BoxRec

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"...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.

Thats ridiculaus. The Louis of 1946 would have no chance whatsoever against a prime Ali. It would be a complete mismatch.

And I said that the 1964 Ali who beat Liston would beat the Louis that beat Braddock. Which of course is the most relevant question. But for the sake of our little game here, I did answer the other situations previously.

I said that the Ali that beat Foreman would also beat Louis, though it would be a tough fight. Watch the tapes. Louis wasn't as impressive against Braddock as Ali was with Foreman.

What is so special about beating one of the worst heavyweight champions, who hasn't fought in two years, having trouble with him, and getting dropped? That doesn't compare to knocking out a prime George Foreman.
Louis isn't going to knock him out, Ali has too good of a chin. There is a chance that Ali would eventually knock out Louis. Most likely it would go the distance.

And I said that the Ali that beat Spinks would lose to the Louis that beat Braddock.

Goodnight, Irene wrote: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.

If you have the reflexes and know what you are doing, you don't need to keep your hands up. How often did Ali get hit during prime? Very little.
Other fighters like Tunney,Holmes, Roy Jones did this as well. Ali during his prime would hit Louis a lot more than Louis hit him. Ali had the chin to take a great shot anyway.

Didn't have the speed of combinations? You have got to be kidding. That is just ridiculaus. No heavyweight ever had the speed of Ali during this time.
Didn't have the power? Well he hit hard enough, especially from the lightining fast combinations that take their toll throughout a fight. He stopped his opponent in 8 out of the 10 title fights he had at this time. One of the two guys that he didn't stop was Chuvalo, who had a much better chin than Joe Louis.

As mentioned before, Louis isn't going to stop the Ali of 1974. Foreman hit him with everything he had and couldn't do it, so did Frazier, Shavers couldn't do it 3 years later when he was way past it.

You act like Louis just blew through every opponent. He didn't. Schmeling knocked him out. Tommy Farr went the distance and gave him a lot of trouble. Artuo Godoy went the distance with him. 170 pound Billy Conn lasted 13 rounds. He never stopped anyone remotely as good as Ali.

On the other hand, Schmeling knocked out Louis. Braddock (who was a weaker puncher than Ali) dropped him.
Buddy Baer knocked him through the ropes.
Galento dropped him.
It is certainly possible that Ali could hurt Louis, especially from an accumilation of blows.

A mistake or flaw for the average Heavyweight, like holding the hands too low, keeping the chin exposed, not throwing body shots, moving straight back, etc. would all be costly; but for Ali with his speed and reflexes those cardinal rules are generally null. Look at fights like Jones vs. Toney, Toney is a much better technical fighter than Jones while Jones breaks every supposed cardinal rule and Toney can't make him pay for anything. Not saying that Ali-Louis would go that way but I think its a good illustration of the point about cardinal rules being almost meaningless when talking about a figher with exceptional speed and reflexes. And that's not to say that Louis would never hit Ali, he just wouldn't do enough of it. And, that said, Louis was not without technical flaws, as I said above he kept his left hand too low and Ali would be able to land his quick right on Louis. I don't see Louis doing too well with a prime Ali. I'm sure it would be competitive, but I think Ali will win a decision.

As for Ali in '74, as I said earlier, I'll bank on Ali taking a Louis combination in exchange for Ali with a nearly 20 pound weight advantage landing his own combination on Louis. Louis, frankly, isn't as tough as Ali, and even less so when Ali has that kind of advantage in weight. I do not believe that Louis in that fight could do any more damage to Ali than Ali could to Louis. I totally reject the idea that Louis would stop Ali, I don't think there is such a thing as an unstoppable fighter, but among Heavyweight champions I would say at that stage Ali was about as close as you could get to a fighter who can't be knocked out. I can't say the same for any version of Louis, much less a 197 lbs Louis. Outside of that point, I don't think that Ali would be on the ropes for significant amounts of time to begin with, and I believe he would use his still existing hand speed advantage along with his superior reach to out box Louis on the outside.

Ambling Alp wrote: How often did Ali get hit during prime? Very little.

News to me.

How did he get staggered by overweight lightheavyweight Doug Jones 15 seconds into their fight?

Was there a strong wind blowing through Madison Square Garden at that moment?

How did he get his nose bloodied 15 seconds into his fight with Henry Cooper?

Was it the altitude in Wembley stadium that gave him the nose bleed?

How did he get knocked down at the end of the 4th round against Cooper?

Did he slip on a banana peel in the ring?

