BoxRec

BoxBuzz wrote:Damn Boilermaker.....I have to admit that list is almost spooky! Since I didn't live in that era, (well I was very young then) and all we have for the most part is the written history it would be hard to formulate just how close in caliber these matchups really are to the Ali list.

But still this list match of yours is good work!

There are admittedly some excuses for some of the fighters who fought and loss to Johnson, and like Wlad klitchsko, there are some unavenged adn unexpected losses early in his career, but if he did the same thing as he did in more modern and filmed times he would be considered the same certainty as Ali and Louis. There is absolutely no one of note of Johnson's time who Jack Johnson didnt fight.

So far as longevity and records go, if you have Louis and Ali at no 1 and 2, then i think that realistically you need to have Johnson at no 3.

Boilermaker wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Damn Boilermaker.....I have to admit that list is almost spooky! Since I didn't live in that era, (well I was very young then) and all we have for the most part is the written history it would be hard to formulate just how close in caliber these matchups really are to the Ali list.

But still this list match of yours is good work!

There are admittedly some excuses for some of the fighters who fought and loss to Johnson, and like Wlad klitchsko, there are some unavenged adn unexpected losses early in his career, but if he did the same thing as he did in more modern and filmed times he would be considered the same certainty as Ali and Louis. There is absolutely no one of note of Johnson's time who Jack Johnson didnt fight.

So far as longevity and records go, if you have Louis and Ali at no 1 and 2, then i think that realistically you need to have Johnson at no 3.

I do have him at number 3.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:These days in our current culture the facts, and the law have little to fear.

Tables on the other hand, are shaking and being handed an arse whooping on a chronic and continuous basis.

My Policy has always been full disclosure/ full transparency.

God, you talk absolute bullsh!t.

Allow me to save you the trouble of your reply...

"GI, well sometimes the universe provides in a way we least expect...your (sic, as you are apparently incapable of the kiddie-school distinction between, 'your,' and, 'you're,') an interesting addition to this place, and Im sure you understand the rivers flow in a way which doesnt always promote the winds of change."

Just more lyrical, non-sensical self-amusement, really

Well, tell us how you really feel G.I. And Allow me to respond to your thoughtful yet critical appraisal.

1. I appreciate you addressing me as a deity....seriously it gives one a sense of honor, and ups the ol' self esteem.

2. As for your chronic expressed disappointment in my management of grammar priorities such as your and you're.....perhaps it's just a typists blunder....that pesky ' character and that "e" just getting missed from time to time due to my blazing rapid fire typing technique....or, on a more serious and self reflecting note..perhaps I'm not properly educated....in which case, you shouldn't embarrass me in front of the entire forum like this, it's a perverse habit, and for all you know I'm sensitive.

3. .....on the other hand, Never dismiss the possibility that I may enjoy pushing a benign button now and again. I've always believed that we are in charge of said buttons. So for all you know I may simply find it interesting to see who among us still has.....there.... work cut out for them. I trust you're aware I'm not attempting to be cruel, just curious.

4. Now, to the more serious charge you level, that of self amusement. I plead guilty.

In fact truth be known, I often visit the forum in direct pursuit of a smile or even a chuckle. And at times I have (kindly) thought of you as "Chief Chucklehead". So please know you are appreciated. And now I will ask (and feel sure you will be generous) for your forgiveness in this matter. I will also ask that you don't let this clumsy moment (of which I accept full responsibility) negatively impact our future communications.

Now...where's my beer?

Er, are you coming onto him again?

Cmon' Carly, don't be upset, truth is I was just trying to coax YOU out of your hiding place again. Honestly I worry about you sometimes. You know me, I'm the sentimental sort. But I feel better now that you've chimed in.

BoxBuzz wrote:Cmon' Carly, don't be upset, truth is I was just trying to coax YOU out of your hiding place again. Honestly I worry about you sometimes. You know me, I'm the sentimental sort. But I feel better now that you've chimed in.

YOU worry about ME?

Louis

i like a post like techno...gets right to it without all that gibberish..(there's a word i haven't used in a long time)....of course it's louis.

buzzy...thanks for the PMs....will reply as soon as my medication is re-evaluated. got into the depressive depths and the modifying doses went a little high and im just come down from the manic heights.

Of course, it's not quite Louis.

Louis' defense record is one of the great achievements in boxing history, but it is overblown in this context. The difference of six-eight defenses doesn't make Hopkins a more accomplished Middleweight than Monzon and Hagler. Ali was hardly Buster Douglas, he beat about as many title challengers as Louis did, nineteen vs. twenty, the difference being that Louis fought rematches against Conn, Godoy, Simon, Baer, and Walcott. Would Ali be more accomplished if he had fought rematches against London and Folley, or Wepner and Lyle to inflate his number? Not really. Politics also enters into it, as Ali was stripped and exiled hence his wins over Quarry and Bonavena aren't counted as defenses, while Louis' four post-WWII defenses are.

