticism for delivering his skills but he proved in his second career that he had a close to unparalleled set of skills in my view. Close, close, close.
We are usually in the same corner, but I don't see it as close at all. I don't believe that Ali was anything but an instinctive athlete with a lion's heart. He relied on things that no trainer in their right mind would teach an aspiring fighter. His style flicked its nose at fundamentals and really cannot be emulated.... that tells much.

See, that is not the mark of a technician but the mark of a savant.

Futch said this:
"Technically, Ali was more limited than a lot of fighters on the scene. For me, his style was simple... he did the same thing over and over again. He did it very well but..."

...and so his guys Joe and Kenny both beat Ali.

I would strenuously argue that Futch saw the same technical flaws in Jones, another excellent athlete, and you saw what he was able to do through the very limited Montell Griffin in the first fight
[/QUOTE]

Ali went 2-1 against two of Futch's fighters, I believe. :huh

[Stonehands89]

Ali went 2-1 against two of Futch's fighters, I believe. :huh
....

What was the most important bout between Ali and Frazier? The FIRST! EASILY!!!

After that bout at the Garden, two factors came into play that tipped the scales. One is Foreman shattered Frazier. The second is Ali was allowed to clinch with impunity in II and III... in I, Mercante wasn't having that. Do not underestimate that. It made a difference. A big difference. I also do not discount Ali's superb adaptability and ability to learn from his mistakes... but Joe beat Muhammad when it mattered most. When both were closest to prime and both were undefeated.

Norton...? Norton had no business EVER beating Ali. He is not great. And yet he did. Why? Futch.
......................................................
May Futch forgive you.

May the Futch be with you. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Don't Futch with me again.

----------------------------------------

[janitor]

....

What was the most important bout between Ali and Frazier? The FIRST! EASILY!!!

After that bout at the Garden, two factors came into play that tipped the scales. One is Foreman shattered Frazier. The second is Ali was allowed to clinch with impunity in II and III... in I, Mercante wasn't having that. Do not underestimate that. It made a difference. A big difference. I also do not discount Ali's superb adaptability and ability to learn from his mistakes... but Joe beat Muhammad when it mattered most. When both were closest to prime and both were undefeated.

Norton...? Norton had no business EVER beating Ali. He is not great. And yet he did. Why? Futch.
......................................................
May Futch forgive you.

May the Futch be with you. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Don't Futch with me again.

----------------------------------------

You got that right.

Ali's greatest nemesis wasn Joe Frazier or Ken Norton it was Eddie Futch.

If I had to prepare Brian London for a rematch with Ali and I would be shot if he lost the first thing I would do is beg Futch to help me.

[OLD FOGEY]

You got that right.

Ali's greatest nemesis wasn Joe Frazier or Ken Norton it was Eddie Futch.

If I had to prepare Brian London for a rematch with Ali and I would be shot if he lost the first thing I would do is beg Futch to help me.

"If I had to prepare Brian London for a rematch with Ali and I would be shot if he lost the first thing I would do is beg Futch to help me."

Better make certain your life insurance is paid up and try to purchase a bullet-proof vest. Futch might be a genius, but even he can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[Stonehands89]

"If I had to prepare Brian London for a rematch with Ali and I would be shot if he lost the first thing I would do is beg Futch to help me."

Better make certain your life insurance is paid up and try to purchase a bullet-proof vest. Futch might be a genius, but even he can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Haha!

HOWEVER.... Norton beat Ali. Griffin officially defeated Jones. They weren't sow's ears, but they were close to the pen!

[Bokaj]

That video would be a testimony to Ali's speed of hand and foot, timing, and reflexes. Ali was anything but a technician. He was adaptable -in the 60s it was all speed and grace and timing, in the 70s he relied on heart, will, and durability... and clinching.

Ali, like Jones, like Hamed, like Klitschko, like 70s Foreman, and to a lesser degree Lennox Lewis, are not devoid of skill, but they are absolutely not technicans. They rely on physical gifts -be they speed and hand-eye coordination or great size and strength or power.

Technicians are guys like McCallum, Moore, Ortiz, Jofre, Barrera, Duran, Marquez, Chavez, McGirt, McGuigan.

You leave a lot out I would say. Ali had excellent positioning, for one thing. He was always in the position to counter, or move in if someone presented an opening. As sportswriter Mike Katz put it:

"And he always seemed to be in control of exactly of where he was and which angle he was presenting. It was as though, if you freeze-framed any particular moment, he was there for a reason." That I see as technique or skill, or whatever you want to call it.

He could punch from unexpected angles and positions as well, which Zora Folley testified to for one. He could of course also punch off his movements, both going backwards and forwards, which is very rare. Read McGrain's analysis of the first round of Ali-Foreman for an in depth description of Ali's movement and positioning. This I put down to technique/skill.

His punching was also over all much better than I think you give it credit for. He was one of very few HW:s who could land triple hooks for one thing. He was also very accurate with his punches and could very effectively combine short and long punches, double up on punches and punch from different angles, which made him a really good finisher. He nearly always finished his man when he had him in trouble, without being a true puncher. It doesn't get much better than his finishing off of London, Williams, Foreman and Lyle, to name a couple.

As I said before, one should watch his fight with Foreman and his second fight with Quarry to get a feel for what he brought to the table. While not being one of the great inside fighters (hard to be with his dimensions) he showed some good ability even in this department in his third fight with Frazier, perhaps the best in-fighter of all HWs.

I repeat, Ali's skills was not text book, but they were still great. Sure, Futch saw some deficiensis in Ali's game, but Schmeling (and Johnsion) saw some in Louis's as well. Even if Ali didn't avenge his defeat quite as emphatically, I think it's ludicrous to just dismiss his two wins against Frazier. After all he was further removed from his prime on all three occasions than Frazier was. Frazier was also a great fighter, who only lost to Foreman besides Ali and who was a stylistical nightmare for Ali.

Especially in Manilla he was able to beat Frazier because he adapted his style. He was more careful with his guard than in FOTC (where he fought as he still had the legs he had in 66-67) and didn't throw as many uppercuts, since Frazier liked to counter them with his left hook.

[janitor]

I was dubious about the value of this thread when it was started, but I have to admit it has been a blody good tear up (in a civilised way) which everybody seems to have enjoyed.

[Stonehands89]

I repeat, Ali's skills was not text book, but they were still great.
....

You and a few others out here are really confusing skill with what is more accurately called athleticism!

