BoxRec

1.) Even if Ali could beat Louis in their 'first' fight, nobody but nobody could even gain an inch of a chance against Louis in rematches. Louis broke Schmeling's back in their 1938 rematch, came back to knock out Joe Walcott, vaporised Billy Conn in the return, annihilated Buddy Baer in a single round...get the picture?

2.) From the waist up nobody was better than Joe Louis. He was a better boxer, better tactician, than Muhammad Ali. He could knock a man out with a six inch punch, threw just as fast combinations in his prime, it can be argued that Ali could out box Joe Louis---much like Billy Conn was doing til he got knocked out---but if Ali came into Louis's range he was on equal ground, if not on the downside against The Brown Bomber.

3.) Ali was predictable---Joe Frazier proved this in 1971. He knew Ali could be set up with shots after Ali threw an uppercut, was able to get nailed with a left hook and Ali often resorted to the ropes as a back up plan (the rope a dope). Louis no doubt was a smart man, he would have disected every aspect of Ali's game and improve on his own faults---just like he did when he fought Schmeling the second time (kept his hand up higher that time). Louis often said he felt Ali was a sucker for a jab...this was proven in his fight with Bob Foster, the first man to cut Ali. While that may not be a great example as Foster lost and hit the deck numerous times, it does show that Ali could be caught.

4.) Joe Louis couldn't be psyched out. In the Galento fight, he lost his cool and he got dropped. He let his emotions get the best of him. That was the last time Joe Louis ever let any man get the best of him. If Ali was to beat Joe Louis, skill would be his lone asset---Joe Louis wasn't going to give any man the satisfaction to get inside his head and take away from his game plan.

5.) Virtually every boxing icon in the world rates Joe Louis as either the number one man or the number two: Foreman, Frazier, Hagler and other boxers rate Louis as #1. Who would know better than the men who actually have been in the sport? While this can be greatly debated and saying this is no proof to prove Louis was any better than Ali, it is by a good majority of opinion that Louis was better than Ali, at least in accomplishment and in a historic sense. 25 title defenses, nearly champion for 12 years, retired and came back to be the number one contender when he was passed his best, quite hard to compete with. Think of it this way, also, had Louis NEVER went into the Army, he could have racked up another 10 defenses or so, as he fought 3-4 times a year, sometimes more. That would be 35 defenses. Can you imagine? There was nobody back then who could have knocked him off his pedestal.

So what is your point?

HomicideHenry wrote:
3.) Ali was predictable---Joe Frazier proved this in 1971. He knew Ali could be set up with shots after Ali threw an uppercut, was able to get nailed with a left hook and Ali often resorted to the ropes as a back up plan (the rope a dope). Louis no doubt was a smart man, he would have disected every aspect of Ali's game and improve on his own faults---just like he did when he fought Schmeling the second time (kept his hand up higher that time). Louis often said he felt Ali was a sucker for a jab...this was proven in his fight with Bob Foster, the first man to cut Ali. While that may not be a great example as Foster lost and hit the deck numerous times, it does show that Ali could be caught.

Another note here- Louis published an article in teh mid-60s which detailed how he believed he would have beaten Ali and listed other fighters he believe would have beaten Ali, and Frazier was following Louis' strategy when he beat Ali in '71(Joe always idolized Louis- when he talked about his dreams he talked about being the "Next Joe Louis," he ranks Louis #1 of all time, and when I was fortunate enough to meet him in Philadelphia, he told me a little about his influences growing up, with Joe Louis, who Frazier referred to as "Mr. Louis," figuring prominently.

Think of it this way, also, had Louis NEVER went into the Army, he could have racked up another 10 defenses or so, as he fought 3-4 times a year, sometimes more. That would be 35 defenses. Can you imagine? There was nobody back then who could have knocked him off his pedestal.

Eh, I think this speculation is a little too speculative. Louis was an incredible fighter, but he wasn't a god. He could be upset. He had a few scares against regular contenders(close fight with Farr, very close with Godoy, dropped by Baer and Galento, etc.), was behind before knocking out Conn, got a rip-off "win" against Walcott while a little past his best, and obviously had the loss to Schmeling. In another 10 title defenses, if at least half were against legitimate contenders, I don't think it's too terribly improbable he could have lost one. I'm not saying he necessarily would have, but I am saying we should grade him more on what he actually did than on what we think he would have done. Afterall, one can make a similar argument about what Ali would have done without the three-and-a-half year hiatus.

If a Louis Ali fight went the distance and was placed in the judges hands and if it were as competitive as I imagine it would be, the judges bias might end up defining the outcome.

