Perfect Fight/Time

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 20 Feb 2008, 16:25

Ali could never have beaten Louis.

WHY?

Because Ali didn't have a clue how to fight a counterpuncher.

And that's what Louis was.

Ali demonstrated for 15 excruciating rounds (for him) that he had no way to handle a counterpuncher when he fought Jimmy Young.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 20 Feb 2008, 16:31

Young is the only counter puncher Ali ever fought?

Ali at his best would beat Louis and Young. And Ali was a better counter puncher than either of them.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 20 Feb 2008, 16:47

Ali at his best would knock out Louis and Young. And Ali was a better counter puncher than either of them.

Not necessarily, it depends on who Ali would fight. If he fought, let's say a Marciano, he would have the advantage of being a greater counter-puncher. Not to say Ali was a bad counter-puncher, he proved in his prime he could handle a counter punching type [Zora Folley] and did it rather easily.

But in these hypotheticals we're talking about the Ali who fought Liston the first time and prior, the Ali who fought Foreman and prior to 1970, and the Ali who defeated Spinks in the rematch in 1978 and prior all the way back to 1975.

The first incarnation was certainly fast enough, but then again, he never fought someone equally as great as Joe Louis; the second incarnation in my opinion was the 'best' over all Ali, as he was able to adapt a different style than he had, due to his speed erosion; the last one, in my opinion, who had fought Lyle, Young, etc I dont think would have stood a chance against Louis.

So, you have one given, and two toss ups.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 20 Feb 2008, 16:51

I think it's a given that the Ali who fought Young and Spinks would lose to Louis in his prime. Just as its a given that the Louis who lost to Charles and Marciano would lose to Ali in his prime.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 20 Feb 2008, 17:08

Myself I dont know if you could make a solid argument that the Louis who defeated Braddock was essentially in his prime; he was absoloutely near it, but he had just recently lost to Schmeling; it seems to me from the rematch to before Joe went into the army, he was at his absoloute peak.

Sure he done defeated Carnera and Baer, but mind you Carnera was already on the downside by then; Baer was his best win up to that time, but then again if the stories are true, Louis just beat up a one armed man in the ring that night, so then again can you say he was tested completely?

But this whole thread is about ON THE NIGHT A CHAMPION WON HIS TITLE...was the Louis who defeated Braddock able to defeat the Ali who either beat Liston in the first match, the Ali who defeated Foreman in Zaire, or the Ali who defeated Spinks in the Super Dome?

Its a toss up with the younger incarnations, the latter, no.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 20 Feb 2008, 17:12

Well regardless of the word "prime" I would say the Louis who beat Braddock beats the Ali who lost and regained his title against Spinks. Ditto Ali beating the Louis who lost to Charles. But I also believe that the Clay who beat Liston and the Ali who beat Foreman beat Louis on the night he fought Braddock

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 20 Feb 2008, 17:24

I Feel Fine wrote:Young is the only counter puncher Ali ever fought?

Ali at his best would beat Louis and Young. And Ali was a better counter puncher than either of them.

Young made Ali lead.

And Ali was incompetent when he was forced to do that.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 20 Feb 2008, 17:37

Yes, just as he himself got out boxed and battered by the 'great' Gerry Cooney. Just as Louis was embarrassed by former Middleweight Ezzard Charles.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 20 Feb 2008, 17:43

I Feel Fine wrote:Yes, just as he himself got out boxed and battered by the 'great' Gerry Cooney. Just as Louis was embarrassed by former Middleweight Ezzard Charles.

Ifeelfine doesn't know what the word counterpunch means.

And he never will.

Ali didn't have a clue what to do when HE was forced to lead, as Young made him.

If anyone thinks the real Jimmy Young showed up for the Cooney fake, i can sell them a couple bridges.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 20 Feb 2008, 17:54

Young was Cooney's bitch, and Ocasio's, and Page's, and Cuillo's, Brown's, Tubbs', Tucker's, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. Young was a poor fighter who lost 19 times. Including to Ali, who beat him by unanimous decision. And Louis wasn't capable of handling a former Middleweight who had been knocked out several times in his career against other Middleweights and Light Heavyweights. At least Ali never lost to a Middleweight.

Its fun stating facts without any context, isn't it?