Quickly moving in and out of range is athleticism. Throwing three hooks in a row is athleticism. And if you believe for a moment that Ali threw textbook hooks, you're way off. His hooks were by and large slaps with no leverage! He threw uppercuts from the outside. He threw varying one-twos over and over with feints. His hands were at his waste. He leaned back from punches. His infighting was virtually nonexistent. His defense relied almost exclusively on reflexes or basic blocking.

---Great skills? Humbug!

[Bokaj]

I was dubious about the value of this thread when it was started, but I have to admit it has been a blody good tear up (in a civilised way) which everybody seems to have enjoyed.

It has. And I never mind disagreeing with guys like you, Stonehands, Fogey etc, that are extremely knowledgable and make your points very well. It only makes for a really good discussion.

[Bokaj]

....

You and a few others out here are really confusing skill with what is more accurately called athleticism!

Quickly moving in and out of range is athleticism. Throwing three hooks in a row is athleticism. And if you believe for a moment that Ali threw textbook hooks, you're way off. His hooks were by and large slaps with no leverage! He threw uppercuts from the outside. He threw varying one-twos over and over with feints. His hands were at his waste. He leaned back from punches. His infighting was virtually nonexistent. His defense relied almost exclusively on reflexes or basic blocking.

---Great skills? Humbug!

If never said anything about moving quickly, because that is atheticism. But it takes skill to use movement well. Put a NFL running back in a boxing ring and he will be caught against the ropes in no time and taken out. To be able to punch off of movement and always be in proper balance and in the right position takes skill. No one, no matter how fast, master this when they start to train boxing. These are things that you have to train hard to master and no HW has ever done it quite like Ali.

And once again you revert to that Ali wasn't text book. No one has argued that he was. He could throw text book left hooks and did so against Bonavena, for one. He also caught Frazier with some nice text book hooks early in FOTC. But over all his style and technique was his own, something he invented to get the most out of his physical assets.

But even when these assets started to diminish he was able to make necessary adaptions, and this is what made him truly great.

[Stonehands89]

It has. And I never mind disagreeing with guys like you, Stonehands, Fogey etc, that are extremely knowledgable and make your points very well. It only makes for a really good discussion.
Well, hell, I like the way you present your case and make your points -and your fairly new! I zealously disagree here but always appreciate a good duel.

[Stonehands89]

If never said anything about moving quickly, because that is atheticism. But it takes skill to use movement well. Put a NFL running back in a boxing ring and he will be caught against the ropes in no time and taken out. To be able to punch off of movement and always be in proper balance and in the right position takes skill. No one, no matter how fast, master this when they start to train boxing. These are things that you have to train hard to master and no HW has ever done it quite like Ali.

And once again you revert to that Ali wasn't text book. No one has argued that he was. He could throw text book left hooks and did so against Bonavena, for one. He also caught Frazier with some nice text book hooks early in FOTC. But over all his style and technique was his own, something he invented to get the most out of his physical assets.

But even when these assets started to diminish he was able to make necessary adaptions, and this is what made him truly great.
He's the GREATEST HW ever in my book, although only microscopically ahead of the (technically superior) Joe Louis (couldn't resist)... so don't misunderstand me.

Distance-negotiation/range-finding, hand-eye coordination and precision, mobility, gracefulness... these are things that are apparant in athletes playing professional ping pong, tennis, football, and multiple other sports. Natural athletes pick these up easily. Boxing technique involves the technical -like infighting. Which Ali just never properly learned. Because he was not a technician, prefering instead to develop into a savant.

He was the Beethoven of Boxing, he made up his own moves sure, but had he not had his speed and reflexes let's not pretend that he would have survived Henry Cooper, never mind Sonny Liston! Ali would have went NOWHERE.

[Bokaj]

He's the GREATEST HW ever in my book, although only microscopically ahead of the (technically superior) Joe Louis (couldn't resist)... so don't misunderstand me.

Distance-negotiation/range-finding, hand-eye coordination and precision, mobility, gracefulness... these are things that are apparant in athletes playing professional ping pong, tennis, football, and multiple other sports. Natural athletes pick these up easily. Boxing technique involves the technical -like infighting. Which Ali just never properly learned. Because he was not a technician, prefering instead to develop into a savant.

He was the Beethoven of Boxing, he made up his own moves sure, but had he not had his speed and reflexes let's not pretend that he would have survived Henry Cooper, never mind Sonny Liston! Ali would have went NOWHERE.

I think he would have survived Cooper alright (he beat Shavers after all when he had just about nothing left), but point taken. But would Louis stand a chance against Liston without his power, reflexes and hand speed? Probably not.

I would say that in-fighting is the same as movement insofar that it takes both physicality and technique to master it really well. Most good in-fighters have great strength and power as well as fast reflexes, good hand speed and timing. Short, sturdy arms doesn't hurt either.

[McGrain]

[quote]


You seem to be arguing that they were at similar stages of their respective careers because they had a similar number of fights despite the fact that in Alis case those fights took place over 3 abd a half years and in Louis's case they took place over 14 months.

Stages? No. I can see the difference. To be clear, my position is that pro contests is the most important factor in seasoning a fighter, not time spent engaged in the career, "fighter".

[McGrain]

These are fair observations but I would suggest that Louis's loss to Schmeling could have been a career ending beating for some fighters.

I watched highlights of it again yesterday, and it is a chilling beating. It's not one I like to watch.



Louis said that in the first Walcott fight he could see openings but he couldnt exploit them because his reflexes had gone.

I dont think that this was the case of the Ali of Zaire or even Manilla.

...

You don't think Ali saw opening he would have been able to exploit in 1967 in his fight against Foreman?

Slow, wide, open George Foreman?

Watched that fight today. Saw some opening I might have been able to exploit that Ali was not able to...I disagree in the strongest possible terms.

He felt that his skills had eroded to the point where it was time to retire before he had one too many fights.

If only things had worked out that way.



Perhaps this is because Louis is a fighter in his second year as a pro who has had a lot of fights but comparativley little sparring time between fights?

It's interesting - fighters hardly spar at all compared to their ancestotrs. Louis, despite his busy schedule, probably sparred more than Vitali. I, personally, don't think that boxing has suffered desperately because of this reduction in sparring. That's my position.

My answer, here, is "no". Fighting is worth much more than sparring.

