>>>>>>If Joe Louis faced the five guys you mentioned 3 times each...prime vs. prime...he would win atleast 11 out of 15...maybe more...
Marciano better that Louis...? Foreman...? You're nuts...Ali, Holmes & Johnson would give him problems...but none of them, including Ali, would beat him three times in a row...Marciano wouldn't even win once, and Foreman would tire out and be vulnerable by mid rounds...the Foreman of the '70's rarely went beyond a couple rounds...when he did, he showed his flaws (stamina & frustration)...Louis would extend him deep into the fight, guaranteed...maybe Louis was just a little bit better boxer than you give him credit for...very fast hands, lightning quick (and HARD) combinations....
I'll bet if you could ask those five guys to pick a fighter they'd least like to face...Louis would be the one they pick>>>>>
I bet if we could ask Billy Conn, Max Schmelling, Ezzard Charles, or Arturo Godoy, they would disagree with you.
:) :P
Ali...would pick Louis apart
Johnson/Foreman/Holmes....Louis was vulnerable in early rounds, and there guys would have exploited that to the max, and hit him harder then anyone ever did with the exception of Marciano ...Louis out in 4 or less
Marciano...LOL....this is an ongoing joke. Marciano wins in Louis's early career, Marciano wins in Louis's prime, and as we already know...Marciano wins in Louis's later career.
I am being generous and erroring on the side of charity for not adding Frazier, Tunny and Dempsy to the list of fighters that just might have beaten Louis
The whole Louis legacy is 40% truth, 30% just ignoring the facts, and 30% sentament and empathy for a guy who got a raw deal for most of the last 30 years of his life.
They didnt call his opponents as Champ "the bum of the month club" for nothing"
Muhammad Ali: The Other End of the Spectrum
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
I'll bet they wouldn't...especially Billy Conn...who said after Ali-Frazier I, "Joe Louis would've beat both those guys"cosand wrote:
I bet if we could ask Billy Conn, Max Schmelling, Ezzard Charles, or Arturo Godoy, they would disagree with you.
:) :P
No, Ali wouldn't "pick Louis apart"...They would both have their hands full, I assure you...I see it as a fight similar to Hagler-Leonard...Ali wins the first half, Louis wins the second half...everybody who thinks Ali would "pick Louis apart" seems to forget that Ali wasn't exactly a power puncher...Louis was...and Louis had the speed to get to Ali down the stretch, he'd also do damage with body shots and double and triple hooks to the body & head...a fight that's really too close to call, absolutely NOT a domination either way...cosand wrote: Ali...would pick Louis apart
You under estimate Louis by a wide margin...Foreman would certainly fall...Holmes would be trouble for Joe, as would Johnson...but neither was an indestructable icon...I've seen Holmes down in fights too (I was at ringside when Snipes dropped him in Pittsburgh)...the great ones get back up...Louis isn't going to be stopped by either one...cosand wrote: Johnson/Foreman/Holmes....Louis was vulnerable in early rounds, and there guys would have exploited that to the max, and hit him harder then anyone ever did with the exception of Marciano ...Louis out in 4 or less
You're right...that is a joke, A BIG JOKE...to think that a short, crude, wild missing slugger like Marciano could beat anybody else mentioned in this post...especially Louis, who gave Marciano trouble for several rounds at age 37, a decade past his prime!!! Marciano doesn't match up well with any of the top tiered all time heavies...he was the luckiest heavyweight of all time to fight in the era that he did...he most certainly would have been beaten in any other era, and wouldn't even been champion in most......cosand wrote: Marciano...LOL....this is an ongoing joke. Marciano wins in Louis's early career, Marciano wins in Louis's prime, and as we already know...Marciano wins in Louis's later career.
All good matchups...and Louis would be favored in every single one...Frazier would go early, Tunney would go late, Dempsey would go sometime between 1 and 15...Tunney actually matches up the best against Louis out of these three...cosand wrote: I am being generous and erroring on the side of charity for not adding Frazier, Tunny and Dempsy to the list of fighters that just might have beaten Louis
I think you are about 85% "ignoring the facts"cosand wrote: The whole Louis legacy is 40% truth, 30% just ignoring the facts, and 30% sentament and empathy for a guy who got a raw deal for most of the last 30 years of his life.