He was a human punching bag.

That's why he is in the condition he is in today.

granberry wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: How often did Ali get hit during prime? Very little.

News to me.

How did he get staggered by overweight lightheavyweight Doug Jones 15 seconds into their fight?

Was there a strong wind blowing through Madison Square Garden at that moment?

How did he get his nose bloodied 15 seconds into his fight with Henry Cooper?

Was it the altitude in Wembley stadium that gave him the nose bleed?

How did he get knocked down at the end of the 4th round against Cooper?

Did he slip on a banana peel in the ring?

He was a human punching bag.

That's why he is in the condition he is in today.

This is such a derailed statement. In the two particular fights you just mentioned he landed far more shots than he received.

granberry wrote: That's why he is in the condition he is in today.

And I'm sure you're quite pleased by that fact.

I've said it in the past, but I think that if I were so inclined that I could attack Ali five hundred times more effectively than granberry does, and I'll do that here. I don't think that Ali was untouchable in his prime, Mildenberger landed some shots on him, Zora Folley did. And, though granberry doesn't like to hear it, Liston landed a lot of punches on Clay. If all you can do is name the same two fights ad nauseam then you're really rather useless and banal as a critic.

That said, Ali in his prime was one of the better defensive fighters in Heavyweight history, and compared to most of Louis' punching bags, catching Ali for Louis would be like trying to catch a greased pig. And Mr. Dingleberry also loves to forget that Cooper never touched Ali in the rematch; granny is in denial that Ali could have possibly improved after 1963.

I Feel Fine wrote:A mistake or flaw for the average Heavyweight, like holding the hands too low, keeping the chin exposed, not throwing body shots, moving straight back, etc. would all be costly; but for Ali with his speed and reflexes those cardinal rules are generally null. Look at fights like Jones vs. Toney, Toney is a much better technical fighter than Jones while Jones breaks every supposed cardinal rule and Toney can't make him pay for anything. Not saying that Ali-Louis would go that way but I think its a good illustration of the point about cardinal rules being almost meaningless when talking about a figher with exceptional speed and reflexes. And that's not to say that Louis would never hit Ali, he just wouldn't do enough of it. And, that said, Louis was not without technical flaws, as I said above he kept his left hand too low and Ali would be able to land his quick right on Louis. I don't see Louis doing too well with a prime Ali. I'm sure it would be competitive, but I think Ali will win a decision.

As for Ali in '74, as I said earlier, I'll bank on Ali taking a Louis combination in exchange for Ali with a nearly 20 pound weight advantage landing his own combination on Louis. Louis, frankly, isn't as tough as Ali, and even less so when Ali has that kind of advantage in weight. I do not believe that Louis in that fight could do any more damage to Ali than Ali could to Louis. I totally reject the idea that Louis would stop Ali, I don't think there is such a thing as an unstoppable fighter, but among Heavyweight champions I would say at that stage Ali was about as close as you could get to a fighter who can't be knocked out. I can't say the same for any version of Louis, much less a 197 lbs Louis. Outside of that point, I don't think that Ali would be on the ropes for significant amounts of time to begin with, and I believe he would use his still existing hand speed advantage along with his superior reach to out box Louis on the outside.

They're null against Karl Mildenberger & Brian London. What I was saying --- & it's just my opinion, keep in mind --- is that Louis would make him pay for dropping his hands.

Ali in 1974 was as close to unstoppable as just about any Heavyweight, on this we will agree, I'll only add that Louis was as perfect at hurting & then finishing a man as any Heavyweight ever.

Alp --- when I said Ali doesn't throw in combination enough to put Louis away, you know I was talking about the 1974 version, right? That version held as much as he punched (not that he should be blamed for that, IMO). The prime Ali could put Louis away. I'll come back for the rest of your post when time permits me.

Incidentally, in a prime-to-prime encounter, I'd bet every cent on this not going the distance. One is going to knock the other senseless before the final bell, whoever the winner is.

I disagree on both points, I think Ali landed lots of nice little combinations on Foreman.

As for the point addressed to me, I think that a guy who can survive Liston is in a good position to say he can survive Louis, and while Ali held his hands low he wasn't stupid about it, he held his hands up when a fighter got too close and he was always aware of going on. I think Ali would be very careful against Louis. As I said earlier, I could also just as easily point to Louis keeping his own left hand too low, and I believe Ali will be bouncing right hands off Louis all night.