[Stonehands89]

I think he would have survived Cooper alright (he beat Shavers after all when he had just about nothing left), but point taken. But would Louis stand a chance against Liston without his power, reflexes and hand speed? Probably not.

I would say that in-fighting is the same as movement insofar that it takes both physicality and technique to master it really well. Most good in-fighters have great strength and power as well as fast reflexes, good hand speed and timing. Short, sturdy arms doesn't hurt either.
Cooper would have ruined him. RUINED him. He survived Shavers because by then he was bigger, more durable, and a cagey veteran. Kid Cassius, sans that speed, would have been a sitting duck for any seasoned professional!

Chavez was not especially athletic. Nor was Arguello. The only other sport Carlos Ortiz would have excelled in is bridge. They, and a hundred others were serious infighters.

As I see it, greatness has three more or less physical requirements: Technical skill, athleticism, and a lion's heart. The best of the best have all three -Robinson, Duran, Pep, Langford, Charles, etc.... some guys compensate -Ali had serious athleticism and serious heart... both of which compensated consecutively in the 60s and 70s for technical flaws. Jones had supreme athleticism, but was deficient on technical skill and heart (he simply avoided risks in and out of the ring)... which is why he is not anywhere near the top 10 or top 20 in my book.

[McGrain]

Well argued as always Stonehands. I'm not going to engage with it to heavily (...probably...) because I think I can sum up our differences independently of the text. You consider "skills" and "technique" or "technical ability" as the same thing? I do not. I think that Louis is an example of a fighter with "technically perfect" skills, whilst Ali "riffs" of this techncial perfection. Now - this makes Louis the techncically better fighter but NOT the more skilled fighter (neccesarily).

Ali's footwork as regards his retreating in staright lines is technically deficient, I agree, but it is a skill nontheless. Louis skills, too, are reliant upon his physcial capablities, just to a lesser degree than Ali - by a serious distance - but this does not make him MORE skilled. It makes him more skilled technically. I'm quite happy to argue this technicality with you if it pleases you.




Watch the tapes closely, McGrain, you have an analyst's eyes: once you can get past the flash and the speed, you see that his style was actually pretty simple, and he had more than a few deficient fundamentals.

I agree with you that Ali was fundamentaly defective (Sounds like something I'd call my younger sister) and that his athleticism made up for this to a huge degreee, but some of the skills he developed - nothing wrong with his efforts in tripling up his jab for example, technically or otherwise! - also helped him to overcome these.


Ali wasn't a technician, but he was a psycologist in there. His feints were excellent, but I'd count them more as athleticism than anything technical: It's easy to teach what a feint looks like, but how to teach a fighter when to use it? It comes naturally to some guys.

Feinting is a good example - here is a skill that is partly technical, partly psychological, part just...feeling it out in there, guesswork, instinct ("comes naturally", yes). I consider Ali the superior of the two, and although his athleticism is a factor in determining his success at it, this is true of Louis too! Part of the reason he is such an affective feinter is that he is gifted with the type of power that allows him to fire such short punches with bad intentions, making his threats - small moves - so terrifying.


You show me a technician who cannot fight inside, and I'll show you the Loch Ness Monster.

I agree, and i'm excited because i've been thinking about this today. I want to offer up Klitschko - I know you're no fan - and Kessler. Technically excellent outfighters, sucessful, top class men in their divisions, currently. I wonder how good these two are? Neither looks comfortable/good at in-fighting but both are seen as technicians...I've been wondering if they represent a small evolution in boxing?


We are usually in the same corner, but I don't see it as close at all. I don't believe that Ali was anything but an instinctive athlete with a lion's heart. He relied on things that no trainer in their right mind would teach an aspiring fighter. His style flicked its nose at fundamentals and really cannot be emulated.... that tells much.

See, that is not the mark of a technician but the mark of a savant.

Futch said this:
"Technically, Ali was more limited than a lot of fighters on the scene. For me, his style was simple... he did the same thing over and over again. He did it very well but..."

...and so his guys Joe and Kenny both beat Ali.

I would strenuously argue that Futch saw the same technical flaws in Jones, another excellent athlete, and you saw what he was able to do through the very limited Montell Griffin in the first fight.



I entirely agree that he is technically flawed, hope I covered this in the first paragraph of this post :good

[McGrain]

I was dubious about the value of this thread when it was started, but I have to admit it has been a blody good tear up (in a civilised way) which everybody seems to have enjoyed.


Aye, it's been excellent.

[Bokaj]

Cooper would have ruined him. RUINED him. He survived Shavers because by then he was bigger, more durable, and a cagey veteran. Kid Cassius, sans that speed, would have been a sitting duck for any seasoned professional!

Well, his skills and technique was adapted for that speed as I see it. But if he didn't posses that speed I think his style would be different. He partly made such an adaption when his speed started to diminish.

But, of course, a guy with young Ali's style but not his speed gets killed. There we agree. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough about this.

Chavez was not especially athletic. Nor was Arguello. The only other sport Carlos Ortiz would have excelled in is bridge. They, and a hundred others were serious infighters.

Wouldn't you say they had good reflexes or timing even? Chavez was at least pretty strong, wasn't he?

[Stonehands89]

Well argued as always Stonehands. I'm not going to engage with it to heavily (...probably...) because I think I can sum up our differences independently of the text. You consider "skills" and "technique" or "technical ability" as the same thing? I do not. I think that Louis is an example of a fighter with "technically perfect" skills, whilst Ali "riffs" of this techncial perfection. Now - this makes Louis the techncically better fighter but NOT the more skilled fighter (neccesarily).
Hmmm... well, I'd say that skills are learned. You don't obtain a skillset by osmosis and boxing has tried and true techniques that are taught. Boxing fundamentals are by and large the foundation of effectiveness in the ring. Wouldn't you agree?

Talent is God-given/natural. Ali's foundation was there and he was able to "riff" as you say -that is, get away with breaking the tried and true "rules" due to his superior athleticism.

I would say that Louis was far more of a technician, but not necessarily better. Fair?

Ali's footwork as regards his retreating in staright lines is technically deficient, I agree, but it is a skill nontheless. Louis skills, too, are reliant upon his physcial capablities, just to a lesser degree than Ali - by a serious distance - but this does not make him MORE skilled. It makes him more skilled technically. I'm quite happy to argue this technicality with you if it pleases you.
If you agree that skills are learned, and backing up in straight lines is a no-no, then how could you call Ali's doing it a "skill"? I would argue that it is something else -speed, rythym, or what have you. But skill? Nah.

