Sherlock wrote:evndrbsn wrote:Sherlock wrote: Louis was far more accomplished-25 defenses is all that needs to be said. Louis was more talented and, if he did struggle, as Silkov pointed out but didn't finish was that he destroyed the majority of them in a one sided rematch, many times in one round. He could have added 10-15 more defenses between 42-46, but couldn't because of the war.
Louis also had the weaker opposition in his title run.
Besides Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Norton, Patterson, and Quarry, who did Ali might that was so great? Louis beat hall of famers Baer, Braddock, Schmeling, Walcott, Conn, Sharkey and tough contenders Uzcudun, Levinsky, Tommy Farr, and Lou Nova.
Shavers was nothing but a puncher, little substance and is not an all time great. Jurgen Blin? Joe Bugner? Karl Mildenberger? Leon Spinks? Richard Dunn? Jean Pierre Coopman? Brian London? With the exception of Lyle (who nearly beat him), Jimmy Young (who did beat him), and Bonavena and maybe Mathis, the rest of his opposition were plain awful. The 60's and 70's had outstanding depth at the top, but the lower top 10 were forgettable fighters who achieved little, and would have been top 25 in other eras.
But I do agree that Ali did fight the overall tougher schedule (just trying to make a balanced debate instead of a one sided Ali heralding), but the point is he never dominated his division like Louis. He never put Frazier behind him, as he clearly lost the first, nobody really one the second, and Ali was nearly wasted in the 15th of the 3rd fight but Frazier's corner stopped it. He never clearly beat Norton, whose biggest victory other than Ali is over a washed-up Quarry and an overhyped Bobick. Ali did beat Foreman though, a remarkable achievement.
I have nothing against Ali, I just don't see him as the greatest p-4-p fighter ever, especially when Sugar Ray Robinson beat as many greats as Ali had fights. I can see an agrument for best heavyweight and I can agree on many points, but with the accomplishments of Louis I would disagree.
I guess I agree with some of this, but certainly not all. Besides, Frazier, Foreman, Liston,Norton, Patterson, and Quarry, who did Ali fight that so great?
That's 13 big fights right there! That alone is more impressive than anyone else. He went 11-2 in this fights, please don't tell me anyone else would have done better.
Yes, Dunn, Coopman, Spinks, and London weren't that great, but come on, almost every other heavyweights career is mostly made up of these kinds of opponents.
Shavers was nothing but a puncher? Well maybe so, but he certainly was a serious risk for any champion to take on, which Ali did when he was 35 and clearly past his prime.
Mildenberger was a decent fighter, and Bugner was pretty good.
Besides, Bonavena,Mathis, Lyle, and Young, the rest were plain awful?
Well, Jimmy Ellis was very good fighter, as was Ernie Terrell, and neither was George Chuvalo whom Ali beat twice.
And if beating Billy Conn is considered a big win, then certainly Ali's win over lightheavyweight champion Bob Foster should be considered a big win.
Didn't dominate the division like Louis did? In the 10 title fights that Ali had before he was stripped of the title in 1967, only opponents went the distance with him and he won almost every round in those two fights. No heavyweight champion has ever been this dominaint.
Before Louis went into world War II, he almost lost to Billy Conn, and had a lot of trouble with Tommy Farr, and was knocked down by Tony Galento.
No one really won the 2nd Ali-Fraizer fight? Ali won atleast 8 of the 12 rounds. There was absolutely no controversy about this.
Ali was nerarly wasted in the 3rd fight but Frazier's corner stopped it? So Ali was lucky? Come on, he was hammering Frazier the last two rounds. If Frazier would have came out for the last round, it was he who would have been in trouble, not Ali.
Ali was clearly the best heavyweight of all time. Louis was probably #2 and there is certainly no shame in that.