View Full Version : Ali or Louis. Wh


joseph5620
11-28-2011, 02:12 PM
This is a topic that has been debated for as long as I've been posting on boxing boards. But I haven't seen a good debate on this in a while. Who ranks higher and why? Head to head, pound for pound, all time combined.

Barn
11-28-2011, 02:21 PM
I have Ali ahead on P4P and HW list, his accomplishments are just a shade superior in my opinion. People forget he also did make a substantial amount of defences only 6 less than Louis, albeit they weren't consecutive. Also 80 percent of the people he beat were ranked in the Top 10 and this was during the golden era.
These statistics coupled with the fact Ali has better single wins also in Liston, Foreman and Frazier means he's closely but decisively ahead of Louis.

Head to head is completely debatable but I would bet on Louis oddly enough.

Scott9945
11-28-2011, 02:40 PM
I rank Ali higher, but this is like a 1 and 1A proposition. I wouldn't argue with either one as the top choice.

Sugarj
11-28-2011, 05:56 PM
There isn't much in it is there? These two rightly occupy the top spots of most heavyweight listings.

I tend to lean towards Ali, I'd pick him in a head to head plus he does have the better career wins.....but I wouldn't argue the subject.

Tiozzo
11-28-2011, 10:16 PM
Louis

- textbook fighter
- better skills, fine technique, fearsome power
- questionnable overall resume
- only lost to the very best when he was green (Max) or past it
- made more consecutive and overall defenses
- retired as champion

Ali

-head hunter (didn't even know body punches were legal)
- was nothing that impressive when his ability to move and dance around deteriorated (was never the same fighter after his 3 years forced retirement)
- looked like a joke in many of his last fights, unofficially losing to Norton, Young, and maybe Shavers, he was a dsigrace next to the fighter he once was
- has the best resume ever at heavyweight, but was not as consistent as Louis in his performances
- struggled with many of his opponents and took an awful lot of punishment in the second part of his career
- fought for way too long
- relied too much on his athletic abilities and gifts
- unorthodox fighter who did everything wrong and started to pay for it once his never before seen heavyweight athleticism deteriorated
- great at psyching out his opponents before, during and even after a fight

I have Louis no. 1

IronDanHamza
11-29-2011, 12:17 AM
Louis

- textbook fighter
- better skills, fine technique, fearsome power
- questionnable overall resume- only lost to the very best when he was green (Max) or past it
- made more consecutive and overall defenses
- retired as champion

Ali

-head hunter (didn't even know body punches were legal)
- was nothing that impressive when his ability to move and dance around deteriorated (was never the same fighter after his 3 years forced retirement)
- looked like a joke in many of his last fights, unofficially losing to Norton, Young, and maybe Shavers, he was a dsigrace next to the fighter he once was
- has the best resume ever at heavyweight, but was not as consistent as Louis in his performances
- struggled with many of his opponents and took an awful lot of punishment in the second part of his career
- fought for way too long
- relied too much on his athletic abilities and gifts
- unorthodox fighter who did everything wrong and started to pay for it once his never before seen heavyweight athleticism deteriorated
- great at psyching out his opponents before, during and even after a fight

I have Louis no. 1

Please, elaborate.

them_apples
11-29-2011, 01:01 AM
This is a topic that has been debated for as long as I've been posting on boxing boards. But I haven't seen a good debate on this in a while. Who ranks higher and why? Head to head, pound for pound, all time combined.

For me it's easy. Ali.

Ali has fought much better competition and his longevity is up there too.

Louis has the most title defenses but he fought in just another weaker era much like Tyson did. And looked fabulous (for the most part) doing it.

HtH, Louis gives Ali a few scares but in the end eats too much leather and get's stopped or a wide decision.

I agree that Ali relied too much on his athletic gifts and physical attributes (immense toughness and chin). Although he did have his share of skill, his defense was seriously lack luster once his legs went, which was quite early in his career.

