Ali vs. Louis primes
Posted: 27 Jul 2006, 10:54
Now that's the big one. The best counter puncher vs. the best combination puncher in the history of heavyweight boxing.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility if Louis could force Ali to stand and trade. But if Ali fought his fight I see him outpointing The Brown Bomber.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:louis TKO 13 ali
He can out point him with the assistance of a knockdown or two.walshb wrote:I think Ali wins no matter what style of fight takes place. He has the chin to trade, the speed to trade and the stamina to trade. He also could pack a punch when he planted those feet. Is it at all strange to think that a peak Ali could KO Louis. I don't think so. Louis' chin was not fantastic. It was decent. No way Louis outpoints Ali if the latter decides to dance.
You know how to steer clear of trouble....The Great John L wrote:When it comes to listing the ATG HWs I always say it’s Ali, Louis and then everybody else.
You think the 65 Ali was better than the 67 Ali? Mabey a touch quicker but all in all Id say those 2 extra years and 6 more fights would make him tougher and smarter.pundit wrote:Louis by KO or Ali on points. Louis was the best attacking combination puncher in the history of heavyweight boxing, a bit like a slicker, faster, more fluent, more complete Joe Frazier - and Ali had his troubles with Frazier (although the 1971 Ali was slower than the 1965 Ali). So this is the angle where I'm coming from, and this is why I'd go with Louis in the end . This said, Louis fought never anyone resembling Ali; the closest was perhaps the evasive Billy Conn who was much smaller than Ali, however. And Louis had his troubles with Conn too (even though he didn't go into this fight as preapred as he did at other times). So it's really a very hard pick.
For clarification: I have in mind the 1938 Louis vs. the 1965 Ali, of course.
There isn't much to chose between 65 and 67, imo. Take 67 if you wish.sockdollanger wrote:You think the 65 Ali was better than the 67 Ali? Mabey a touch quicker but all in all Id say those 2 extra years and 6 more fights would make him tougher and smarter.pundit wrote:Louis by KO or Ali on points. Louis was the best attacking combination puncher in the history of heavyweight boxing, a bit like a slicker, faster, more fluent, more complete Joe Frazier - and Ali had his troubles with Frazier (although the 1971 Ali was slower than the 1965 Ali). So this is the angle where I'm coming from, and this is why I'd go with Louis in the end . This said, Louis fought never anyone resembling Ali; the closest was perhaps the evasive Billy Conn who was much smaller than Ali, however. And Louis had his troubles with Conn too (even though he didn't go into this fight as preapred as he did at other times). So it's really a very hard pick.
For clarification: I have in mind the 1938 Louis vs. the 1965 Ali, of course.
agreed. I was just wondering because you had put "of course" at the end of it.pundit wrote:There isn't much to chose between 65 and 67, imo. Take 67 if you wish.sockdollanger wrote:You think the 65 Ali was better than the 67 Ali? Mabey a touch quicker but all in all Id say those 2 extra years and 6 more fights would make him tougher and smarter.pundit wrote:Louis by KO or Ali on points. Louis was the best attacking combination puncher in the history of heavyweight boxing, a bit like a slicker, faster, more fluent, more complete Joe Frazier - and Ali had his troubles with Frazier (although the 1971 Ali was slower than the 1965 Ali). So this is the angle where I'm coming from, and this is why I'd go with Louis in the end . This said, Louis fought never anyone resembling Ali; the closest was perhaps the evasive Billy Conn who was much smaller than Ali, however. And Louis had his troubles with Conn too (even though he didn't go into this fight as preapred as he did at other times). So it's really a very hard pick.
For clarification: I have in mind the 1938 Louis vs. the 1965 Ali, of course.