He stopped holding it low (or as low) after the loss to Schmeling. In any case, Ali did plenty of holding against Foreman (understandably) & while he landed a lot of nice, short combos --- Don't forget, we're talking about the Ali of '74. That includes his fight with Frazier, where he held terribly. Not sure how anyone (& there are a few of them out there) managed to score that fight for Frazier, Ali plainly won, but Ali held too much in 1974 to knock Louis out, IMO.

I think that's to his advantage. If we're talking Ali in '74 he'll grab Louis and out muscle him and try to wear him down like he did Foreman. It may not look pretty but its not a beauty contest. Ali with almost twenty pounds leaning and pushing down and bullying Louis when he gets too close is quite a good idea. That said, Ali will be punching, and with that huge weight edge Louis will be feeling those punches.

And I disagree that Louis stopped holding his hand low after the first Schmeling fight. For the most part I think its something that he did throughout his career and he ate some right hands because of it.

I wonder what these Ali-Louis debates (who always seem to involve the same handful of posters, myself included) must look like from the outside...

How did he get his nose bloodied 15 seconds into his fight with Henry Cooper?

Was it the altitude in Wembley stadium that gave him the nose bleed?

Gran is right about the nose bit. Dundee, during the NCR computer tournaments, when asked if Ali could take a punch, said that Ali proved it against Archie Moore, and against Cooper because Cooper broke Ali's nose in the first round.

HomicideHenry wrote:

How did he get his nose bloodied 15 seconds into his fight with Henry Cooper?

Was it the altitude in Wembley stadium that gave him the nose bleed?

Gran is right about the nose bit. Dundee, during the NCR computer tournaments, when asked if Ali could take a punch, said that Ali proved it against Archie Moore, and against Cooper because Cooper broke Ali's nose in the first round.

Every fighter gets his nose broken.

Lots of people who never had a pro fight (or an amateur fight) get their noses broken.

Ali didn't prove he could take a punch against Sonny Banks, or against 185 pound Henry Cooper at the end of the 4th round.

In each case he went down immediately from a SINGLE left hook----

and he wasn't hit by Jack Dempsey.

.

It's funny, ironically, that during the staged "Super Fight" between Ali and Marciano, the computer picked Marciano to win via kayo in the 13th...while that may very well be a far fetched idea in and of its self, the computer predicted the kayo would come from a left hook.

Go down the line in 1971, it was the left hook from Joe Frazier, same style as Jeffries, Dempsey and Marciano, that dropped Ali in the 15th round. Not that it means any great significance, but it was one of those odd occurences where a third party look at Ali was able to predict that Ali's greatest weakness was that single solitary hit, the left hook.

Now if only people could judge Ali, or quite frankly any champion, from a third party perspective, rather than a biased judgement or even a critical analysis breaking down step by step of their careers...we might just get a damned good response of whose better than whom.


Anyways, I see the Ali-Louis argument is completely over taking the thread, while the hypothetical on Dempsey has been forgotten, so I would hope we could get back to The Manassa Mauler sometime soon.

Also interesting to note that the computer did this before the Frazier fight.

The "3rd party" only had information from human beings.

-The computer was dead on on picking James Jeffries to beat Ali.

Also interesting to note:

-Ali was knocked down a grand total of 3 times in 61 fights from lefthooks.He won two of those fights.

-Frazier who had arguably the best lefthook of anyone, only knocked him down once in 41 rounds.

-The Banks knockdown was a flashknockdown.

-Ali was never down for more than a 4 count.

-Floyd Patterson, who had a great lefthook, never hurt Ali at all or knocked him down.

As for Jack Dempsey, is the question would anyone else on the day that they won the title beat Dempsey on the day that he beat Willard?
However, you have to consider a few things:

-Willard was one of the worst heavyweight champions. (Most other fighters had to beat someone better to win the title.)
-Willard hadn't fought in 3 years.
-Dempsey was allowed to stand over Willard when he downand jump all over him. He wouldn't be able to do that against later champions.

Having said that, it's doubtful that more than a few guys would have beaten Demspey on that day.

In many cases it's hard to say. When Johnson beat Burns, it was a totally different scenario than when Dempsey beat Willard. He was fighting a totally different kind of opponent and himself was a vastly different opponent than Willard.

It's hard to say about Holyfield when he beat Douglas.
I would say that the Foreman that beat Frazier the first time would beat Demspey.
The Liston that beat Patterson is a possiblity.
Possibly the Frazier that beat Ellis.
Tunney would have been interesting.
There probably aren't too many more.
Lets not get into Ali. It's obvious that we won't have a good discussion about that.

