I thought that this was an interesting (if old) article.

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

While I don't agree with everything (i.e. counter-jab would "completely" nullify Ali's jab), it does bring some interesting points to light that are often indoctrinated to us about Ali in the opposite direction. It changed some of my recent understanding of a matchup between these two, having re-read it. It also gives a person a better, non-biased view towards other fighters of similar styles matching up against Ali.

We must deconstruct the idea that he was invincible, or too fast. He was beatable, and several people have outlined (and employed), these methods for doing so to success.

One thing that the author of this particular article failed to address, however, was the fact that Joe Louis kept his left hand low, and Ali was notorious for surprising his opponents with a lead-right from out of nowhere. That would be something that Ali would figure out, and probably exploit.

Your thoughts on his [Ali's] beatability, how it could be done, who could have done it with similar (or other) techniques, etc.

Well, the easiest way to beat him was by a fair score-card. On points he should've lost to Norton again, Frazier in their re-match, he was far behind Bonavena before rd. 15 kayo, etc.. etc.. He was a good fighter, but he was more of an olympic fighter than a professional fighter when it came to foes he couldn't kayo.

Your thoughts on his [Ali's] beatability, how it could be done, who could have done it with similar (or other) techniques, etc.

** Any fighter is beatable. Ali made his reputation against 3 fighters, Liston, Frazier, and Foreman, and it was the Foreman fight he credits as earning him the most respect, and it's only after that fight that people start making him out to be the best ever, invincible, the greatest, ect.

3 of his 4 KDs came on left hooks thrown by quick heavies. OK, Louis, Dempsey, Tyson, prime Liston not on the take or fearing for his life, Lewis, Wlad, Foreman, all have powerful left hooks though Lewis, Liston and Foreman's are the slowest, and of course Frazier who won a wide decision over Ali in their first encounter and always gave him hell.

Then you had Norton who should have notched all 3 of his bouts against Ali in a fair world. Norton also had a quick powerful left hook, but he never knocked Ali down with it, though that may have been the punch that busted his jaw. Norton also had a crablike defense that was hard for Ali to figure out. Of course Ali might have been better against Norton before his layoff, but just on the timeline I doubt they would have ever fought until the time they actually did meet because Norton started so much later, so I feel this series was representative of the way the ring action would have gone.

Then you had the jabbers, Holmes, Wlad, Foreman when he wanted, Louis, Lewis, Tunney, even Tyson before his training went to hell, prime Liston.

Then you have the pressure fighters, Frazier, Dempsey, Tyson, Rocky, and yes, even Norton put some pressure on him.

Then the counter punchers, Louis, Dempsey, Tunney, Tyson.

Of course Ali was also one of the most naturally gifted heavies in history, so it's not like he's going to lose every bout. He's a good bet to win most of a series against many of those listed, but he'd be losing a few, and might even suffer a couple TKOs too.

Maybe those bouts will take place some day in heavyweight heaven.

The timing of the jab against Ali was key in opening up the left hook as well, especially for smaller guys like Frazier, Dempsey, Tyson, etc. Have the right hand protecting your face, wait for Ali to flick the jab, fire your own jab, rinse, wash, repeat. When he tries to uppercut an incoming pressure-fighter, throw the left hook. Frazier just happened to have all of these tools, without great handspeed. This is why I understand the man's article about giving Joe Louis a good shot against Ali, because he had these tools, plus great hand speed, explosive power, phenomenal finishing skills, and one of the best boxing brains in the business.

Good post, London.

Im only a few paragraphs in and im noticing some problems. While Ali was by no means un hittable he wasnt easy to hit either. Also the fights they sight in wich he was hit often early in his carreer were just that EARLY IN HIS CARREER! All fighters take shots early on. I mean take for example zab judah vs mickyward. Ward hits zab with some nice shots. Despite being a verry average boxer. Its nauaral. Your going to get hit. But muhammad ali is often critisized for the punches he took not because fighters shouldt get hit....but because he was hit so rarely that when he did get hit they made a big deal out of it.

But muhammad ali is often critisized for the punches he took not because fighters shouldt get hit....but because he was hit so rarely that when he did get hit they made a big deal out of it.

** Ali did put together a nice little stretch starting with Liston to Folley where he made himself very hard to hit. Part of that was the mystery of Liston's collapse as a top fighter, and the overall weak comp Ali faced in his first run. Mildenberger, Chuvalo, and Terrell caught him with some good shots in spite of him winning those fights.

In his comeback he was being hit quite readily, even by journeyman types. This is well documented and largely the reason he has so many health problems today. A bigger deal should have been made out of it. Lord knows Cosell tried.

** Ali did put together a nice little stretch starting with Liston to Folley where he made himself very hard to hit. Part of that was the mystery of Liston's collapse as a top fighter, and the overall weak comp Ali faced in his first run. Mildenberger, Chuvalo, and Terrell caught him with some good shots in spite of him winning those fights.