All champions fight some tomato cans, or guys that are 'over the hill'...cosand wrote: They didnt call his opponents as Champ "the bum of the month club" for nothing"
Your assessment of Louis borders on the insane...
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
I think anyone who says that Joe Louis woulc completely demolish Marciano in his prime I think is dillusional. And here's why:
-Joe Louis' weakness was that he hated being crowded. Guys with alot less talent than Walcott, Charles, Conn, Baer, Carner and Schmeling (Louis' best opponents) was able to knock him down. It is clear that a man with great power such as Buddy Baer could drop Joe Louis. Tony Galento was a wild swinging brawler who also dropped Louis. Joe Louis might have been a good defensive fighter and certainly one of the best offensive fighters of all time, but the man had a suspect chin.
-The closest fighter that resembled Marciano that Joe Louis fought in his prime was Arturo Gudoy, who fought from a crouch and pressured his opponents. But he didn't have the power and the great conditioning of Marciano and he went the full 15 rounds (split decision no less) against a prime Joe Louis. And Gudoy isn't in the class of Marciano, Rocky would have blasted Gudoy out in a matter of five rounds or less.
-Knock Louis all you want that he was 'too old' when he fought Marciano, but Louis was ranked #1 in the world and didn't have to face Marciano, he could have waited and fought the winner of Charles-Walcott 3. But he fought Marciano anyways, and yes the fight was even after 5 rounds, but after that it was all down hill for Louis---you have to remember that Marciano was a slow starter to begin with and the pace picked up more and more as time went on.
-This was also the Marciano who hadn't yet shortened his punches and became a bit more better technically---this was Marciano before all the 'fine tuning' and he was a better kayo artist at that time than he was when he shifted his fighting style to be more better---that's why Marciano looked like crap in alot of his earlier fights before winning the title because he was a wild swinging guy then. Wasn't until after the Louis fight he tried to pace himself more.
-Marciano didn't cry in the dressing room because he was fighting an old Joe Louis. He was crying because he didn't want to fight his idol, and when he demolished Joe he apologised to him. If you all think that Joe Louis was so washed up when he came back watch his fights with Bivins and Savold (who was the 'BBBC Champion of the World'), along with him going the distance with a prime Ezzard Charles and his exhibition knock outs over Pat Valentino and others. No he didn't have quite the speed that he had in his prime, but his jab was still a deadly weapon and his combinations were still something to be awed of.
-Joe Louis said he never could have beaten Marciano. And though many will disagree with Louis when he said that, I do believe in his words. Who would know better than your own self as to who would have beaten you and when you was at your best? We as 'critics' often say that this fight or some other fight was someone's best, but it usually surprises many when the fighters themselves say their peak fight was something else entirely and often times unexpected. Take Marciano for instance---he felt his peak fight was against Rex Layne because he was never in such good condition and felt more confident, though many will say his fight with Walcott was his best.
Say what you want to say, but in the end I can't see a prime Joe Louis just taking Marciano out of there like everyone thinks that he could. If Joe Louis does beat Marciano, its by decision.
-Joe Louis' weakness was that he hated being crowded. Guys with alot less talent than Walcott, Charles, Conn, Baer, Carner and Schmeling (Louis' best opponents) was able to knock him down. It is clear that a man with great power such as Buddy Baer could drop Joe Louis. Tony Galento was a wild swinging brawler who also dropped Louis. Joe Louis might have been a good defensive fighter and certainly one of the best offensive fighters of all time, but the man had a suspect chin.
-The closest fighter that resembled Marciano that Joe Louis fought in his prime was Arturo Gudoy, who fought from a crouch and pressured his opponents. But he didn't have the power and the great conditioning of Marciano and he went the full 15 rounds (split decision no less) against a prime Joe Louis. And Gudoy isn't in the class of Marciano, Rocky would have blasted Gudoy out in a matter of five rounds or less.
-Knock Louis all you want that he was 'too old' when he fought Marciano, but Louis was ranked #1 in the world and didn't have to face Marciano, he could have waited and fought the winner of Charles-Walcott 3. But he fought Marciano anyways, and yes the fight was even after 5 rounds, but after that it was all down hill for Louis---you have to remember that Marciano was a slow starter to begin with and the pace picked up more and more as time went on.