I agree with you that Ali was fundamentaly defective (Sounds like something I'd call my younger sister) and that his athleticism made up for this to a huge degreee, but some of the skills he developed - nothing wrong with his efforts in tripling up his jab for example, technically or otherwise! - also helped him to overcome these.

Feinting is a good example - here is a skill that is partly technical, partly psychological, part just...feeling it out in there, guesswork, instinct ("comes naturally", yes). I consider Ali the superior of the two, and although his athleticism is a factor in determining his success at it, this is true of Louis too! Part of the reason he is such an affective feinter is that he is gifted with the type of power that allows him to fire such short punches with bad intentions, making his threats - small moves - so terrifying.
Okay, here is the crux:

Louis, and most great fighters, have superior technical skill as their foundation. Their athleticism (speed/superior strength or size/power/timing, etc) complements or enhances it.

Now, by contrast, Ali, Hamed, Jones, et al. do not have superior technical skill as their foundation. They rely on athleticism. This is why for example, when Jones's aged, he did not have the technical foundation to rely on -like Archie Moore and Duran did for example, Jones fought the same into his 30s -only without that super speed- and fell to the earth with a crash.

I agree, and i'm excited because i've been thinking about this today. I want to offer up Klitschko - I know you're no fan - and Kessler. Technically excellent outfighters, sucessful, top class men in their divisions, currently. I wonder how good these two are? Neither looks comfortable/good at in-fighting but both are seen as technicians...I've been wondering if they represent a small evolution in boxing?
Who sees them as "technicians"??? That word should not be thrown around so easily. Show me the commentator who sees those two as technicians and I'll show you a man who should be commentating Wimbelton. Kessler is better than Klitschko. Klitschko is basic. He's not an excellent outfighter -he's an effective outfighter and there is a difference.

Why is he an effective outfighter? Because he's a giant with 86 inch reach telephone polls!

Here's Klitschko-stein fighting the Wolfman:

URKcpHeObbU

What the !#$% is the difference?

[Stonehands89]

Well, his skills and technique was adapted for that speed as I see it. But if he didn't posses that speed I think his style would be different. He partly made such an adaption when his speed started to diminish.

But, of course, a guy with young Ali's style but not his speed gets killed. There we agree. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough about this.



Wouldn't you say they had good reflexes or timing even? Chavez was at least pretty strong, wasn't he?
All fighters have some degree of athletic ability... you cannot make a speed bag dance without it. But they relied on technique first with athleticism as a complement and an enhander to that foundation. And most greats do.

See, I don't think that having athleticism as a foundation puts a boxer on solid ground. The vast majority of fighters who rely on athleticism get cracked and hurt early and that's it for them. There are exceptions of course, but even the exceptions really tend to prove the rule. Technique is emphasized so strongly because it has to be. In what sport is technique not important?

[JohnThomas1]

Norton...? Norton had no business EVER beating Ali. He is not great. And yet he did. Why? Futch.


A well past peak Norton also had no right to give (much closer to peak than Ali) Larry Holmes such a titanic struggle either. Yet he did. I'm pretty sure Futch was long gone from Norton. Not certain when he took over for Holmes.

[SuzieQ49]

Bill Slayton(??) was ken nortons trainer for holmes fight. i have kens book. going by the ali-norton and norton-holmes fights its hard to argue any technical heavyweight boxer in history outboxing ken norton. norton beat ali and lost a 1 point split decision to peak holmes, both top 5 ATG heavyweights.

[Muchmoore]

A well past peak Norton also had no right to give (much closer to peak than Ali) Larry Holmes such a titanic struggle either. Yet he did. I'm pretty sure Futch was long gone from Norton. Not certain when he took over for Holmes.

:good

Norton wasn't an ATG against punchers, but he was capable of beating pretty much any boxer mover ever.

[SuzieQ49]

studying people on ESB......I think ESBs h2h heavyweight of all time top 10 would look something like this

1. Lennox Lewis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Vitali Klitschko
4. Corrie Sanders
5. Mike Tyson
6. Riddick Bowe
7. Wladimir Klitschko
8. Larry Holmes
9. Buster Douglas
10. Sam Peter

[Stonehands89]

A well past peak Norton also had no right to give (much closer to peak than Ali) Larry Holmes such a titanic struggle either. Yet he did. I'm pretty sure Futch was long gone from Norton. Not certain when he took over for Holmes.
Well, if Futch were Merlin and I served my apprenticeship under him, I'd have a pretty nice repertoire of tricks to sell out an auditorium even now, haha.

[Bokaj]

All fighters have some degree of athletic ability... you cannot make a speed bag dance without it. But they relied on technique first with athleticism as a complement and an enhander to that foundation. And most greats do.

See, I don't think that having athleticism as a foundation puts a boxer on solid ground. The vast majority of fighters who rely on athleticism get cracked and hurt early and that's it for them. There are exceptions of course, but even the exceptions really tend to prove the rule. Technique is emphasized so strongly because it has to be. In what sport is technique not important?

Technique is very important. But we just fundamentally disagree when it comes to Ali. I wouldn't say that he lacked in fundamentals as much as he choose to ignore some of them. That's why he held his hands low and pulled his head straight back from punches. Let's not forget that Tunney did this also.

He also developed techniques that was not textbook, but that he felt worked obviously. This was very much true about his punching. He liked to use his wrist when delivering a punch, and often connected with the heel of his hand instead of with his fist. But he threw some very nice textbook hooks as well. Another thing he liked to do was to twist the fist at impact to open cuts more effectively. He had a great jab that he used in a number of ways, depending on what he wanted out of it. He had, in Futch's words, a "classic" right. Probably the most textbokk thing in his repertoire.

His movement was in many senses outstanding (and not just the speed of it), but I have alreay expanded on that. He also worked constantly on his own defensive techniques. In the fight against Ellis and rematch against Patterson he showed some of these. He didn't slip punches and he didn't bend at the knees when he ducked, but he had other techniques and they worked for him.

His positioning was also outstanding. He was just about never off balance and almost always in position to evade punches or engage/counter. I can't remember when he was caught due to poor balance. You could argue the KD against Wepner, but there were claims that Wepner stood on his foot when delivering the punch.