HomicideHenry wrote:Now if only people could judge Ali, or quite frankly any champion, from a third party perspective, rather than a biased judgement or even a critical analysis breaking down step by step of their careers...we might just get a damned good response of whose better than whom.

Oh please, I think I've shown above that I am objective about Ali. I could say the same of how people judge Louis; I'd like to see Louis get more criticism and more third party non-biased judgment from his admirers.

I can't wait to see how people slobber over Louis after HBO shows the documentary tomorrow, while if you say anything positive about Ali you're somehow unobjective.

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

Doug Jones was no Joe Louis.

That's a fricken lie:

The Muhammad Ali of 60’s was the fastest heavyweight ever. In the May 5, 1969 Sports Illustrated, Ali’s jab was measured with an omegascope. Ali’s jab, it was found, could smash a balsa board 16.5 inches away in 19/100 of a second. It actually covered the distance in 4/100 of a second, which is the blink of an eye. Jimmy Jacobs, who owned the world’s largest collection of fight films, said that on film tests with a synchronizer Ali’s jab was faster than that of Sugar Ray Robinson. Jacobs contended that Ali was not only the fastest heavyweight, but also the fastest fighter he ever saw on film.



Marv Jenson, who managed Gene Fullmer, concurred saying, “Ali has the fastest hands on any heavyweight I have ever seen.”

Bob Foster, the world light-heavyweight champion agreed, saying, in an interview after their fight, “He has no business being as fast as he is. I never saw that right hand.”


http://coxscorner.tripod.com/ali.html

HomicideHenry wrote:I didnt say that Alp did


Anyways...how about another example...

On the day Jack Dempsey slaughtered the mammoth Jess Willard in Toledo, Ohio...what contender at that time could have beaten Dempsey that night...and what champion [and ffs lets excuse Ali from these things cus thats everybody's scape goat] could have defeated the Dempsey of that day?

Mike Tyson would have steamrolled Dempsey...Dempsey too small.

The Mike Tyson that destroyed Trevor Berbick would also stump the great Joe Louis.

granberry wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: How often did Ali get hit during prime? Very little.

News to me.

How did he get staggered by overweight lightheavyweight Doug Jones 15 seconds into their fight?

Was there a strong wind blowing through Madison Square Garden at that moment?

How did he get his nose bloodied 15 seconds into his fight with Henry Cooper?

Was it the altitude in Wembley stadium that gave him the nose bleed?

How did he get knocked down at the end of the 4th round against Cooper?

Did he slip on a banana peel in the ring?

He was a human punching bag.

That's why he is in the condition he is in today.

"You are so full of your own falsehoods and delusions.If you could be half the man Muhammad Ali was a fighter you might like yourself"

I have seen almost all of Ali's fights...I don't remember him taking huge punishement up until the Rumble In The Jungle, excluding the first Frazier fight...

The fact that Ali reinvented himself after the layoff, proved he had one of the best beards in heavyweight history,and won his biggest fights when he was inarguably past his prime shows what a great, great and courageous fighter he was...

Ambling Alp wrote:As for Jack Dempsey, is the question would anyone else on the day that they won the title beat Dempsey on the day that he beat Willard?
However, you have to consider a few things:

. . .

-Dempsey was allowed to stand over Willard when he downand jump all over him. He wouldn't be able to do that against later champions.

You keep writing that. There was no neutral corner rule until the mid-to-late 20s. Before that time, any fighter was allowed to stand over his opponent and hit him when he got back to his feet. Some good referees - such as George Siler at the turn of the century - would try to hold the fighter away with one hand or stay between him and his fallen opponent. But what Dempsey did wasn't against the rules.

If you are doing these hypothetical match-ups, put Larry or Muhammad or George in 1919, under the conditions in which Dempsey fought. These hypothetical match-ups should cut both ways.

I wasn't criticizing Dempsey or saying he was doing something others in his situation wouldn't have. I'm sure Foreman and others would have done the same thing.
Nor am I implying that Dempsey wouldn't have beat Willard anyway.

I am saying that it's easier to put your opponent away if you don't have to wait in a neutral corner and can jump on him right away.

The neutral corner rule wasn't widely enforced until the mid-1920's. However it was a rule in some fights before that. Boxing being boxing, different states and commisions had their own rules that varied.
There are pictures from the 1921 Carpentier-Dempsey fight where Dempsey is waiting in a corner for Carpentier to get up.
There is even a picture from the 1909 Ketchel-Johnson fight where Johnson is waiting near a corner while Ketchel is being counted out.
There is a picture of the 1908 Ketchel-Papke fight where it appears that Ketchel is waiting in a neutral corner, though that that one isn't as clear as to whether he was or not.