-This was also the Marciano who hadn't yet shortened his punches and became a bit more better technically---this was Marciano before all the 'fine tuning' and he was a better kayo artist at that time than he was when he shifted his fighting style to be more better---that's why Marciano looked like crap in alot of his earlier fights before winning the title because he was a wild swinging guy then. Wasn't until after the Louis fight he tried to pace himself more.
-Marciano didn't cry in the dressing room because he was fighting an old Joe Louis. He was crying because he didn't want to fight his idol, and when he demolished Joe he apologised to him. If you all think that Joe Louis was so washed up when he came back watch his fights with Bivins and Savold (who was the 'BBBC Champion of the World'), along with him going the distance with a prime Ezzard Charles and his exhibition knock outs over Pat Valentino and others. No he didn't have quite the speed that he had in his prime, but his jab was still a deadly weapon and his combinations were still something to be awed of.
-Joe Louis said he never could have beaten Marciano. And though many will disagree with Louis when he said that, I do believe in his words. Who would know better than your own self as to who would have beaten you and when you was at your best? We as 'critics' often say that this fight or some other fight was someone's best, but it usually surprises many when the fighters themselves say their peak fight was something else entirely and often times unexpected. Take Marciano for instance---he felt his peak fight was against Rex Layne because he was never in such good condition and felt more confident, though many will say his fight with Walcott was his best.
Say what you want to say, but in the end I can't see a prime Joe Louis just taking Marciano out of there like everyone thinks that he could. If Joe Louis does beat Marciano, its by decision.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Decagon, I agree with you on that he had trouble with slick movers; guys like Farr and Conn and Walcott; but Louis himself stated that he had a weakness that he tried to cover up throughout his entire career, and that was being crowded/pressured.
The reason why its so hard to imagine him being pressured is that Louis, when facing fighters like that, never gave them a moments chance to get their momentum going---only Gudoy was able to go the full 15 rounds with Louis and it was a split decision; Galento and others were brawlers and tried to make Louis slug and that wasn't a position that Louis would want to be in because it made him vulnerable.
Now, as tough and conditioned as Marciano was, I don't see Joe Louis being able to stop Marciano in his tracks---if Louis was going to win it would be by decision---but then again if a prime Louis went 15 rounds with Gudoy, then I could see Marciano cutting the fight down a few rounds.
If you don't believe me when I said Louis' weakness was being crowded, pick up the issue of Boxing Illustrated issued in 1990 that had Louis state this. And watch his fights with guys who were swarmers; its clear that if he didn't get to them first, and hard, that he was in for a long night.
The reason why its so hard to imagine him being pressured is that Louis, when facing fighters like that, never gave them a moments chance to get their momentum going---only Gudoy was able to go the full 15 rounds with Louis and it was a split decision; Galento and others were brawlers and tried to make Louis slug and that wasn't a position that Louis would want to be in because it made him vulnerable.
Now, as tough and conditioned as Marciano was, I don't see Joe Louis being able to stop Marciano in his tracks---if Louis was going to win it would be by decision---but then again if a prime Louis went 15 rounds with Gudoy, then I could see Marciano cutting the fight down a few rounds.
If you don't believe me when I said Louis' weakness was being crowded, pick up the issue of Boxing Illustrated issued in 1990 that had Louis state this. And watch his fights with guys who were swarmers; its clear that if he didn't get to them first, and hard, that he was in for a long night.
Sweet Scientist
Joined: 13 Oct 2003
Posts: 1068
Location: the 'burgh
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:38 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cosand wrote:
I bet if we could ask Billy Conn, Max Schmelling, Ezzard Charles, or Arturo Godoy, they would disagree with you.