Also the way he used the ropes should be noted. Futch was already before FOTC worried about how Ali could trick an opponent when against the ropes and use the ropes as leverage for his punches. That's why he had Frazier go to the body so much, not to give Ali the chance to slip and counter. It should also be noted that Ali was one of the great clinchers. While not being beautiful, this is a very important technique/skill to master and was crucial for him after the comeback.

He hardly punched to the body or fought inside. But this was a matter of choice. I do also think he showed some accomplished inside fighting in Manilla, even if he tried to keep that fight on the outside as much possible, of course.

To sum up, I would say that people correctly point out that Ali's style was flawed from an orthodox standpoint, but draw the incorrect conclusion that this means he didn't have any technique/skills, just a lot of natural talent. He did have a lot of technique/skill, that he developed in his own specific way.

[Stonehands89]

Technique is very important. But we just fundamentally disagree when it comes to Ali. I wouldn't say that he lacked in fundamentals as much as he choose to ignore some of them. That's why he held his hands low and pulled his head straight back from punches. Let's not forget that Tunney did this also.
Whether Ali lacked in fundamentals, or chose to consistently ignore them is adademic. Ali was not a technician. That really has to be placed outside of the realm of dispute.

He also developed techniques that was not textbook, but that he felt worked obviously. This was very much true about his punching. He liked to use his wrist when delivering a punch, and often connected with the heel of his hand instead of with his fist.
"Hitting with the open glove, the butt of the hand, the wrist or the elbow, and all backhand blows" is illegal in Nevada and in most of the U.S.

But he threw some very nice textbook hooks as well
At times, but usually, his hooks were slaps with no leverage! Let us not give him a pass because -sometimes- he had nice textbook hooks but usually he did not.

Another thing he liked to do was to twist the fist at impact to open cuts more effectively. The "corkscrew"... which is more or less how you are supposed to throw a shot.

He had a great jab that he used in a number of ways, depending on what he wanted out of it. He had, in Futch's words, a "classic" right. Probably the most textbokk thing in his repertoire.
Futch (and I) already acknowledged these. These remain the only two shots that Ali consistently threw correctly.

His movement was in many senses outstanding (and not just the speed of it), but I have alreay expanded on that. He also worked constantly on his own defensive techniques. In the fight against Ellis and rematch against Patterson he showed some of these. He didn't slip punches and he didn't bend at the knees when he ducked, but he had other techniques and they worked for him.
He moved very well -acknowledged. Can you acknowledge that the vast majority of that movement we both admire occured out of range? It's simply not as objectively impressive as short pivots inside the perimeter that at once allow the fighter to slip and counter simulaneously. Ray Leonard's movement in New Orleans impresses Hollywood celebrities in the front row, but not those who understand that sound technique in the danger zone is more beautiful because it is more difficult and more dangerous.

His positioning was also outstanding. He was just about never off balance and almost always in position to evade punches or engage/counter.
No, Frazier caught him all night with hooks at MSG because he was leaning back with his right hand by his waist. And what happened when Frazier did catch him? Ali would grab him behind the head, which is illegal. Frazier caught Ali with something in the range of 50 left hooks over 15 rounds. From beginning to end, Ali tried to lean back with his hands low. This is BAD TECHNIQUE!

Also the way he used the ropes should be noted. Futch was already before FOTC worried about how Ali could trick an opponent when against the ropes and use the ropes as leverage for his punches. That's why he had Frazier go to the body so much, not to give Ali the chance to slip and counter. It should also be noted that Ali was one of the great clinchers. While not being beautiful, this is a very important technique/skill to master and was crucial for him after the comeback.
"Holding or deliberately maintaining a clinch" is illegal in Nevada and most states.

He hardly punched to the body or fought inside. But this was a matter of choice.
You are rationalizing his flaws. Ali's defense relied on reflexes and staying out of range. When his legs went and his reflexes slowed, what happened? He took shots. Repeatedly. Which accelerated his Parkinson's syndrome and therefore seriously damaged him.

Would you say that he "chose" to disregard almost all of the defensive techniques taught in the amateurs? That when he got older, he purposefully took shots? I'm telling you that his technical flaws, masked for 10 years by supreme youthful athleticism, were exposed. He relied on magnificent heart and durability, but don't you agree that it would have been healthier to rely on a strong foundation of technique?

If he had that strong foundation, Bokaj, but "chose to ignore it" when he was young, why didn't he choose to use it when he slowed down instead of inviting concussions?

[Bokaj]

No, Frazier caught him all night with hooks at MSG because he was leaning back with his right hand by his waist. And what happened when Frazier did catch him? Ali would grab him behind the head, which is illegal. Frazier caught Ali with something in the range of 50 left hooks over 15 rounds. From beginning to end, Ali tried to lean back with his hands low. This is BAD TECHNIQUE!

Yes. In FOTC he still fought like he had the legs he had had before the lay-off, but he remedied that and was much more careful in Manilla. There he didn't take very many clean left hooks. He still took a lot of punishment, but not nearly as many clean punches as in FOTC.


"Holding or deliberately maintaining a clinch" is illegal in Nevada and most states.

But it's still a part of the game, like it or not.


You are rationalizing his flaws. Ali's defense relied on reflexes and staying out of range. When his legs went and his reflexes slowed, what happened? He took shots. Repeatedly. Which accelerated his Parkinson's syndrome and therefore seriously damaged him.

I don't think he took more punishment than any other old fighter. The really punishing fights he had was the first and last fight with Frazier, but Frazier was a formidable adversary. He took a couple of huge shots from Shavers, but so did Holmes, in his his prime. Not even his last fight, where he was shot to pieces, was very punishing.

If he had that strong foundation, Bokaj, but "chose to ignore it" when he was young, why didn't he choose to use it when he slowed down instead of inviting concussions?

I have been saying repeatedly that he did make some necessary adaptions to his style. And I think that the belief that he became a human punching bag is greatly, greatly exaggerated. He was against Holmes, but that was hardly surprising considering the state he was in.

I just saw his fight against Young. He looked terrible. Overweight, underprepared, slow, bad timing - but still he didn't get hit much. And this was against perhaps the slickest boxer around at the time.

[groove]

No heavy was faster. Check him start to take apart Patterson round 2.

E0twVkgSYSI

[McGrain]

Hmmm... well, I'd say that skills are learned. You don't obtain a skillset by osmosis and boxing has tried and true techniques that are taught. Boxing fundamentals are by and large the foundation of effectiveness in the ring. Wouldn't you agree?

To a degree, allowing for fighters who are self taught (Wajima for example).