Interesting that you mentioned referee George Siler. There is a picture of the Corbett-Fitzsimmons fight where Corbett has knocked down Fitzsimmons in the 6th round. Siler seems to be holding Corbett back from hovering over Fitzsimmons, but not forcing Corbett to go back to a neutral corner.

Rule 4 from the Marquis of Queensbury Rules (1867) does say that the man scoring the knockdown has to reurn to his corner, though it doesn't mention a neutral corner.

It might be interesting to learn more about the application of the rule from the 1880's to the early 1920's. One thing for sure though, it didn't just suddenly become a completely new rule in the mid-1920's, which is the impression some people have.

Ambling Alp wrote:I wasn't criticizing Dempsey or saying he was doing something others in his situation wouldn't have. I'm sure Foreman and others would have done the same thing.
Nor am I implying that Dempsey wouldn't have beat Willard anyway.

I am saying that it's easier to put your opponent away if you don't have to wait in a neutral corner and can jump on him right away.

The neutral corner rule wasn't widely enforced until the mid-1920's. However it was a rule in some fights before that. Boxing being boxing, different states and commisions had their own rules that varied.
There are pictures from the 1921 Carpentier-Dempsey fight where Dempsey is waiting in a corner for Carpentier to get up.
There is even a picture from the 1909 Ketchel-Johnson fight where Johnson is waiting near a corner while Ketchel is being counted out.
There is a picture of the 1908 Ketchel-Papke fight where it appears that Ketchel is waiting in a neutral corner, though that that one isn't as clear as to whether he was or not.

Interesting that you mentioned referee George Siler. There is a picture of the Corbett-Fitzsimmons fight where Corbett has knocked down Fitzsimmons in the 6th round. Siler seems to be holding Corbett back from hovering over Fitzsimmons, but not forcing Corbett to go back to a neutral corner.

Rule 4 from the Marquis of Queensbury Rules (1867) does say that the man scoring the knockdown has to reurn to his corner, though it doesn't mention a neutral corner.

It might be interesting to learn more about the application of the rule from the 1880's to the early 1920's. One thing for sure though, it didn't just suddenly become a completely new rule in the mid-1920's, which is the impression some people have.

The best referees never applied that part of "Rule 4" from the MQ rules. George Siler, in his book Inside Facts on Pugilism (1907) at page 18 writes: "How often is this rule adhered to? How often does a fighter go to his corner when his opponent is down? The rule is a misnomer for several reasons . . . [The Marquis] evidentially overlooked the fact that a man is apt to go down in his opponent's corner, and in such cases, if the man on his feet goes to his corner, as the rule reads he must do, he naturally will be standing over his fallen adversary and doing just what the rules infers he must not do."

I'd like you to name the states where the neutral corner rule was in vogue before the mid-20s.

Some years ago, I became curious about the genesis of the neutral corner rule. I have not researched it exhaustively, and I'm going by memory in what I found, but it appears the neutral corner rule was first applied to a major fight at Dempsey-Tunney II. It was a negotiated rule (i.e., not included in the rule book but agreed to by the fighters), and it is was Dempsey, ironically, who insisted on it. After Dempsey-Tunney II, it became codified in the rules of the National Boxing Association, and other commissions quickly adopted it.

Negotiated rules between opponents were common from the 1890s to the 1920s to clear up ambiguities of the MQ rules. (Such as hitting on the break, etc.)

I'm not sure how apart we are on this. I am saying that the rule sort of evolved over time.

Before Dempsey-Tunney:
-There were fights that a guy could just "hover" over his opponent. (Either because the rules allowed him or because the referee didn't enforce rules that prohibited it.)
-There were fights where the referee kept the fighter from hovering, but not all the way to a neutral corner.
-There were fights where the fighter had to go to a corner, though perhaps not a "neutral" corner.

However, one thing that is certain is that the Dempsey-Tunney fight certainly wasn't the first major fight that had the neutral corner rule.
As mentioned before, Dempsey is waiting in a corner in the Carpentier fight in 1921.
I have read that the rule was in effect for the Firpo fight in 1923. (Obviously not enforced by the referee.)
I have a picture in a book of the 1925 Tunney-Gibbons fight. Gibbons is on the canvas and Tunney is waiting in neutral corner.