I'll bet they wouldn't...especially Billy Conn...who said after Ali-Frazier I, "Joe Louis would've beat both those guys"
cosand wrote:
Ali...would pick Louis apart
No, Ali wouldn't "pick Louis apart"...They would both have their hands full, I assure you...I see it as a fight similar to Hagler-Leonard...Ali wins the first half, Louis wins the second half...everybody who thinks Ali would "pick Louis apart" seems to forget that Ali wasn't exactly a power puncher...Louis was...and Louis had the speed to get to Ali down the stretch, he'd also do damage with body shots and double and triple hooks to the body & head...a fight that's really too close to call, absolutely NOT a domination either way...
cosand wrote:
Johnson/Foreman/Holmes....Louis was vulnerable in early rounds, and there guys would have exploited that to the max, and hit him harder then anyone ever did with the exception of Marciano ...Louis out in 4 or less
You under estimate Louis by a wide margin...Foreman would certainly fall...Holmes would be trouble for Joe, as would Johnson...but neither was an indestructable icon...I've seen Holmes down in fights too (I was at ringside when Snipes dropped him in Pittsburgh)...the great ones get back up...Louis isn't going to be stopped by either one...
cosand wrote:
Marciano...LOL....this is an ongoing joke. Marciano wins in Louis's early career, Marciano wins in Louis's prime, and as we already know...Marciano wins in Louis's later career.
You're right...that is a joke, A BIG JOKE...to think that a short, crude, wild missing slugger like Marciano could beat anybody else mentioned in this post...especially Louis, who gave Marciano trouble for several rounds at age 37, a decade past his prime!!! Marciano doesn't match up well with any of the top tiered all time heavies...he was the luckiest heavyweight of all time to fight in the era that he did...he most certainly would have been beaten in any other era, and wouldn't even been champion in most......
cosand wrote:
I am being generous and erroring on the side of charity for not adding Frazier, Tunny and Dempsy to the list of fighters that just might have beaten Louis
All good matchups...and Louis would be favored in every single one...Frazier would go early, Tunney would go late, Dempsey would go sometime between 1 and 15...Tunney actually matches up the best against Louis out of these three...
cosand wrote:
The whole Louis legacy is 40% truth, 30% just ignoring the facts, and 30% sentament and empathy for a guy who got a raw deal for most of the last 30 years of his life.
I think you are about 85% "ignoring the facts"
cosand wrote:
They didnt call his opponents as Champ "the bum of the month club" for nothing"
All champions fight some tomato cans, or guys that are 'over the hill'...
Your assessment of Louis borders on the insane...
So let me guess, you are a BIG fan of Louis, for whatever reason, dont care much for Marciano, and have not had a lot of time to really look atr Alis record in detail...Right ?
Do you think Conn's remarks after Ali Frazier 1 might have been a tad, tiny bit self Aggrandizing ? humm ?
Ali got hit by bigger, stonger, faster fighters than Louis over 3 decades. So yes, I stand by my description of Ali picking lois apart with total confidence.
As for foreman/Holmes/Johnson/Frazier?...you're kidding right ?
Louis got decked by 180 pound counterpunchers and an overweight clubfighter. The idea that he would last more then 4 rounds against these guys in their prime is the ultimate rose colored glasses hindsight.
Marciano ?
This ssilly discussion never fails to amuse me.
Marciano was Gudoy, only magnified by 10.
Louis was on the canvas by way of fighters with a fraction of Marciano punching power. To suggest he could have gone 15 with him, is simply ludicrous
This fight by the way, ACTUALLY happend, and forget the myth that Louis was spent, washed up and some punch drunk pug at that time.
Yes, he was past his prime, but he was far from a has been. He had just come off a 8 fight winnning streak against some solid fighters following his loss to Charles.
Some of the 8 fighters he fought after losing to Charles and before the Marciano , were better then those he fought while defending the title.
I don't "underestimate" Louis, I simply don't subscribe to media hype and boxing internet discussion forum myth.
Joined: 13 Oct 2003
Posts: 1068
Location: the 'burgh
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:38 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cosand wrote:
I bet if we could ask Billy Conn, Max Schmelling, Ezzard Charles, or Arturo Godoy, they would disagree with you.