RubenSonny
11-29-2011, 06:11 AM
Louis

- textbook fighter
- better skills, fine technique, fearsome power
- questionnable overall resume
- only lost to the very best when he was green (Max) or past it
- made more consecutive and overall defenses
- retired as champion

Ali

-head hunter (didn't even know body punches were legal)
- was nothing that impressive when his ability to move and dance around deteriorated (was never the same fighter after his 3 years forced retirement)
- looked like a joke in many of his last fights, unofficially losing to Norton, Young, and maybe Shavers, he was a dsigrace next to the fighter he once was
- has the best resume ever at heavyweight, but was not as consistent as Louis in his performances
- struggled with many of his opponents and took an awful lot of punishment in the second part of his career
- fought for way too long
- relied too much on his athletic abilities and gifts
- unorthodox fighter who did everything wrong and started to pay for it once his never before seen heavyweight athleticism deteriorated
- great at psyching out his opponents before, during and even after a fight

I have Louis no. 1

Someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

GoogleMe
11-29-2011, 06:46 AM
Ali fought the better opposition, better wins, and overall better technique, footwork and so on.

Tiozzo
11-29-2011, 08:25 AM
Someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

oh really ? how so ?

please break it down for us master :hail:

JAB5239
11-29-2011, 08:27 AM
Ali fought the better opposition, better wins, and overall better technique, footwork and so on.

I rank Louis as #1 but can respect arguments for Ali, but NO heavyweight had better technique than Louis.

Tiozzo
11-29-2011, 08:40 AM
Please, elaborate.

bum of the month club ?...

JAB5239
11-29-2011, 09:08 AM
bum of the month club ?...

The bum of the month club does not encompass Joe's entire resume, but that of 13 months, and is a totally misleading nickname given by a newspaper writer.

Despite its derogatory nickname, most of the group were top-ten heavyweights. Of the twelve fighters Louis faced during this period, five were rated by The Ring as top-ten heavyweights in the year they fought Louis: Galento (overall #2 heavyweight in 1939), Bob Pastor (#3, 1939), Godoy (#3, 1940), Simon (#6, 1941), and Baer (#8, 1941); four others (Musto, Dorazio, Burman, and Johnny Paycheck) were ranked in the top ten in a different year.

How many heavyweight champions have fought 5 top 10 ranked fighters in 1 year?

RubenSonny
11-29-2011, 09:17 AM
Louis

- textbook fighter
- better skills, fine technique, fearsome power
- questionnable overall resume
- only lost to the very best when he was green (Max) or past it
- made more consecutive and overall defenses
- retired as champion

Louis has the second best resume at HW of all time, questioning his resume is outright stupid.

Ali

-head hunter (didn't even know body punches were legal)

Actually Ali jabbed to the body and chest.

- was nothing that impressive when his ability to move and dance around deteriorated (was never the same fighter after his 3 years forced retirement)


It's insane to say he wasn't that impressive after his hiatus, considering he beat ATG heavyweights and top contenders in his comeback, arguably the most impressive wins of his career.

- looked like a joke in many of his last fights, unofficially losing to Norton, Young, and maybe Shavers, he was a dsigrace next to the fighter he once was

It doesn't damage his resume since he was far past his prime, he deserved the win over Shavers for sure anyway and the Young and Norton fights were close fights against good fighters.

You won't mention the Walcott fight for Louis?

- struggled with many of his opponents and took an awful lot of punishment in the second part of his career

Yet you don't mention anything about Louis' career past his prime?

That stuff becomes irrelevant when your past prime and he only really took unnecessary punishment when he was fully washed up.

- fought for way too long

Still no mention for Louis who did exactly the same thing, I don't see how it effects either fighters greatness anyway.

- relied too much on his athletic abilities and gifts

Yet he beat ATG heavyweights when his athletic abilities and gifts deteriorated. Wow you are a genius!

- unorthodox fighter who did everything wrong and started to pay for it once his never before seen heavyweight athleticism deteriorated

There isn't a right or wrong way to box, every gym you go to trainers teach different things, the only things that matter are effectiveness and what Ali did worked for him even when his gifts and athleticism deteriorated he was still able to beat ATG heavyweights and top contenders so your point is void.

RubenSonny
11-29-2011, 09:19 AM
oh really ? how so ?

please break it down for us master :hail:

Thank you, come again.

IronDanHamza
11-29-2011, 10:19 AM
bum of the month club ?...

I had a feeling the usual 'bum of the month' retort would arise in your response.

