BoxRec

Muhammad Ali? Joe Louis? Or, Rocky Marciano?

I would say that Joe Louis would have beaten Muhammad Ali.

I would give the nod to Louis. It is because of these factors. --- 1. Joes respective boxing style. 2. Joes physical & mental abilities.

For #1, Joe's boxing style. --- Louis employed the "boxer-puncher" style. Joe had an intense stalker-hunter style in the professional ring. But, Joe was always very cautious. Joe was never erratic with his offensive attack.

Granted, Joe didn't have the single nor lethal punching power for a professional boxer such as what Rocky Marciano, Earnie Shavers or George Foreman had.


For Joes offensive attack, he primarily relied upon lightening quick punch combinations. Joe did have a good left hook. But, Joes main offensive weapon was an effective one, two punch combination. Louis could fire off his punches in very precise & piston like precision.


Joes boxer-puncher style would have given Alis master-boxer style a lot of trouble.


In addition, Louis had excellent physical conditioning throughout his entire professional career. Joe never gassed out in any of his fights throughout his entire pro career. Louis could fight 15 rounds & not even break a sweat.


An indicator as to why Joe would have given Ali A LOT of trouble. --- Alis 3 fights against Ken Norton. --- Norton defeated Ali in their first bout. Ken EVEN broke Alis jaw. Norton totally whooped Ali in their 1st fight. In Nortons 2nd & 3rd fights against Ali, Norton was actually leading on the judges scorecards. But, Ken slacked off in the second halfs of both the 2nd & 3rd fights against Ali. Subsequently, Ken would lose in his 2nd & 3rd fights against Ali. Via VERY close 15 round decisions.


Since Norton gave Ali A LOT of trouble, I'd say that Louis would have beaten Ali.



This is why. --- Ken had NO wheres near the punching power, stamina or endurance which Louis had. Furthermore, Ken didn't have anything near the boxing style or technique which Louis had.



So, I'd say that Joe Louis would have beaten Muhammad Ali.

Please bear in mind that when Ali fought Frazier & Norton in particular, he was not at this best.

If you want to talk about Ali at his peak, you have to take him on his very best night in 1966 or 1967.

Louis closely for me. Marciano doesn't belong in the discussion. Larry Holmes was right, he couldn't have carried his jock.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Louis closely for me. Marciano doesn't belong in the discussion. Larry Holmes was right, he couldn't have carried his jock.

Yep, but he could get nearly taken out by Mike Weaver and Renaldo Snipes . .

I don't think Rocky is top 3 ,or top 5, and I'd rate Holmes over him, but he's much better than you claim.

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Louis closely for me. Marciano doesn't belong in the discussion. Larry Holmes was right, he couldn't have carried his jock.

Yep, but he could get nearly taken out by Mike Weaver and Renaldo Snipes . .

I don't think Rocky is top 3 ,or top 5, and I'd rate Holmes over him, but he's much better than you claim.

What is it that I claim?

Tyson is the One Above All, of course, but among mere mortals you'd have to go with Ali and then Louis.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Louis closely for me. Marciano doesn't belong in the discussion. Larry Holmes was right, he couldn't have carried his jock.

Yep, but he could get nearly taken out by Mike Weaver and Renaldo Snipes . .

I don't think Rocky is top 3 ,or top 5, and I'd rate Holmes over him, but he's much better than you claim.

What is it that I claim?

All I know is you make disparaging remarks about Marciano whenever he's brought up in threads. I would think you'd show more respect for someone who would stop Holyfield inside of 15 rounds . .

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote: Yep, but he could get nearly taken out by Mike Weaver and Renaldo Snipes . .

I don't think Rocky is top 3 ,or top 5, and I'd rate Holmes over him, but he's much better than you claim.

What is it that I claim?

All I know is you make disparaging remarks about Marciano whenever he's brought up in threads. I would think you'd show more respect for someone who would stop Holyfield inside of 15 rounds . .

That's not anywhere near true. You need to stop obsessing over me, especially if you're just going to invent things I say or do. Marciano is in my top 10.

By what measure? Head-to-head or accomplishments?

Head-to-head: I'd take Louis but I wouldn't lay a bet on anyone in a match-up between the three.

Accomplishments: Marciano.

Louis or Ali, and I have no problem with either, but Marciano doesnt belong in the convo.

Either, though, does Holmes.

He is closer than Marciano, but I agree that it's an either or question. They are the clearest top 2 in any division.

Holmes is in my top-10, and Marciano isnt, so Id agree with that much.