I'll bet they wouldn't...especially Billy Conn...who said after Ali-Frazier I, "Joe Louis would've beat both those guys"
cosand wrote:
Ali...would pick Louis apart
No, Ali wouldn't "pick Louis apart"...They would both have their hands full, I assure you...I see it as a fight similar to Hagler-Leonard...Ali wins the first half, Louis wins the second half...everybody who thinks Ali would "pick Louis apart" seems to forget that Ali wasn't exactly a power puncher...Louis was...and Louis had the speed to get to Ali down the stretch, he'd also do damage with body shots and double and triple hooks to the body & head...a fight that's really too close to call, absolutely NOT a domination either way...
cosand wrote:
Johnson/Foreman/Holmes....Louis was vulnerable in early rounds, and there guys would have exploited that to the max, and hit him harder then anyone ever did with the exception of Marciano ...Louis out in 4 or less
You under estimate Louis by a wide margin...Foreman would certainly fall...Holmes would be trouble for Joe, as would Johnson...but neither was an indestructable icon...I've seen Holmes down in fights too (I was at ringside when Snipes dropped him in Pittsburgh)...the great ones get back up...Louis isn't going to be stopped by either one...
cosand wrote:
Marciano...LOL....this is an ongoing joke. Marciano wins in Louis's early career, Marciano wins in Louis's prime, and as we already know...Marciano wins in Louis's later career.
You're right...that is a joke, A BIG JOKE...to think that a short, crude, wild missing slugger like Marciano could beat anybody else mentioned in this post...especially Louis, who gave Marciano trouble for several rounds at age 37, a decade past his prime!!! Marciano doesn't match up well with any of the top tiered all time heavies...he was the luckiest heavyweight of all time to fight in the era that he did...he most certainly would have been beaten in any other era, and wouldn't even been champion in most......
cosand wrote:
I am being generous and erroring on the side of charity for not adding Frazier, Tunny and Dempsy to the list of fighters that just might have beaten Louis
All good matchups...and Louis would be favored in every single one...Frazier would go early, Tunney would go late, Dempsey would go sometime between 1 and 15...Tunney actually matches up the best against Louis out of these three...
cosand wrote:
The whole Louis legacy is 40% truth, 30% just ignoring the facts, and 30% sentament and empathy for a guy who got a raw deal for most of the last 30 years of his life.
I think you are about 85% "ignoring the facts"
cosand wrote:
They didnt call his opponents as Champ "the bum of the month club" for nothing"
All champions fight some tomato cans, or guys that are 'over the hill'...
Your assessment of Louis borders on the insane...
So let me guess, you are a BIG fan of Louis, for whatever reason, dont care much for Marciano, and have not had a lot of time to really look atr Alis record in detail...Right ?
Do you think Conn's remarks after Ali Frazier 1 might have been a tad, tiny bit self Aggrandizing ? humm ?
Ali got hit by bigger, stonger, faster fighters than Louis over 3 decades. So yes, I stand by my description of Ali picking lois apart with total confidence.
As for foreman/Holmes/Johnson/Frazier?...you're kidding right ?
Louis got decked by 180 pound counterpunchers and an overweight clubfighter. The idea that he would last more then 4 rounds against these guys in their prime is the ultimate rose colored glasses hindsight.
Marciano ?
This ssilly discussion never fails to amuse me.
Marciano was Gudoy, only magnified by 10.
Louis was on the canvas by way of fighters with a fraction of Marciano punching power. To suggest he could have gone 15 with him, is simply ludicrous
This fight by the way, ACTUALLY happend, and forget the myth that Louis was spent, washed up and some punch drunk pug at that time.
Yes, he was past his prime, but he was far from a has been. He had just come off a 8 fight winnning streak against some solid fighters following his loss to Charles.
Some of the 8 fighters he fought after losing to Charles and before the Marciano , were better then those he fought while defending the title.
I don't "underestimate" Louis, I simply don't subscribe to media hype and boxing internet discussion forum myth.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
First off, Ali from a physical standpoint was one of the most gifted athletes of the 20th century. Remarkable recuperative abilities, very fast hands, and the fastest feet of any Heavyweight fighter ever. That being said, Louis had even faster hands than Ali, and threw much better combinations. They wern't shoe-shin combos desgined to woo the crowd . . .they were counter-combos to the head and body which put his opponents into the ground. On the fundamentals of boxing, Ali was not too special. Pretty much any expert will agree with me on this one. He didn't know how to parry, was only decent at ducking and slipping, not a great counter-puncher, he backed straight up from punches. He was able to get away with these flaws through most of his career b/c of his great athletic gifts . . .his reflexes were so good he COULD GET AWAY with backing straight up . . .that is until he met a truly elite HW at his best in Joe Frazier.cosand wrote:Better boxer, Ali
Better opponents on a consistant basis, Ali
Hand speed, Ali
Footwork, Ali
Chin, Ali
Jab, Ali
Combinations, Ali
Harder Punch, Louis
Seems pretty clear, doesnt it ?