In his comeback he was being hit quite readily, even by journeyman types. This is well documented and largely the reason he has so many health problems today. A bigger deal should have been made out of it. Lord knows Cosell tried.

yes. After he came out of retirement he got hit way to much. I dont think anyone realy disputes that

Liston should've and would've dominated, destroyed, demolished Ali in a non-Mob run fight game (AT THE TIME).

Ali was a little ***** at the time of the first Liston bout. Look at the facts. Dundee's bro was the fight promoter and he knew what was going to happen, and that's why he didn't let Ali quit like a little baby when he was about. And, even before all this, Ali had run up onto the ring after Sonny clobbered Patterson in their re-match, like a drama queen! He even was openly hooting at Sonny when he was presented the HW title to begin with!! Jesus. Ali was still afraid of Liston (120 pulse at the weigh-in).

Liston was half-good, but the rest of him evil, and that's what happens to Frankensteins, they have to take a fall sometime. And he did. His company had also bought the rights to Ali's next fight (after the showdown with Liston), wow, coincidence... Hmmmm......

Liston COULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE, WOULD HAVE (no doubt in my mind, or anyone close to boxing at the time) clobbered Ali and put an end to Ali while he was still just Clay. Simple as that.

Although I have louis and ali in my top two, louis would not do good against ali. Billy conn had louis on the ropes in their first fight and almost had him, imagine what a heavier, harder hitting conn would do to louis face for 15 rounds. The ONLY fighters that would give ali problems are the ones like frazier, so dempsy, marciano, tyson and frazier are the only ones who could possibily win (less chance for dempsy and tyson cause they never paced themselves for a long fight, and usually burned out early.)

Liston should've and would've dominated, destroyed, demolished Ali in a non-Mob run fight game (AT THE TIME).

Ali was a little ***** at the time of the first Liston bout. Look at the facts. Dundee's bro was the fight promoter and he knew what was going to happen, and that's why he didn't let Ali quit like a little baby when he was about. And, even before all this, Ali had run up onto the ring after Sonny clobbered Patterson in their re-match, like a drama queen! He even was openly hooting at Sonny when he was presented the HW title to begin with!! Jesus. Ali was still afraid of Liston (120 pulse at the weigh-in).

Liston was half-good, but the rest of him evil, and that's what happens to Frankensteins, they have to take a fall sometime. And he did. His company had also bought the rights to Ali's next fight (after the showdown with Liston), wow, coincidence... Hmmmm......

Liston COULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE, WOULD HAVE (no doubt in my mind, or anyone close to boxing at the time) clobbered Ali and put an end to Ali while he was still just Clay. Simple as that.

And you've been an Ali hater for how long? You give no facts only derogitory assertions. Contempt is a poor substitute for intelligence Sir, and it's abundantly clear you have a surplus of the former but very little of the latter.
You're hatred will no doubt be your undoing: Even now it shreds what very little credibility you might have. Simply trying to discredit a fighter because you do not personally like them is low. I half expected to see you write how Ali would have lost to Butterbean. So you may want to reign in the hatred and try making a reasonable post.

Poet

Um. I can run with quotes all day.. Is it any wonder that liston went from being an 8-1 fav. a week before the re-match to a 2-1 fav. at the time of the fight...... ?

Um. I can run with quotes all day.. Is it any wonder that liston went from being an 8-1 fav. a week before the re-match to a 2-1 fav. at the time of the fight...... ?

Now that we've dodged the issue (see previous post), we have an offer to give MORE anecdotal stories that are NOT facts.

Poet

Chuck Wepner on Sonny and Ali [take into account he faught Ali closer (much closer) to his prime than Sonny was to his when they mixed it up in 1970] - "I would have to say Liston was a lot tougher to fight. Ali didn't hit like Liston. Liston was the only man that ever hurt me."

Sonny when asked if he lost any friends after the Clay fight (and this response was dead-red into the eyes of Jack Olsen (SI author)) - "No. I had my friends in my pocket."

In a conversation with Joel Blickman (Bernie Glickman's son, the guy who handled Sonny's mob transitions from St. Louis to Philly) Joel said, "He (Glickman) called me up before the fight. He knew I liked to bet and that I loved Liston. He said, 'Don't bet. There's something wrong. I don't know what it is.'"

Even his close friend and sparring partner Foneda Fox knew it was a fix, and was never really that close with him afterwards, as he described it, "He told me, 'I've got to lose one, and when I do, I'm gonna tell you." .. "So, this is the only thing that I hold against Sonny, is that he did not tell me when he was actually going to lose. And I'm back here betting."