As for the Cooney fight; Young was as real against Cooney as Ali was against Young.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 20 Feb 2008, 18:05

"...But this whole thread is about ON THE NIGHT A CHAMPION WON HIS TITLE..." - Henry

Are you reading this, Alp? This is why we were on the subject of Ali '74 vs a prime Louis. I thought I explained this when you said you thought we were talking about fighters in their primes --- All I did was stick to the subject Henry arranged.

I think there's little point discussing the issue of Ali vs Louis (primes) if said person thinks that the Ali of '74 beats a prime Louis. He doesn't, any more than the Louis of '46 beats a prime Ali.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 20 Feb 2008, 18:11

Well, some might not like it, but I'm not going to apologize for saying that a more experienced Ali with 20 pounds on the Louis who fought Braddock in '37 beats -and possibly knocks out- Louis. As I said, looking impressive against Braddock is all well and good, but I'll take the guy who looks good against and knocks out George Foreman. Which is an interesting point in and of itself, I don't at all know that Louis could have ever beaten George.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 20 Feb 2008, 18:26

I Feel Fine wrote:Well, some might not like it, but I'm not going to apologize for saying that a more experienced Ali with 20 pounds on the Louis who fought Braddock in '37 beats -and possibly knocks out- Louis. As I said, looking impressive against Braddock is all well and good, but I'll take the guy who looks good against and knocks out George Foreman. Which is an interesting point in and of itself, I don't at all know that Louis could have ever beaten George.

I don't think anyone is going to (or should, one man excepted of course

) ask you to apologise, literally or otherwise, since this is all just opinion.

Louis & Foreman? Machine vs. Monster, & I wouldn't put a dime on it. I think Louis is the best Heavyweight of all-time, but Foreman is my favourite fighter ever, of course. Love to see that fight. Guaranteed knockout.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 20 Feb 2008, 18:30

I Feel Fine wrote:Young was Cooney's bitch, and Ocasio's, and Page's, and Cuillo's, Brown's, Tubbs', Tucker's, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. Young was a poor fighter who lost 19 times. Including to Ali, who beat him by unanimous decision. And Louis wasn't capable of handling a former Middleweight who had been knocked out several times in his career against other Middleweights and Light Heavyweights. At least Ali never lost to a Middleweight.

Its fun stating facts without any context, isn't it?

As for the Cooney fight; Young was as real against Cooney as Ali was against Young.

ifeelfine is Ali's bitch.

And eager to show it.

But Ali didn't have a clue what to do when he was forced to lead.
Jimmy Young exposed that for all to see for 15 continuous rounds.

Poor Ali didn't have a single thing that would worked when he was forced to lead.

And all the Ali bitches posting on all the so-called internet boxing sites put together can't change that.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 20 Feb 2008, 18:45

Would Ali lead against Louis? Don't get me wrong, I'd expect Louis to beat Ali in a prime-for-prime match-up (though it's ludicrous for anyone to consider this fight a lock for either man), but it seems to me, if Louis is going to win, it's not by waiting to counter Ali's longer reach & faster hands (though Louis is the more accurate puncher, which comes with planting your feet as opposed to being on your toes).

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 20 Feb 2008, 18:56

Ali's hands were noticeably slower than Doug Jones'. It's right there on the film.

Doug Jones was no Joe Louis.

bjermaine · Post by **bjermaine** » 20 Feb 2008, 19:54

people will talk about anything on this site. ali being an incompetent fighter?

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 20 Feb 2008, 20:25

bjermaine wrote:people will talk about anything on this site. ali being an incompetent fighter?

Yeah, he looked real competent against Jimmy Young.

bjermaine · Post by **bjermaine** » 20 Feb 2008, 21:03

granberry wrote:
bjermaine wrote:people will talk about anything on this site. ali being an incompetent fighter?
Yeah, he looked real competent against Jimmy Young.

sure, young deserved to win but that was a post manilla ali. last time i checked ali was named sportsman/athlete of the century by a number of media outlets. everyone is entitled to their opinion, i guess.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 20 Feb 2008, 22:35

Clay against Doug Jones in 1963 and Ali against Young in 1976, that's all the Ali haters have. By this logic Henry Armstrong was a shit fighter because he lost fights within his first couple of years and lost fights in his waning years.

If someone tried to claim that Charles-Louis was a definitive fight, that Louis could have never beaten Charles, they would be ridiculed to no end. And Charles beat Louis a lot more clearly than Young 'beat' the 34 year old 230 lbs. Ali, and Jones didn't at all deserve to win their fight.