Look at the amount of punches landed on Hopkins in his old age. He can avoid a good level of punishment b/c he has excellent BOXING skills . . .he knows how to roll, slip, and parry the punches while coming back with his own. Now look at Ali after he lost some of his reflexes; Frazier III, Norton III, Lyle, Young, Shavers . . . .if you think ALi is showcasing elite boxing skills in those fights you need a little reteaching of basic boxing fundamentals.
How would Louis extend Foreman exactly? Louis wouldnt dance around and avoid foreman nor would he be able to lay against the ropes and let him wear him self out like Ali did. Louis would come foward like he always did and meet Foreman at ring center. Foreman wouldnt have to go looking for him.Foreman would tire out and be vulnerable by mid rounds...the Foreman of the '70's rarely went beyond a couple rounds...when he did, he showed his flaws (stamina & frustration)...Louis would extend him deep into the fight, guaranteed...
I think the combination of Foremans jab, strenght, punching power, and far superior chin would win him the short but ferocious match. Foreman TKO3.
As someone who rooted against Ali through nearly all his career,I still feel he is the no.1 heavyweight of all time when I look at this group of fighters George Foreman,Joe Fraizer,,Sonny Liston followed by the next group Ken Norton ,Ron Lyle,Earnie Shavers,jerry Quarry,OscarBonevena and finally the "easy" fights Cleveland Williams ,Henry Cooper ,Zora Folley ,Karl Mildenberger (who did hurt Ali with body shots),GeorgeChuvalo ,I see a fighter who fought virtually every worthwhile contender over a 20 year career. Ali had incredible recovery skills, great chin and fantastic all round boxing skills .Yes! he wasnt a great in fighter,he didnt have to be,much as Iwould have loved Rocky to have beaten him ,he wouldnt have! People perceive Ali as not being rugged but I think he was one of the toughest of all time ,he had to be to beat the guys I listed.
1/Muhhamad Ali
2/ Joe Louis
3/Joe fraizer
4/Sonny Liston
5/ George Foreman
6/Rocky Marciano
7/ Mike Tyson (would have been above Rocky except ,he quit when he was getting beat ,couldnt see Rocky ever doing that)
8/ Larry Holmes
9/Lennox Lewis
10/ Ezzard Charles
11/Jack Johnson
12/Jack Dempsey
Honourable mentions to Jersey joe Walcott and Gene Tunney
To be fair .a case can be made for any of the guys from 2 to 12 swapping places,the one thing I do feel though is Ali would have beat all of them. Many will say Dempsey and johnson should be higher,I personally feel Dempsey never faced top quality opposition when compared to other champs ,and Johnson came from an era which is hard to compere to modern boxing (in fairness many names on his list are just that "names" with more knowledge on my part ,I would possibly rate him higher).
1/Muhhamad Ali
2/ Joe Louis
3/Joe fraizer
4/Sonny Liston
5/ George Foreman
6/Rocky Marciano
7/ Mike Tyson (would have been above Rocky except ,he quit when he was getting beat ,couldnt see Rocky ever doing that)
8/ Larry Holmes
9/Lennox Lewis
10/ Ezzard Charles
11/Jack Johnson
12/Jack Dempsey
Honourable mentions to Jersey joe Walcott and Gene Tunney
To be fair .a case can be made for any of the guys from 2 to 12 swapping places,the one thing I do feel though is Ali would have beat all of them. Many will say Dempsey and johnson should be higher,I personally feel Dempsey never faced top quality opposition when compared to other champs ,and Johnson came from an era which is hard to compere to modern boxing (in fairness many names on his list are just that "names" with more knowledge on my part ,I would possibly rate him higher).