Belts have lost much of their mystique for me. Ali's non-title fight wins over Quarry and Bonavena mean more than title defenses against shot Lewis and Paycheck, just as Louis' win over Max Baer means more than Ali's defense against, say, Coopman. What matters is who you beat, not the window dressing; Ali beat better opponents, and is therefore more accomplished. Foreman and Frazier are top ten all-time Heavyweights, Liston is borderline, while Louis' best victims probably only rank a few slots higher than Floyd Patterson. Only someone overcome by nostalgia would argue that their general opposition is comparable.

The longevity argument borders on mythology. They were both challengers and champions from their early 20s to their late 30s; the difference in longevity is marginal. Ali won the title at the same age that Louis was KO'd by Schmeling, while Louis retired earlier and thus had fewer losses. So where is this great difference in longevity? If Ali retires at 34 and then for good at 37 while Louis makes two ill-advised comebacks at 38 and 39 then Ali probably has fewer losses, and Louis fans would concede nothing. And because Ali was fighting better fighters, he had more wear and tear as he got older.

Neither Ali or Louis shied away from the spotlight against great opponents, and they rarely disappointed. The difference is that Ali cleaned out the best era in Heavyweight history, passed his prime, after having already cleaned out the prior era, so he is therefore #1. And As great as Marciano was he doesn't really belong in the conversation, I would rate Jeffries, Johnson, Holmes and maybe one or two others higher.

...ifeeline...i'm glad you feel fine. i'll admit i just skimmed your post and i skipped most of the others all together but i'm sure they were sincere. i'm content with my joe louis assessment, so i don't have the time to read those who say otherwise.

Wow this thread really went to hell in a handbasket . .

I Feel Fine wrote:Of course, it's not quite Louis.

Louis' defense record is one of the great achievements in boxing history, but it is overblown in this context. The difference of six-eight defenses doesn't make Hopkins a more accomplished Middleweight than Monzon and Hagler. Ali was hardly Buster Douglas, he beat about as many title challengers as Louis did, nineteen vs. twenty, the difference being that Louis fought rematches against Conn, Godoy, Simon, Baer, and Walcott. Would Ali be more accomplished if he had fought rematches against London and Folley, or Wepner and Lyle to inflate his number? Not really. Politics also enters into it, as Ali was stripped and exiled hence his wins over Quarry and Bonavena aren't counted as defenses, while Louis' four post-WWII defenses are.

Belts have lost much of their mystique for me. Ali's non-title fight wins over Quarry and Bonavena mean more than title defenses against shot Lewis and Paycheck, just as Louis' win over Max Baer means more than Ali's defense against, say, Coopman. What matters is who you beat, not the window dressing; Ali beat better opponents, and is therefore more accomplished. Foreman and Frazier are top ten all-time Heavyweights, Liston is borderline, while Louis' best victims probably only rank a few slots higher than Floyd Patterson. Only someone overcome by nostalgia would argue that their general opposition is comparable.

The longevity argument borders on mythology. They were both challengers and champions from their early 20s to their late 30s; the difference in longevity is marginal. Ali won the title at the same age that Louis was KO'd by Schmeling, while Louis retired earlier and thus had fewer losses. So where is this great difference in longevity? If Ali retires at 34 and then for good at 37 while Louis makes two ill-advised comebacks at 38 and 39 then Ali probably has fewer losses, and Louis fans would concede nothing. And because Ali was fighting better fighters, he had more wear and tear as he got older.

Neither Ali or Louis shied away from the spotlight against great opponents, and they rarely disappointed. The difference is that Ali cleaned out the best era in Heavyweight history, passed his prime, after having already cleaned out the prior era, so he is therefore #1. And As great as Marciano was he doesn't really belong in the conversation, I would rate Jeffries, Johnson, Holmes and maybe one or two others higher.

Well said.

Just for the record, Ali beat eight past, present or future heavyweight champions as well as two great light heavyweight champions.
Heavyweight:
Sonny Liston
Floyd Paterson
Ernie Terrell
Joe Frazier
Jimmy Ellis
Ken Norton
George Foreman
Leon Spinks

Light Heavyweight:
Moore (stripped of title same year, did not lose it in ring)
Bob Foster (reigning champion).

Ten is a nice round number.

Let's not forget that Vitali...oops Marciano(AGAIN) has the highest KO ratio in HW history.

Very very important stat.

..i was messing with you guys just for the hell of it. i did read all the posts and while i still go with joe louis, there were some good arguments for ali. i was alive when the schmelling fights were on and though i was very young i remember well the significance the produced, ali and louis...two widely different era....each open to different assessments.

i think ifeelfine covered ali well...i think techno covered joe louis well.