Talent is God-given/natural. Ali's foundation was there and he was able to "riff" as you say -that is, get away with breaking the tried and true "rules" due to his superior athleticism.

I would say that Louis was far more of a technician, but not necessarily better. Fair?

All spot on and fair. What I will say - Louis has the absolutley perfect technique for humans. But all humans are different. If a human develops perfect technquie for himself and his own abilities, I won't deride him as unskilled for that.


If you agree that skills are learned, and backing up in straight lines is a no-no, then how could you call Ali's doing it a "skill"? I would argue that it is something else -speed, rythym, or what have you. But skill? Nah.

Ali taught himself to avoid punches by retreating in a straight line. That's a skill. Mayweather has been taught/taught himself this too. He was not very good at it. Skills have degrees...Johnson was pretty good at it too from what I understand. "The train never comes" for Ali and Johnson. That's a skill allright.


Louis, and most great fighters, have superior technical skill as their foundation. Their athleticism (speed/superior strength or size/power/timing, etc) complements or enhances it.

Now, by contrast, Ali, Hamed, Jones, et al. do not have superior technical skill as their foundation. They rely on athleticism. This is why for example, when Jones's aged, he did not have the technical foundation to rely on -like Archie Moore and Duran did for example, Jones fought the same into his 30s -only without that super speed- and fell to the earth with a crash.

Yeah, i've been saying exactly the same thing about JOnes for years - have you seen any of his second incarnation fights? He's MUCH more technically adept now! He's sort of realised that there is no other way to get by...technically better than he ever was during his absolute peak!

Tehniques that don't embrace technical excellence are still skills, however.


Who sees them as "technicians"??? That word should not be thrown around so easily. Show me the commentator who sees those two as technicians and I'll show you a man who should be commentating Wimbelton. Kessler is better than Klitschko. Klitschko is basic. He's not an excellent outfighter -he's an effective outfighter and there is a difference.

Why is he an effective outfighter? Because he's a giant with 86 inch reach telephone polls!

I think you are a bit hard on Klitschko. His style is affective and the punches he employs have near-perfect technical form and are authoratitive. He's not a complete fighter of course, but what he does he does very well.

Here is a short article where Welsh middleweight Nathan King calls Kessler a "really good...a good...technician".


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Also, it's an oft-repeated phrase in General, although most of the best poster's have been adding caveats concerning his in-fighitng...anyway, both have become successes, especially Wladimir, without the benifit of infighting ability.



Here's Klitschko-stein fighting the Wolfman:

URKcpHeObbU

What the !#$% is the difference?

This gave me the fear a little bit.

[groove]

time to crucify Floyd - i counted Ali threw 112 punches in round 6.

Qt5BLPgEnqE

[prime]

Both Louis and Ali were excellent, athletically and technically, in their own individual styles.

If Ali is "flawed", it is only in the standard technical sense. In his prime, he had his own unique style, perfectly suited for his own philosophy of hitting hard and often enough for a win and avoiding getting hit clean himself.

He knew exactly what he was doing. Watching him against Liston, Williams and Foley is watching an astronaut in his own universe at work, a beautiful craft forged from a 100-bout amateur career and 10 years' experience in hitting something consistently and passionately. Every second prime Ali was in the ring is a lesson from greatness.

And for his critics, he said it best: "I can start fast. I can start slow. You writers never fought anybody."

[Stonehands89]

Yes. In FOTC he still fought like he had the legs he had had before the lay-off, but he remedied that and was much more careful in Manilla. There he didn't take very many clean left hooks. He still took a lot of punishment, but not nearly as many clean punches as in FOTC.

I don't think he took more punishment than any other old fighter. The really punishing fights he had was the first and last fight with Frazier, but Frazier was a formidable adversary. He took a couple of huge shots from Shavers, but so did Holmes, in his his prime. Not even his last fight, where he was shot to pieces, was very punishing.

I have been saying repeatedly that he did make some necessary adaptions to his style. And I think that the belief that he became a human punching bag is greatly, greatly exaggerated. He was against Holmes, but that was hardly surprising considering the state he was in.

I just saw his fight against Young. He looked terrible. Overweight, underprepared, slow, bad timing - but still he didn't get hit much. And this was against perhaps the slickest boxer around at the time.
Ali wasn't hit much against Young because Young fought him on the backfoot and was barely punching. Watch the Shavers fight. Shavers was barely active himself but when he was, he was landing often with that long right and Ali was doing what he always did -leaning back. Only now he was getting caught -and hurt. That's because of bad technique!

Berbick hurt him too -that was a very punishing fight for Ali. Just because he went the distance doesn't remove that fact -if anything it enhances that fact.

I simply -and strongly- disagree with you. Ali took more punishment than you are prepared to acknowledge. And he took far more than he had to. The adjustments you see weren't much more than him staying further out of range for longer periods of time and clinching more. He simply got less offensive and coasted to decisions.

[Stonehands89]

To a degree, allowing for fighters who are self taught (Wajima for example).
There are exceptions. Pep is widely considered one.

All spot on and fair. What I will say - Louis has the absolutley perfect technique for humans. But all humans are different. If a human develops perfect technquie for himself and his own abilities, I won't deride him as unskilled for that.

Ali taught himself to avoid punches by retreating in a straight line. That's a skill. Mayweather has been taught/taught himself this too. He was not very good at it. Skills have degrees...Johnson was pretty good at it too from what I understand. "The train never comes" for Ali and Johnson. That's a skill allright.
Ah, but the train did come. Watch Ali-Shavers. Ali pulls straight back from Shavers' rights and is caught -repeatedely. His chin held up of course, but he was hurt.

Tehniques that don't embrace technical excellence are still skills, however.
This is starting to look like semantics for us, McGrain.

"Effective" skills are not necessarily synonmous with "excellent" skills although the reverse is true. Ali's sliding back in a straight line is effective -but not recommended and not "excellent". It's purely reliant on natural ability and is therefore risky -as he himself later discovered. Klitschko's ability to control small guys in the clinch isn't excellence -it's simple, even though it's effective.

I think you are a bit hard on Klitschko. His style is affective and the punches he employs have near-perfect technical form and are authoratitive. He's not a complete fighter of course, but what he does he does very well.
Klitschko is basic. I see that as an objective fact. He has basic fundamental skills. If he were 6'1 and 225 lbs, with the same skill set, he would be a tomato can.