Re: Muhammad Ali: The Other End of the Spectrum
I'm all for people taking on the great names of the sport and presenting them in a diffeent way. It's a barve move to question Ali and I welcome it even though Ali is my #1 HW nobdy is beyond scrutiny. I also agree that nobody is unbeatable.IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Most boxing fans old and new alike rate Muhammad Ali as the ‘Greatest’ of all time, or at least inside the top three. Bert Sugar ranks Ali at #2 behind Joe Louis, stating that though he felt Ali was the fastest he lacked the power that is expected from Heavyweights.
I myself have huge respect for Muhammad Ali, but I also have a few bones to pick against him as well. There are seldom few who make any threads about Ali that are not in a flattering light, and those who do generally do a lot of trash talk without much backing their claims, this thread however has reasons that Ali wasn’t the invincible fighter that most ‘experts’ make him out to be.
-Muhammad Ali’s speed was his greatest asset, but it was also his greatest mistake. His speed was above and beyond any fighter in his era, this is fact, but as a boxer he was lackluster. He was not a great tactician, he didn’t hit hard and he was a terrible infighter. And though he had great hand speed he was accessible to get hit whenever he threw uppercuts. This makes one assume that because he was so fast he must have felt he did not need to learn the fundamentals.
-Another thing against him was that he was so successful using one particular style that if you could penetrate that style, he would be in the danger zone, because how can you shake off what you are so used to doing? These two examples that I just listed were what helped Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali in 1971. Joe knew that if he got low it would force Ali to throw the uppercut, and with his bobbing and weaving pressure style, along with cutting down the ring, he could neutralize Ali’s great speed.
-Just how great was the Ali of the 1960’s? He proved that he was the fastest man in the history of the ring, but little else other than a highly controversial personal life and style. What many don’t know or remember, Ali was knocked down not just by Henry Cooper but by Sonny Banks, a hard hitting converted southpaw back in 1962, though he manages to knock Banks out in the 4th round. Ali was also hurt by such fighters as Charlie Powell with body shots. This shows that though this wasn’t the best Ali he was able to get hurt by body punchers who were muscular and powerful.
-Sonny Liston. Liston did not take Ali at all serious in their first bout, as it was reported that he trained as if the fight was scheduled for four rounds, because he truly believed he could have knocked Ali out in that amount of time. Ali of course goes on to win the title, and in their rematch, which was so full of controversy, from Walcott not being able to get control of the fighters to Nat Fleischer telling Walcott that Liston was down for 20 seconds and so on. It was a mess.
-Liston was quoted as saying in front of the California Boxing Commission: ‘Ali knocked me down with a sharp punch. I didn’t see it, and I went down, but I wasn’t really hurt. Then I saw Ali over me yelling like a nut. Now there is now way to get up from the canvas and not be exposed to a great shot. Ali is waiting to hit me. The ref, Walcott, can’t control him. I have to put one glove on the canvas and get up to one knee. See, as soon as there is daylight between my knee and the canvas, Ali can hit me. And you all know Ali is a nut. You can tell what a normal man is going to do. But you can never tell what a nut is going to do.”
-It is in my opinion that if ANY call should have been made, Ali should have been warned or had points deducted, if not disqualified, for not doing as Walcott instructed and for not letting Liston be able to get up. Sure psychology was apart of Ali’s repertoire but enough is enough. Also, take into consideration that the match held in Lewiston, Maine wasn’t even the original set date for the fight, as Ali had to have a hernia operation and Liston was in top shape as many said he trained harder than he ever had in his career, only to have to retrain until Ali was ready to go.
-Title defenses. You can’t really argue this, but defenses against Karl Mildenberger and Brian London can’t be considered ‘world class’ opposition. Many consider Ali’s peak was against Cleveland Williams, but I disagree considering Williams was not the fighter he once was as he was shot in the guts not too long before, but still packed a wallop. If anything his peak bout was against Zora Folley, which was to be his last title defense before being stripped of the title in 1967.
-Lack of sportsmanship. His battering of Floyd Patterson and Ernie Terrell were some of the most viscous and unprofessional affairs the Heavyweight division ever seen. In the case of the Terrell fight, he thumbed Terrell in the eye breaking his orbital socket as well as trash talking and other dirty tactics, and of course letting the fight go longer than it should have. As evident in most of Ali’s fights he did use thumbing and would often push down on his opponents heads to tire them out, including hitting opponents behind their head.