I Feel Fine wrote:Of course, it's not quite Louis.

Louis' defense record is one of the great achievements in boxing history, but it is overblown in this context. The difference of six-eight defenses doesn't make Hopkins a more accomplished Middleweight than Monzon and Hagler. Ali was hardly Buster Douglas, he beat about as many title challengers as Louis did, nineteen vs. twenty, the difference being that Louis fought rematches against Conn, Godoy, Simon, Baer, and Walcott. Would Ali be more accomplished if he had fought rematches against London and Folley, or Wepner and Lyle to inflate his number? Not really. Politics also enters into it, as Ali was stripped and exiled hence his wins over Quarry and Bonavena aren't counted as defenses, while Louis' four post-WWII defenses are.

Belts have lost much of their mystique for me. Ali's non-title fight wins over Quarry and Bonavena mean more than title defenses against shot Lewis and Paycheck, just as Louis' win over Max Baer means more than Ali's defense against, say, Coopman. What matters is who you beat, not the window dressing; Ali beat better opponents, and is therefore more accomplished. Foreman and Frazier are top ten all-time Heavyweights, Liston is borderline, while Louis' best victims probably only rank a few slots higher than Floyd Patterson. Only someone overcome by nostalgia would argue that their general opposition is comparable.

The longevity argument borders on mythology. They were both challengers and champions from their early 20s to their late 30s; the difference in longevity is marginal. Ali won the title at the same age that Louis was KO'd by Schmeling, while Louis retired earlier and thus had fewer losses. So where is this great difference in longevity? If Ali retires at 34 and then for good at 37 while Louis makes two ill-advised comebacks at 38 and 39 then Ali probably has fewer losses, and Louis fans would concede nothing. And because Ali was fighting better fighters, he had more wear and tear as he got older.

Neither Ali or Louis shied away from the spotlight against great opponents, and they rarely disappointed. The difference is that Ali cleaned out the best era in Heavyweight history, passed his prime, after having already cleaned out the prior era, so he is therefore #1. And As great as Marciano was he doesn't really belong in the conversation, I would rate Jeffries, Johnson, Holmes and maybe one or two others higher.

This may be the best post i have seen on this site

I Feel Fine wrote:Of course, it's not quite Louis.

Louis' defense record is one of the great achievements in boxing history, but it is overblown in this context. The difference of six-eight defenses doesn't make Hopkins a more accomplished Middleweight than Monzon and Hagler. Ali was hardly Buster Douglas, he beat about as many title challengers as Louis did, nineteen vs. twenty, the difference being that Louis fought rematches against Conn, Godoy, Simon, Baer, and Walcott. Would Ali be more accomplished if he had fought rematches against London and Folley, or Wepner and Lyle to inflate his number? Not really. Politics also enters into it, as Ali was stripped and exiled hence his wins over Quarry and Bonavena aren't counted as defenses, while Louis' four post-WWII defenses are.

Belts have lost much of their mystique for me. Ali's non-title fight wins over Quarry and Bonavena mean more than title defenses against shot Lewis and Paycheck, just as Louis' win over Max Baer means more than Ali's defense against, say, Coopman. What matters is who you beat, not the window dressing; Ali beat better opponents, and is therefore more accomplished. Foreman and Frazier are top ten all-time Heavyweights, Liston is borderline, while Louis' best victims probably only rank a few slots higher than Floyd Patterson. Only someone overcome by nostalgia would argue that their general opposition is comparable.

The longevity argument borders on mythology. They were both challengers and champions from their early 20s to their late 30s; the difference in longevity is marginal. Ali won the title at the same age that Louis was KO'd by Schmeling, while Louis retired earlier and thus had fewer losses. So where is this great difference in longevity? If Ali retires at 34 and then for good at 37 while Louis makes two ill-advised comebacks at 38 and 39 then Ali probably has fewer losses, and Louis fans would concede nothing. And because Ali was fighting better fighters, he had more wear and tear as he got older.

Neither Ali or Louis shied away from the spotlight against great opponents, and they rarely disappointed. The difference is that Ali cleaned out the best era in Heavyweight history, passed his prime, after having already cleaned out the prior era, so he is therefore #1. And As great as Marciano was he doesn't really belong in the conversation, I would rate Jeffries, Johnson, Holmes and maybe one or two others higher.

Very good post, and I agree with it.

There is just so little between these two, IMO. I give Louis a tentative edge head-to-head, but I slightly lean in the direction of this post in rating what Ali did above what Louis managed. The remark about Ali cleaning out the division during his prime, then emerging as the foremost figure of the next decade, when he was past his best and which happened to be the best era in division history is supremely salient.

Louis did that with successive eras too, mind, but the 30's werent as deep as the 60's, and the 40's not as deep as the 70's.