Granberry is quite a storyteller when it comes to Clay-Jones. Every time he tells the story it gets better and better, and Jones becomes more and more dominant. A year from now when granberry is officially senile he'll be claiming that Jones knocked Ali out in the first round. Jones was obviously not faster than Ali in that fight and I challenge anyone besides granberry to claim otherwise.

Tell us more about how Young threw his fight with Cooney, dingleberry.

ebeneezer · Post by **ebeneezer** » 20 Feb 2008, 23:07

I Feel Fine wrote: Tell us more about how Young threw his fight with Cooney, dingleberry.

He threw the fight by allowing Cooney to tear half his face off isn't that right oh all knowing dingleberry?

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 20 Feb 2008, 23:12

ebeneezer wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote: Tell us more about how Young threw his fight with Cooney, dingleberry.
He threw the fight by allowing Cooney to tear half his face off isn't that right oh all knowing dingleberry?

Yep, I think that was the gist of it. Another one of granny's great stories. Maybe one day a bunch of us can get together and sit around a campfire and granny can recount to us all of these old classic tales...

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 21 Feb 2008, 02:45

Clay against Doug Jones in 1963 and Ali against Young in 1976, that's all the Ali haters have. By this logic Henry Armstrong was a shit fighter because he lost fights within his first couple of years and lost fights in his waning years.

There's more to it than that. I do agree that certain fights and episodes in Ali's career does get over done, but it is a pretty good critique on him, as it is a break down of Ali's career. When he fought Jones and Cooper, he had still yet to face genuine adversity in the ring; by the time he faced Young he was clearly passed his best [hell in the Lyle fight it was apparent he was more flat footed than ever].

Jones was too close for comfort, sure, but it still made fight of the year. Cooper's left hook is over done, but it did show proof that even early on Ali was able to be hit with that particular punch and often [as evident in the Frazier bouts]...and early on in his career, even as an amateur, it was apparent he had problems with southpaws...he wasn't quite the complete fighter that some make him out to be, in his prime sure he was the fastest, but that only made him able to get away with a mistake or two.

When he made his return in 1970, it was shown for sure, that though he maintained alot of his speed and reflexes, that fighting style simply wasnt going to work forever; and thats what made Ali so great, because in his return, he was able to adapt and was able to still make himself a success.

But I do not think, the 1970-1975 Muhammad Ali, which in my opinion were the years that showed him more as a 'whole fighter' than in the 1960's, wouldn't have been able to have coped with a prime Joe Louis. The rope a dope would have just set him up for Louis's far more accurate shots [compare that to Foreman's punching, where he missed], he became less and less a fighter working the middle of the ring, his ring generalship became less as well.

Louis, though a 'shuffler' in the ring, would have had just as fast of handspeed as Ali, and would have lead and tried to have made Ali work at his pace; which would have off-set Ali's plans, as he tried to make his opponents follow him. Louis's jab would have been consistent, and a deadly weapon in the ring, scoring alot more than some would think. It has been proven in films of his fights, that Ali could be hit with the jab.

Louis was THE better all around tactician. And while you could argue in a prime vs prime scenario Ali would beat Louis because The Brown Bomber almost lost to Billy Conn and had fits with Tommy Farr...this isnt so much that scenario, as stated before, the Ali who fought Liston may have won but he wasn't quite tested against a genuinely complete fighter, and Louis had a greater will than Liston, he wouldnt have quit...and the other scenario's are Ali passed his physical best.

I still say, though, its a toss up between the Louis who defeated Braddock against the Ali of 1964 and 1974.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 21 Feb 2008, 04:57

In my mind you have the "pre-prime" stage of a fighters career where he's developing, the "prime" years, the "post-prime" where he is not quite finished but is no longer at his peak, and you have his "shot" period where the fighter is finished and should retire. In my opinion it is unfair to judge a fighter in his first and last stages, and Ali was in the first and last stages of his career when he fought Jones and Young. And, may God strike me dead if I'm lying, while it was a close fight the Clay-Jones fight in my mind does not warrant any of the controversy it has generated. I would also say the same for Louis; I don't judge Louis' career on the basis of his first fight with Schmeling and his fights with Charles and Marciano because those were his early/late stages and no matter how good a fighter is there will always be a chance that he can be beaten when he is in those two stages of his career. I pointed to Armstrong, for example, who is probably the best example. He's in everybody's top 5 P4P, he's my #2 P4P, and he lost lots of fights early and late in his career. No one gives that a second thought or judges him negatively for it, and neither should they. So why are the rules different for Ali?