His bodyguard Lowell Powell (who tracked down his lost daughter) - "He said, 'Don't put any more money on me, man." [after the fight in reply to why he didn't tell him he was going to throw the fight] "He said, 'With your big mouth, we'd both be wearing concrete suits."

I can go on and on. Why don't you just pick up a copy of The Devil and Sonny Liston and finally get the proof you need.

Chuck Wepner on Sonny and Ali [take into account he faught Ali closer (much closer) to his prime than Sonny was to his when they mixed it up in 1970] - "I would have to say Liston was a lot tougher to fight. Ali didn't hit like Liston. Liston was the only man that ever hurt me."

Anecdotal, not factual evidence.

Sonny when asked if he lost any friends after the Clay fight (and this response was dead-red into the eyes of Jack Olsen (SI author)) - "No. I had my friends in my pocket."

Anecdotal, not factual evidence.

In a conversation with Joel Blickman (Bernie Glickman's son, the guy who handled Sonny's mob transitions from St. Louis to Philly) Joel said, "He (Glickman) called me up before the fight. He knew I liked to bet and that I loved Liston. He said, 'Don't bet. There's something wrong. I don't know what it is.'"

Anecdotal, not factual evidence.

Even his close friend and sparring partner Foneda Fox knew it was a fix, and was never really that close with him afterwards, as he described it, "He told me, 'I've got to lose one, and when I do, I'm gonna tell you." .. "So, this is the only thing that I hold against Sonny, is that he did not tell me when he was actually going to lose. And I'm back here betting."

Anectdotal, not factual evidence.

His bodyguard Lowell Powell (who tracked down his lost daughter) - "He said, 'Don't put any more money on me, man." [after the fight in reply to why he didn't tell him he was going to throw the fight] "He said, 'With your big mouth, we'd both be wearing concrete suits."

Anectdotal, not factual evidence.

I can go on and on. Why don't you just pick up a copy of The Devil and Sonny Liston and finally get the proof you need.

In a court of law all of these quotes would be thrown out as hearsay. All you are doing is using anecdotal accounts to make gratuitous assertions, assertions that may be equally gratuitously denied.

Poet

Although I have louis and ali in my top two, louis would not do good against ali. Billy conn had louis on the ropes in their first fight and almost had him, imagine what a heavier, harder hitting conn would do to louis face for 15 rounds. The ONLY fighters that would give ali problems are the ones like frazier, so dempsy, marciano, tyson and frazier are the only ones who could possibily win (less chance for dempsy and tyson cause they never paced themselves for a long fight, and usually burned out early.)

i definitely agree: Louis is great, but not necessarily the best style to beat Ali. I would exclude Tyson from the list, because Tyson would have ****ed his mind up before round 1 started. (Young Mike could actually go the distance effectively when still disciplined)

Like I said, while I don't agree with everything in the article, it does prove that Louis defeating Ali was more possible than people are usually willing to accept. He (the author) also never takes into account the simple fact that Joe's low left hand would leave him open to Ali lead rights down the pipe all night long.

*On the subject of a Liston-Clay "fix": There really is no substantial, hard proof to say that Liston threw the fight for fear of his life, or monetary purposes. While the quotes presented are antecdotal accounts of hearsay, that could be the only evidence needed to suggest something was screwy. A "good" mafia of organized crime probably eliminated any black-and-white evidence, if indeed a fix was in place. I'm not saying there was a fix, but hearsay is sometimes based on real-life accounts. We are not a court of law, we are speculative observers.

Frazier whipped Ali like he stole something. 11 rounds to 4. Also, Frazier only had one good arm, one good eye, and was suffering from hypertension at the time of the fight. Imagine what a healthy Frazier would have done. Probably an early knockout, kind of like Jimmy Ellis.

Frazier whipped Ali like he stole something. 11 rounds to 4. Also, Frazier only had one good arm, one good eye, and was suffering from hypertension at the time of the fight. Imagine what a healthy Frazier would have done. Probably an early knockout, kind of like Jimmy Ellis.

Go to sleep, little child.:bottle:

** Any fighter is beatable. Ali made his reputation against 3 fighters, Liston, Frazier, and Foreman, and it was the Foreman fight he credits as earning him the most respect, and it's only after that fight that people start making him out to be the best ever, invincible, the greatest, ect.

3 of his 4 KDs came on left hooks thrown by quick heavies. OK, Louis, Dempsey, Tyson, prime Liston not on the take or fearing for his life, Lewis, Wlad, Foreman, all have powerful left hooks though Lewis, Liston and Foreman's are the slowest, and of course Frazier who won a wide decision over Ali in their first encounter and always gave him hell.