I) Yes, Ali sucked in rematches...
2) Yes, Louis looked fantastic knocking out guys like Galento... Ali is a bit different.
3) Ali predictable? So was Louis. Ali couldn't handle a jab? He beat Liston... Louis was smart, and Ali wasn't stupid. I also love the constant use of Ali-Frazier I as an example of how to beat Ali... I suppose the strategy to beat Ali is to get him coming off a three year layoff... btw, if Ali was open to the left hook, Louis was open to the right hand...
4) Louis couldn't be psyched out... neither could Ali.
5) Frazier ranks Louis over Ali... who gives a shit? Basilio probably ranks a lot of guys over Robinson, because he doesn't like him, I said this in another thread. Foreman knows how to rate boxers, because he was one? The guy who thought Trinidad would KO Hopkins? A lot of contemporaries probably ranked Dempsey over Louis, they weren't right either. Yes, Louis would have had 35 defenses fighting Johnny Paychecks and the like... Ali couldn't get the high number of defenses he could have gotten for obvious reasons.

HomicideHenry wrote:1.) Even if Ali could beat Louis in their 'first' fight, nobody but nobody could even gain an inch of a chance against Louis in rematches. Louis broke Schmeling's back in their 1938 rematch, came back to knock out Joe Walcott, vaporised Billy Conn in the return, annihilated Buddy Baer in a single round...get the picture?

None of those fighters was in the same league at heavyweight as Ali. The extrapolation is not justified.

2.) From the waist up nobody was better than Joe Louis. He was a better boxer, better tactician, than Muhammad Ali.

Bullshit - please back that up with some actual supporting data. Let me throw Schmeling back at you: in the *first* fight Schmeling exploited a clear technical weakness in Louis' style, thus showed himself to be clearly the better tactician. In the rematch all the media-inflated race-baiting and national-pride stuff made any boxing tactics moot - in other words due to the unique historical context the rematch was a complete one-off, from which you can extrapolate very little. And Joe sure didn't win it with his "tactics" - more like sheer animal rage.

He could knock a man out with a six inch punch, threw just as fast combinations in his prime, it can be argued that Ali could out box Joe Louis---much like Billy Conn was doing til he got knocked out

Billy Conn was a fabulous boxer but he was natural middleweight, ferchrissake. Again, a completely nonsensical extrapolation.

---but if Ali came into Louis's range he was on equal ground, if not on the downside against The Brown Bomber.

And if my aunt were a man, she'd be my uncle.

3.) Ali was predictable---Joe Frazier proved this in 1971.

So why didn't Joe "prove it" in the 2nd and 3rd fights? Ali should've been even *more* predictable by then

He knew Ali could be set up with shots after Ali threw an uppercut, was able to get nailed with a left hook and Ali often resorted to the ropes as a back up plan (the rope a dope).

Yes, and we all know crappy Ali was with his back against thw ropes - couldn't smother a punch to save his life, couldn't take a body shot, yada yada.

Louis no doubt was a smart man, he would have disected every aspect of Ali's game and improve on his own faults---just like he did when he fought Schmeling the second time (kept his hand up higher that time).

Whereas Ali lacked any abilty to adjust, right? I know, here I go again, with my bizarre insistence that there are *two* men in the ring. I apologize - it's a mental quirk I can't seem to shake.

Louis often said he felt Ali was a sucker for a jab...this was proven in his fight with Bob Foster, the first man to cut Ali. While that may not be a great example as Foster lost and hit the deck numerous times, it does show that Ali could be caught.

That's right, Ali had never faced a good jab - Liston, for instance, couldn't jab his way out of a wet paper bag - And Louis of course was never "caught."

4.) Joe Louis couldn't be psyched out.

Neither could Liston ... or Foreman ...

In the Galento fight, he lost his cool and he got dropped. He let his emotions get the best of him. That was the last time Joe Louis ever let any man get the best of him. If Ali was to beat Joe Louis, skill would be his lone asset---Joe Louis wasn't going to give any man the satisfaction to get inside his head and take away from his game plan.

Blah, blah, blah - you sound like a prerecorded audio track at the Joe Louis Hall of Fame exhibit. But you're right - Joe was clearly unbeatable after the Galento fight.

5.) Virtually every boxing icon in the world rates Joe Louis as either the number one man or the number two

And who might the "or the number twos" have at number one, pray tell?

Foreman, Frazier, Hagler and other boxers rate Louis as #1. Who would know better than the men who actually have been in the sport?

Hmm - "two of our three panelists rate the guy they never fought over the guy they lost to - what can we conclude from this?"

While this can be greatly debated and saying this is no proof to prove Louis was any better than Ali, it is by a good majority of opinion that Louis was better than Ali, at least in accomplishment and in a historic sense.

So by "majority" opinion, you mean "your" opinion?

25 title defenses

How many of those against no-hopers?

nearly champion for 12 years

Huh?

retired and came back to be the number one contender when he was passed his best, quite hard to compete with. Think of it this way, also, had Louis NEVER went into the Army, he could have racked up another 10 defenses or so, as he fought 3-4 times a year, sometimes more. That would be 35 defenses. Can you imagine? There was nobody back then who could have knocked him off his pedestal.

Whereas Ali never suffered any kind of Army-service-related career disruption himself. You are absolutely right, sir - I bow to your immense objectivity and ability to argue both sides. Clearly, Ali was just a scrub, and anyone who thinks he could've lasted 2 rounds against the Brown Bomber is just a mindless zombie whose brain has been co-opted by the professional shills of the Ali Industry.