As for Cooper, it sort of reminds me of the two times that De La Hoya went down in his first 20 fights. You'd have to be foolish to take anything from those two knock downs other than the fact that Oscar was inexperienced. No one is going to say that Oscar has a bad chin simply because those two guys managed to put him down, because that ignores the rest of his career. I get it that Ali was sometimes open for the left hook, but I could say the same for Louis with the right hand; Louis went down so many times from right hands because he often kept his left hand too low, something that Ali always got criticized for doing (though, yes, obviously Ali did it more so and sometimes let it dangle at his side.)

In my opinion the best Ali was 60's Ali. I understand the counter arguments that he was better in the 70's, but I disagree. And Ali himself disagrees, he said in his biography that he believed that he in the 60's would have beaten a 70's version of himself.

As I said earlier, I think either version beats Louis in his championship years. I think the odds decrease the older Ali gets and the closer to Louis' peak you get. But I think in a series of fights I would favor the Ali of 64-67 and 71-74/5 to beat Louis a majority of the time. But for the purposes of this thread it suffices to say that the Ali who beat Liston and the Ali who beat Foreman, in my mind, beat the Louis who beat Braddock.

As for Louis being the better all around tactician, I don't really see any basis for saying that. And I don't think Louis was any smarter than Ali in the ring, though I wouldn't necessarily say that Ali was smarter either. And while I understand the argument that beating Liston is different from beating Louis, Liston is at least a nice practice dummy, while Louis never really faced a fighter with much similarity to Ali. I mean, if Billy Conn and Tommy Farr are the closest things we can come up with for an opponent to compare to Ali then we're really grasping, because those guys bared almost no resemblance to Ali in terms of style, did not have comparable leg speed, and the size difference need not be mentioned. Ali is a giant compared to a majority of Louis' title challengers, and yet still faster with better physical and mental attributes. None of Louis' title challengers were as tough as Ali mentally; once Louis hit them they usually went down. While Ali, on the other hand, may have never faced someone quite like Louis, he was tested in a variety of ways against a variety of serious all time great Heavyweights, some of whom might have beaten Louis themselves. As I said earlier, I'll take the guy who knocked out Foreman over the guy who knocked out Braddock. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take.

I hope you'll forgive the prolixity of this post, but I want to close on the rope-a-dope. I have two comments; firstly, everyone assumes that it should be easy to handle the rope-a-dope, it seems like an easy enough thing to figure out, but then they get in the ring and its a little different. There's the saying "everyone has a plan until they get hit." Frazier understood how to approach the rope-a-dope, landed precise, short and accurate shots on Ali. And he still lost. That said, I don't know that Ali would have to go into the rope-a-dope against Louis, because Louis was not a swarmer like Foreman and Frazier and Ali might make due with his legs. If he has to occasionally go to the ropes, he'll take a few shots, but so will Louis. I'm willing to bank on Ali with a 20 pound weight edge taking a Louis combination in exchange for landing a combination on Louis. In my opinion, the best Louis could get in that scenario is that they inflict an equal amount of damage on each other. At worst (for Louis) he gets wobbled every time he gets close to Ali by an Ali right hand or combination (like Foreman did) and Ali absorbs some of his punches, while the rest of the time grabbing and pulling on the much smaller, weaker Louis and wearing him down in the clinches like he did to George.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 21 Feb 2008, 07:19

Louis, the better tactician? No. The better technician? Yes. He has fewer bad habits. The most telling reason I'd pick Louis (1937-41) to beat Ali (1965-67) is because of how low Ali's hands dangle. I sure don't see him getting away with it for the most part. Also, you know at some stage, he's going to screw around in there. It might be when he's pulled away on points, it might be when he's rocked Louis (which he could do), but you know at some point, it's coming. The man cannot stop himself, & Louis was a deadly f---er for every minute of every round.

As for the peak Louis against the Ali of 1974, Ali wouldn't rope-a-dope. He was a smart fighter, Ali'd know it wouldn't work. Louis is too precise, too sharp with his shots. He'd literally pick Ali to pieces. Ali need stay in the center of the ring --- he has the punching technique to hurt Louis, & to cut & swell him, but I'd be genuinely surprised if he knocked him senseless. He hasn't the power, nor the speed of combinations at that stage (the prime Ali, yes, it's possible, not this one, though). Louis would stop the Ali of 74.