Here is a short article where Welsh middleweight Nathan King calls Kessler a "really good...a good...technician".

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Also, it's an oft-repeated phrase in General, although most of the best poster's have been adding caveats concerning his in-fighitng...anyway, both have become successes, especially Wladimir, without the benifit of infighting ability.
I see Kessler's skillset and was disappointed that he surrendered to the will of Joe "open windows" Calzaghe. That to me, was why he lost, he surrendered and allowed Joe to "ruin his boxing."

[Stonehands89]

And for his critics, he said it best: "I can start fast. I can start slow. You writers never fought anybody."
... Sometimes, even on this hallowed site, it feels as though criticism of Ali the man or Ali the boxer is tantamount to blasphemy.

Ali was a flawed man and a flawed fighter -excuses are made here (not by McGrain) for his obvious technical flaws and shortcomings, technical problems that Futch easily saw and exploited twice in a row.

------------------------
by the way, ...some of us out here are writers and fighters. Brawlers and scholars. Ali was wrong again.

[ChrisPontius]

Klitschko is basic. I see that as an objective fact. He has basic fundamental skills. If he were 6'1 and 225 lbs, with the same skill set, he would be a tomato can.


What makes you think he'd fight the same way if he were 6'1"?

He uses his size better than anyone in history besides Lennox Lewis. To punish him for that by saying "if he fought that way if he was 6'1" he'd get murdered" is just silly. That's like saying "If Tyson was featherfisted and fought that way he'd get murdered". Moot point.


There have been a ton of 6'5"+ fighters the last decade. If it's so easy to do what he does, then why is he (together with a select few others) the only one to have extended success? Here is a little clip of him landing a few right hands. If you call that so bad technically to the degree that he'd be a tomato can at 6'1", well then........ i have to disagree. :D

oqIDl-_5HZY

He also stayed off the ropes and corners for the entire 12 rounds against a bullrushing, confident Samuel Peter. That's skill and boxing ability, not luck.

[Dempsey1238]

The Train never did come for Johnson becuase Johnson would hold onto the train and toss it to one side. He didnt run from it like Ali did.

[Bokaj]

... Sometimes, even on this hallowed site, it feels as though criticism of Ali the man or Ali the boxer is tantamount to blasphemy.

Ali was a flawed man and a flawed fighter -excuses are made here (not by McGrain) for his obvious technical flaws and shortcomings, technical problems that Futch easily saw and exploited twice in a row.

Ali gets plent critized on this forum. So he doesn't seem untouchable too me.

Futch was great but I do think he had the perfect material in Frazier and Norton to beat Ali. Frazier ate up all other boxers except Ali and Norton was great against other boxers as well. So let's not get over board with how Futch was Ali's nemesis.

Almost all fighters have weaknesses. Louis had weaknesses that was exposed by Schemling, and he had a hard time against slicksters like Conn and Walcott and against swarmers like Godoy.

Ali wasn't complete, I give you that. He honed certain skills and techniques to a very high degree, while he paid less heed to others. I think that will be my last words about it on this thread.

[Stonehands89]

What makes you think he'd fight the same way if he were 6'1"?

He uses his size better than anyone in history besides Lennox Lewis. To punish him for that by saying "if he fought that way if he was 6'1" he'd get murdered" is just silly. That's like saying "If Tyson was featherfisted and fought that way he'd get murdered". Moot point.


There have been a ton of 6'5"+ fighters the last decade. If it's so easy to do what he does, then why is he (together with a select few others) the only one to have extended success? Here is a little clip of him landing a few right hands. If you call that so bad technically to the degree that he'd be a tomato can at 6'1", well then........ i have to disagree. :D

oqIDl-_5HZY

He also stayed off the ropes and corners for the entire 12 rounds against a bullrushing, confident Samuel Peter. That's skill and boxing ability, not luck.
Basic! Staying off the ropes against Peter! Basic! Klitschko knows how to throw a straight right. Come on. Does that mean that he is a technician in your book? That was a fan clip and you still manage to see him jumping back and straight with his hands down. God forbid he finish on his left.

Tyson had a wide array of technical skill -he was well-taught, power or no power. His foundation was technical -not power. Big difference, Chris.

[janitor]

It's interesting - fighters hardly spar at all compared to their ancestotrs. Louis, despite his busy schedule, probably sparred more than Vitali. I, personally, don't think that boxing has suffered desperately because of this reduction in sparring. That's my position.

My answer, here, is "no". Fighting is worth much more than sparring.

I apreciate your point about Louis having a lot of rounds of actual fights under his belt when he went into the deepend but I think you have to make some alowance for the speed with which he was moved. If you stuck all your driving lessons end on end would you be ready to take your test after 24 hours?

If it was simply a matter of having enough fights then why didnt Ali's handlers try to get him ready for a title shot in his second year as a pro?

Louis was basicaly run in like a London taxi where one set of drivers work it in the day time and another set work it at night. 25 fights in 14 months means one every fortnight.

Could you imagine Amir Khans handlers matching him up on a fortnightly basis often against fringe contenders and putting him in with Cory Spinks nine months after he turned profesional?

[McGrain]

Ah, but the train did come. Watch Ali-Shavers. Ali pulls straight back from Shavers' rights and is caught -repeatedely. His chin held up of course, but he was hurt.

Then the train came to Joe Louis aswell, figuratively. He, too, got to old for his style.


This is starting to look like semantics for us, McGrain.

Yeah, maybe. Depends what you mean by semantics though.

"Effective" skills are not necessarily synonmous with "excellent" skills although the reverse is true. Ali's sliding back in a straight line is effective -but not recommended and not "excellent". It's purely reliant on natural ability and is therefore risky -as he himself later discovered. Klitschko's ability to control small guys in the clinch isn't excellence -it's simple, even though it's effective.

I agree with all of this, but I would add that Ali's retreating in straight lines was more affective than Louis' tucked chin, slip/duck arrangement peak for peak and that both suffered the ravages of age to an equally noticeable degree, probably because they scaled such great heights.


Klitschko is basic. I see that as an objective fact. He has basic fundamental skills. If he were 6'1 and 225 lbs, with the same skill set, he would be a tomato can.

Size is a genuine attribute though, no different than speed. If Ali "fought slow" he, too, would be a tomato can, more so in fact. Klitschko is a fundamental fighter - not adaptable any more - but he has adapted his style to suit his limitations and his strengths. That's the way boxing works, I don't think the man can be blamed for that.