-Avoiding the better contenders. After facing George Foreman his first defense of his title was against Chuck Wepner who absolutely had NO BUSINESS being in a ring with Ali. When he also opted to face men like Alfredo Evangelista, Richard Dunn, Jean Pierre Coopman, and Leon Spinks than more deserving fighters. [This figure is based on 1975 and beyond].
-Gift decisions. Let’s face it; he was given a win over Jimmy Young. The same can be said, though with not the same conviction, with his ‘wins’ over Ken Norton in their third bout and in his fight with Earnie Shavers [Ali was the only one hurt and Ali ‘won’ two out of the three score cards].
-Too many chances. How can someone be gone for nearly two years and get a shot at the title let alone a top contender? When he returned in 1970 he fought Jerry Quarry who was ranked #2. In 1980 he returns to fight Larry Holmes for the WBC title. Ali in my opinion had too much special treatment during his career, and then after losing terribly to Holmes, he still gets a shot at a top contender in Trevor Berbick, only to lose terribly as well. And what’s worse it was greatly suspected that he had Parkinson’s before he fought Holmes and was still given a license and the shot anyways.
And now for the ‘positives’…
-Who else can say they hold victories over Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, George Foreman and Ken Norton? Who can say they were three times the undisputed champion of the world? Who can lay claim to being the most recognized figure on the planet? Who else can say they transcended the sport of boxing? Who can say that for the better part of the 1970’s [the greatest era in Heavyweight history] that they were on top?
Not many. He beat virtually every main star of the 1970’s and 1960’s and in amazing fashion. That alone makes Ali one of the top five greatest Heavyweights of all time, without question.
In terms of his speed and unorthodox fundamentals I think you need to consider the durability of the man. he got away with things because of his speed amd reflexes but on the odd occasion he did get tagged he could rely on a great chin and great recuperative powers. This is why it is so hard to pick against him in a head to head IMO. I can't really imagine him being KO'd.
As for the opposition I think every champ ever fought weaker fighters at some point in their reign. Ali's title fights were probably the toughest of anyone.
Liston was a great win but possibly Sonny was not the force he had been. I agree that the second fight became a farce but I don't think you can blame that on Ali. It's a shame the 2nd fight was postponed because Liston was apparently in great condition. It would have been good to see if he could have extended Ali.
Ali did get some decisions later on but he was making a lot of money for a lot of people and they didn't want him to lose the title. I think he lost all 3 of the fights you mention but they were all close enough...
I don't think you can criticise someone for lack of sportsmanship. You either win, lose or draw. I don't see anything beyond that. I would say that Ali had a box of dirty tricks like nearly all the greats but he often got the benefit from refs (like many of the other greats did).
Great observation. Great postDecagon wrote:My response was more against him saying that it was "Joe Louis's weakness." Sure, Louis did have trouble going backwards, but he could deal much better against someone coming right towards him than he could against someone who made him miss all night. In that uber-annoying episode of Wide World of Sports that featured Muhammad Ali pointing out the flaws of every heavyweight before him to Howard Cossell, one of the few valid points he made was that when Louis got into trouble, he wasn't good at backing up and getting out of the way. Being the gentleman he was, Louis wasn't fond of clinching.
One could interpret this as not being a fault of Louis himself, but rather of the climate in which he was placed. From day one, he was told that he had to be the quiet, polite blacky, that he could never bend a rule and that he always had to be the "good guy." Imagine if Louis was brought up in the 1960s and 1970s, and was allowed to use every trick in the book. I daresay that we wouldn't have ended up calling Muhammad Ali the "Greatest."
Imagine how deadly Louis would have been if he clinched every time he got into trouble, threw elbows like Rocky Marciano, headbutted like Evander Holyfield and threw the uppercut in the clinch like Lennox Lewis. He would be unstoppable. In many ways, I think that he truly was the greatest heavyweight of all time. But, Ali actually got in there with the best of his era and the best of the era after that, and actually proved that he was the Greatest. [/rant for the day]