Do find Holmes and his career a bit over-estimated at times, though.

raylawpc wrote:By what measure? Head-to-head or accomplishments?

Head-to-head: I'd take Louis but I wouldn't lay a bet on anyone in a match-up between the three.

Accomplishments: Marciano.

Marciano's accomplishments rank over that of Louis and Ali?

Can't buy that.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Louis or Ali, and I have no problem with either, but Marciano doesnt belong in the convo.

Either, though, does Holmes.

I dont have Marciano in the top two, but to say he doesnt belong in the conversation really is a little ridiculous.

He won every fight he ever fought in, Fought every fighter he could possibly fight who was around in his time, knocked out one of your top 2 and as an old man sparred the other with reports where he actually dropped him in sparring after a bit of a dispute but at the very least, certainly earned at least a little respect.

What actually is it that you think Marciano could have possibly done to warrant being mentioned in this conversation?

Its ridiculous to consider Marciano out of a debate regarding whos THE #1 HW of all-time?

How many guys are in with a shout to you?

yancey wrote:

raylawpc wrote:By what measure? Head-to-head or accomplishments?

Head-to-head: I'd take Louis but I wouldn't lay a bet on anyone in a match-up between the three.

Accomplishments: Marciano.

Marciano's accomplishments rank over that of Louis and Ali?

Can't buy that.

That's a really big surprise . . .

raylawpc wrote:

yancey wrote:

raylawpc wrote:By what measure? Head-to-head or accomplishments?

Head-to-head: I'd take Louis but I wouldn't lay a bet on anyone in a match-up between the three.

Accomplishments: Marciano.

Marciano's accomplishments rank over that of Louis and Ali?

Can't buy that.

That's a really big surprise . . .

Well, I guess that is one way of slipping out of defending your mistaken belief.

yancey wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

yancey wrote: Marciano's accomplishments rank over that of Louis and Ali?

Can't buy that.

That's a really big surprise . . .

Well, I guess that is one way of slipping out of defending your mistaken belief.

Or a hint that I don't really give a sh*t what you think about it.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Its ridiculous to consider Marciano out of a debate regarding whos THE #1 HW of all-time?

How many guys are in with a shout to you?

There is definitely more than two, but it all depends on your criteria. Under varying circumstances i could see a case for about 10 or so fighters who could mound a reasonable claim. To be honest, a lot may depend on when the person making the decision was born!

And since I can already hear the moaning about 10 names, i will have a go naming a few guys who deserve to be at least mentioned in conversations.

Aside from the 3 already mentioned:
1. Jack Johnson - His career was as long as these two guys, he fought competitively much older than these guys, he was considered as dominant of these guys.
2. James Jeffries - Never lost a fight in his prime and his only loss really needs to be discounted he (in his only loss, he arguably put up a better loss than the two standouts Louis and Marciano did in their last fight, coming out of a much longer retirement than these guys ever did and arguably even against a better fighter closer to his prime than these guys fought in their last fight). He didnt fight as long as Louis and Ali, but he was every bit as dominant as those two guys.
3. George Foreman - His only real prime loss was to Ali, but it was acknowledged that it was a bit of special circumstances there with the big ring, Foreign crowd, loose ropes etc, and Ali's strategy would be unlikely to be repeated again succesfully. He also obliterated and KOd many guys Ali both struggled with and lost to. Plus his second career when he was so far removed from his prime was arguably better than any post prime efforts put up by louis or Ali.
4. Sonny Liston - A bit of a longer bow this one, but not totally out of the question. His ranking at no 1 probably rests on the Ali fights being a fix (which i dont buy) but still, he is a dangerous sleeper.
5. John L Sullivan - What John L Sullivan did in KO ing virtually every fighter in 4 rounds and fighting so often and regularly really was special, and most people dont realise just how special. Plus his ability to continue retaining the title when so far past his prime is something only the greats do. He was never beaten in his prime and no one was more dominant. This puts him in discussions.
6. Lennox Lewis - If you subscribe to the evolution theory and modern nutrition theory based on Athletic times and their improvement in every sport, Lennox is almost certainly number 1. He is also physically the best fighter in serious calculations. His record isnt as good as most seem to think nowadays, but there is every chance that despite what most of us think, he would stand tall above any other fighter.
7. Mike Tyson - It is hard to find a better pure knockout punch than this guy. He was really as dominant (maybe moreso) than any other fighter up until the Douglas loss. His claim rests on the Douglas and Holy losses being solely due to him forgetting training and him being nothing like the fighter he used to be. But it is certainly believable.
8. Jack Dempsey - Similar to Tyson in his claims although he managed to keep the title even when not at his best for an awfully long time.
9. Larry Holmes - Long time dominant champion with all the skills, who proved in the 90s golden era that even when well past his best he was able to compete with teh best of a so called golden era.
10. Gene Tunney - A controversial one this one is, But on film he looks great. I think any claim he has depends largely on the real strength of his chin and ability to take a heavyweight punch. Largely unproven, it is often forgotten that he has never been stopped. there was a time when it was assumed that Ali was a pretty boy with no chin. That proved wrong. If tunney's chin and heart is the same or better than Ali's (no one Knows one way or the otehr though if anything the Dempsey fights suggest it more likely than not) then he must certainly be in the discussions.
11. Vitali, Wlad, Bowe - Relies on the evolution theory that Lennox' claim relies on. Bowe has a small argument to be better than Lennox (holyfield too i suppose) and it is often forgotten that Lennox' era was a long time ago. (not many world records in other sports still stand from that long ago). The current champion can always be discussed, no matter how silly it sounds.
12. Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Jackson - All came from what was a percieved a golden era and all have arguments to be the best of their era. If they really did make them tougher in those days, as was largely accepted around the 1900s, due to the tougher living and training conditions, then these guys might have a claim.
13. Joe Frazier - Well it is arguable that he beat Ali when both were at their very best, and it is also arguable that he never reached his best again after climbing that everest (like Dempsey and others). If this is the case, then the Joe Frazier who beat Ali might just be the greatest fighter whoever lived.
14. Max Schmelling - Similar argument though less compelling since Louis was further from his prime. Not totally impossible though.
15. Oliver McCall - About the worst claim i can think of, but if you believe that fights should only be decided by finish fights, then no one has ever manged to finish him off even though many big hitters have tried.