[McGrain]

I apreciate your point about Louis having a lot of rounds of actual fights under his belt when he went into the deepend but I think you have to make some alowance for the speed with which he was moved. If you stuck all your driving lessons end on end would you be ready to take your test after 24 hours?

Only if you were an extraordinarily quick learner with great endurence and awareness.

If it was simply a matter of having enough fights then why didnt Ali's handlers try to get him ready for a title shot in his second year as a pro?[/QOTE]

He was a different fighter in a different time. Ali would not have reacted well to this type of handling in my view - impossible to imagine him getting a shot at Braddock/Baer's title - Louis thrived upon it, no? Secondly, we look back with histories eye. Ali's handlers would rightly be nervous about his astonishing, unusual little understood talent.

[quote]Could you imagine Amir Khans handlers matching him up on a fortnightly basis often against fringe contenders and putting him in with Cory Spinks nine months after he turned profesional?

Not a good comparison because Khan would lose under such circumstances - but I don't see why his chances would be better against a similair fighter after 4 years and less fights in answer to your question.

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]
He was a different fighter in a different time. Ali would not have reacted well to this type of handling in my view - impossible to imagine him getting a shot at Braddock/Baer's title - Louis thrived upon it, no? Secondly, we look back with histories eye. Ali's handlers would rightly be nervous about his astonishing, unusual little understood talent.


Differnt fighter in a diferent time?

That usualy means "had to make do with the circumstances of his era".

Thrived on it?

That usualy means "found a way to make it happen".

You are a bit unkind to poor Louis.

[McGrain]

[quote]


Differnt fighter in a diferent time?

That usualy means "had to make do with the circumstances of his era".

Thrived on it?

That usualy means "found a way to make it happen".

You are a bit unkind to poor Louis.


:lol: :lol:

Me?!?!

I tell you - when Classic is telling me I am being unkind to an old time fighter, and General is telling me I am on that fighter's nuts, I tend to believe I've got that fighter spot on!

[JohnThomas1]

For the greatest head to head i choose the Ali of right before the exile.

This is Ali at the athletic best we ever saw. Regardless of unorthodox defensive technique and other his sheer speed and unique gifts allow him to quite likely beat any man ever. By the time he fought Frazier the edge off these gifts were declined, both from passing years and inactivity. His chin and durability also did not amazingly grow for having not fought for 3 years and gaining 2-3 whole pounds of fat.

This version of Ali would have had the stamina, footwork and extra speed to beat Norton convincingly, regardless of technical nuances which would simply not be exposed. I would also be putting much confidence in his ability to edge any version of Frazier. Obviously these two competitors would always make him dig deep and trouble him at various times, but i really don't see them beating a peak Ali who would undoubtably not have to trade as often.

[Stonehands89]

Ali gets plent critized on this forum. So he doesn't seem untouchable too me.

Futch was great but I do think he had the perfect material in Frazier and Norton to beat Ali. Frazier ate up all other boxers except Ali and Norton was great against other boxers as well. So let's not get over board with how Futch was Ali's nemesis.
Futch was dangerous to any fighter in the opposite corner. Ali met Futch years later and said "you always gave me trouble." Overboard? Nah.

Almost all fighters have weaknesses. Louis had weaknesses that was exposed by Schemling, and he had a hard time against slicksters like Conn and Walcott and against swarmers like Godoy.
ALL fighters have weaknesses.

Ali wasn't complete, I give you that. He honed certain skills and techniques to a very high degree, while he paid less heed to others. I think that will be my last words about it on this thread.
...and we finish agreeably.

[Jennifer Love Hewitt]

Other: Lennox Lewis

[Stonehands89]

Then the train came to Joe Louis aswell, figuratively. He, too, got to old for his style.
I took the train analogy to mean that the way you evade a train is to step to the side and let it pass because it will catch you going straight back. Louis dropped his left and Schmeling got him on that. Then Louis corrected that technical burb.

Age eventually catches up with everyone. I'm saying that it catches up with athletes years before technicians, all else being equal...

I agree with all of this, but I would add that Ali's retreating in straight lines was more affective than Louis' tucked chin, slip/duck arrangement peak for peak and that both suffered the ravages of age to an equally noticeable degree, probably because they scaled such great heights.
okay.

Size is a genuine attribute though, no different than speed. If Ali "fought slow" he, too, would be a tomato can, more so in fact. Klitschko is a fundamental fighter - not adaptable any more - but he has adapted his style to suit his limitations and his strengths. That's the way boxing works, I don't think the man can be blamed for that.
But we can and should look at boxers critically. Especially champions. Klitschko has a tender chin, so Steward is keeping him on the outside. Makes sense. He is also no technician in there aside from a basic set of skills you can count. Jab, straight right, clinching, periodically good hooks. Not much else. Size and strength compensates, but it doesn't make him a "highly skilled outfighter."

Tough to beat? Yep.
Advanced technical skills? Nope.

Comedy aside, that's about all I'm trying to say about Klitschko.

[D-WILSON]

Ail Was A Smart Fighter

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]


:lol: :lol:

Me?!?!

I tell you - when Classic is telling me I am being unkind to an old time fighter, and General is telling me I am on that fighter's nuts, I tend to believe I've got that fighter spot on!

I must warn you that people who sit on the fence tend to get splinters in their arse.

[Big Yank Bal]

Ali, but Louis is at #2, followed closely by marciano at #3

[McGrain]

[quote=McGrain]

I must warn you that people who sit on the fence tend to get splinters in their arse.


:rofl :rofl :rofl

I hope you understand that my position means more than trying to plese ANYONE.

That said, fair enough.

[McGrain]

I
Comedy aside, that's about all I'm trying to say about Klitschko.

As always, it was a joy to talk with you.

[D-MAC]

Ali

On a skills match-up its an intriguing H-2-H bout, in which I would still favour Ali by UD.

But, on a competition-faced basis its Ali all the way.

[SuzieQ49]

I would have to go with Super Southpaw Corrie Sanders. how are you going to beat a 6'4 225lb ackward southpaw who had lightning like hands, unbelievable god like power, a cement chin, and perfect technique?

[Brian123]

James J. Jeffries

Beat nine hall of famers and made nine defenses of the World Championship.

In his prime never lost or never even knock down! (what other boxer can say say this?) Only lost once because he made a comeback after a six year layoff to fight the 2nd greatest boxer ever Jack Johnson in his prime.