Then you had Norton who should have notched all 3 of his bouts against Ali in a fair world. Norton also had a quick powerful left hook, but he never knocked Ali down with it, though that may have been the punch that busted his jaw. Norton also had a crablike defense that was hard for Ali to figure out. Of course Ali might have been better against Norton before his layoff, but just on the timeline I doubt they would have ever fought until the time they actually did meet because Norton started so much later, so I feel this series was representative of the way the ring action would have gone.

Then you had the jabbers, Holmes, Wlad, Foreman when he wanted, Louis, Lewis, Tunney, even Tyson before his training went to hell, prime Liston.

Then you have the pressure fighters, Frazier, Dempsey, Tyson, Rocky, and yes, even Norton put some pressure on him.

Then the counter punchers, Louis, Dempsey, Tunney, Tyson.

Of course Ali was also one of the most naturally gifted heavies in history, so it's not like he's going to lose every bout. He's a good bet to win most of a series against many of those listed, but he'd be losing a few, and might even suffer a couple TKOs too.

Maybe those bouts will take place some day in heavyweight heaven.

Get off the Jack Daniels, loser.:trink26:

*On the subject of a Liston-Clay "fix": There really is no substantial, hard proof to say that Liston threw the fight for fear of his life, or monetary purposes. While the quotes presented are antecdotal accounts of hearsay, that could be the only evidence needed to suggest something was screwy. A "good" mafia of organized crime probably eliminated any black-and-white evidence, if indeed a fix was in place. I'm not saying there was a fix, but hearsay is sometimes based on real-life accounts. We are not a court of law, we are speculative observers.

I'll actually reply to your post, as Poet didn't even use the term anecdotal properly, especially in the sense he was attempting to dispell actual quotes from actual people that were actually there.

Anecdotal is one person, like, say, me (for instance, and I just say (with no evidence to back up my claim), "Liston threw the fight." It isn't even "hearsay" as that is often tied to some facts, if I were being anecdotal it would be closer to stereotyping or mass generalization.

Those quotes, most of them having backing with actual semi-hard evidence (from people having mob-ties, to Wepner fighting a 42 y/o Liston compared to a 32 y/o Ali, to his CLOSE friends, etc..). Sure you could call it jello, but, hell, jello stands on its own.

Go to sleep, little child.:bottle:

Little child? Why don't you just call him a tom. Since that's what Ali liked to do.

Get off the Jack Daniels, loser.:trink26:

** I rather enjoy hoisting BlackJack with my right and jabbing you to tarnation with my left.

So, what's happening in Brooklyn, kid? I was there several times this past year and sorta enjoyed the challenge of figurin' out the Big Apple. Well, the best feeling was crossing the Verrazano bridge and catching 95 south. Sorta like entering the gates of heaven for this country boy:angel: !

I'll actually reply to your post, as Poet didn't even use the term anecdotal properly, especially in the sense he was attempting to dispell actual quotes from actual people that were actually there.

Anecdotal is one person, like, say, me (for instance, and I just say (with no evidence to back up my claim), "Liston threw the fight." It isn't even "hearsay" as that is often tied to some facts, if I were being anecdotal it would be closer to stereotyping or mass generalization.

Those quotes, most of them having backing with actual semi-hard evidence (from people having mob-ties, to Wepner fighting a 42 y/o Liston compared to a 32 y/o Ali, to his CLOSE friends, etc..). Sure you could call it jello, but, hell, jello stands on its own.


American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source an·ec·dot·al (ān'ĭk-dōt'l) Pronunciation Key
adj.
also an·ec·dot·ic (-dŏt'ĭk) or an·ec·dot·i·cal (-ĭ-kəl) Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes.
Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: "There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems" (C. Claiborne Ray).

In other words, just the kind of statements you have been citing. You give quotes but provide NO substanitive evidence to back them up. That makes them mearly gratuitous assertions which, as I said, may be equally gratuitously denied. You hatred of Ali has made you unhinged and in your quest to discredit him you have only discredited yourself.

Poet

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source an·ec·dot·al (ān'ĭk-dōt'l) Pronunciation Key
adj.
also an·ec·dot·ic (-dŏt'ĭk) or an·ec·dot·i·cal (-ĭ-kəl) Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes.
Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: "There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems" (C. Claiborne Ray).

In other words, just the kind of statements you have been citing. You give quotes but provide NO substanitive evidence to back them up. That makes them mearly gratuitous assertions which, as I said, may be equally gratuitously denied. You hatred of Ali has made you unhinged and in your quest to discredit him you have only discredited yourself.

Poet

Let's be clear about this, your denying is not worth as much as the quotes from the people that Tosches interviewed for months (years?), because YOU are randomly denying them because it fits well with your opinion. Those ppl on the other hand have at least a claim of having been around the facts on topic and knowing something about them, (that they actually spoke the truth is a different matter, of ciurse). However you not knowing **** and denying them "gratuitously" is ridiculous.

I dont give a **** if I am on your ignore, I just like to straighten things out for the reader.