I am pretty sure that this list off hand covers everyone off hand who could at least be in the conversation. Langford, Wills, Baer or Johansen might make a passing mention i suppose but i cant see any more than that.

BO Selecta wrote:Please bear in mind that when Ali fought Frazier & Norton in particular, he was not at this best.

If you want to talk about Ali at his peak, you have to take him on his very best night in 1966 or 1967.

Ok, take Ali at his best 1966-1967 as you say. And i will take the Joe Louis of the Max Baer fight,who was the greatest combination EVER. Witness those triple left-hooks landing on Baer's chin like a Gatling gun.THIS Joe Louis was rightfully described "as a coil spring unwinding". No way any version of Clay/Ali ever beats the young Brown Bomber. Look at the problem Norton's left jab caused Ali !
Louis's jab was expressed by one victim as "a light bulb exploding in your face". Followed by great leverage and handspeed.
Louis's fists did the talking,not his mouth...Louis winner by ko 9th round...

raylawpc wrote:

yancey wrote:

raylawpc wrote: That's a really big surprise . . .

Well, I guess that is one way of slipping out of defending your mistaken belief.

Or a hint that I don't really give a sh*t what you think about it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Translation: Yes, I am wrong, Marciano's accomplishments don't compare to Louis and Ali, but I'm not going to admit it.

yancey wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

yancey wrote: Well, I guess that is one way of slipping out of defending your mistaken belief.

Or a hint that I don't really give a sh*t what you think about it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Translation: Yes, I am wrong, Marciano's accomplishments don't compare to Louis and Ali, but I'm not going to admit it.

That's the best you can come up with??

You're definitely wrong, he doesn't have to go beyond that.

beaujack wrote:

BO Selecta wrote:Please bear in mind that when Ali fought Frazier & Norton in particular, he was not at this best.

If you want to talk about Ali at his peak, you have to take him on his very best night in 1966 or 1967.

Ok, take Ali at his best 1966-1967 as you say. And i will take the Joe Louis of the Max Baer fight,who was the greatest combination EVER. Witness those triple left-hooks landing on Baer's chin like a Gatling gun.THIS Joe Louis was rightfully described "as a coil spring unwinding". No way any version of Clay/Ali ever beats the young Brown Bomber. Look at the problem Norton's left jab caused Ali !
Louis's jab was expressed by one victim as "a light bulb exploding in your face". Followed by great leverage and handspeed.
Louis's fists did the talking,not his mouth...Louis winner by ko 9th round...

BJ, first you say you're only talking Ali at his best and mention 1966-67.

Then you start rambling on about the problems he had with Norton's jab.