Either that or the good old 'Two Ton Tony Galento' argument.

Both, however, just stupid. Very very stupid.

Refer to Jab's post for a response to Bum of the month.

Sugarj
11-29-2011, 12:31 PM
I rank Louis as #1 but can respect arguments for Ali, but NO heavyweight had better technique than Louis.


Floyd Patterson was at the very least his equal on pure technical grounds. Granted, his chin, psyche and size prevented him from being a true heavyweight all time great.

JAB5239
11-29-2011, 12:52 PM
Floyd Patterson was at the very least his equal on pure technical grounds. Granted, his chin, psyche and size prevented him from being a true heavyweight all time great.

Floyd was a very good technical fighter but Louis is in a class by himself in my opinion.

Greatest1942
11-29-2011, 03:12 PM
I have Ali ahead on P4P and HW list, his accomplishments are just a shade superior in my opinion. People forget he also did make a substantial amount of defences only 6 less than Louis, albeit they weren't consecutive. Also 80 percent of the people he beat were ranked in the Top 10 and this was during the golden era.
These statistics coupled with the fact Ali has better single wins also in Liston, Foreman and Frazier means he's closely but decisively ahead of Louis.

Head to head is completely debatable but I would bet on Louis oddly enough.

Most of the guys Louis beat were also in the top 10. Infact he beat more top 10 guys than Ali.

If however you are trying to say top 10 of all time, okay.

I have Louis and if anyone has Ali its fine with me.

Greatest1942
11-29-2011, 03:14 PM
Floyd Patterson was at the very least his equal on pure technical grounds. Granted, his chin, psyche and size prevented him from being a true heavyweight all time great.

Floyd was excellent but he never threw each punch with as much correctness as Louis did.

His right hand was simply not as short nor as technically correct as Louis's was...

IronDanHamza
11-29-2011, 03:14 PM
Most of the guys Louis beat were also in the top 10. Infact he beat more top 10 guys than Ali.

If however you are trying to say top 10 of all time, okay.

I have Louis and if anyone has Ali its fine with me.

Did he?

I'm pretty sure Ali beat more Top 10 guys than Louis.

Greatest1942
11-29-2011, 03:18 PM
Louis has the second best resume at HW of all time, questioning his resume is outright stupid.



Actually Ali jabbed to the body and chest.



It's insane to say he wasn't that impressive after his hiatus, considering he beat ATG heavyweights and top contenders in his comeback, arguably the most impressive wins of his career.



It doesn't damage his resume since he was far past his prime, he deserved the win over Shavers for sure anyway and the Young and Norton fights were close fights against good fighters.

You won't mention the Walcott fight for Louis?



Yet you don't mention anything about Louis' career past his prime?

That stuff becomes irrelevant when your past prime and he only really took unnecessary punishment when he was fully washed up.



Still no mention for Louis who did exactly the same thing, I don't see how it effects either fighters greatness anyway.



Yet he beat ATG heavyweights when his athletic abilities and gifts deteriorated. Wow you are a genius!



There isn't a right or wrong way to box, every gym you go to trainers teach different things, the only things that matter are effectiveness and what Ali did worked for him even when his gifts and athleticism deteriorated he was still able to beat ATG heavyweights and top contenders so your point is void.


While I might agree or disgaree with a lot you said one is false.

Louis fought past his prime because he was forced to , he was out of money.
Ali fought because he wanted to, not because he was forced to. There is a big difference between jumping to the sea out of your freewill and being pushed into it IMO.

Comparing Walcott to Leon Spinks is a bit clumsy IMO. Walcott is easily top 25 heavy, Leon is hardly top 75.

And to be fair, Louis's technique and style was more suited to ageing than Ali's was. Both were greats, which was showed by their wins against good opponents even when they were past prime.

bojangles1987
11-29-2011, 03:19 PM
Ali ranks above Louis for me, H2H and P4P. Head to Head I don't think there is anyone I'd pick to beat Ali 2 out of 3 or 6 out of 10, the man was just too good.

H2H Louis presents obvious problems, and was probably the best offensive fighter to ever walk the planet, but I just see Ali blunting that attack enough while very effectively using his own offense to win the fight. The athleticism would be too much, as it often was for everyone Ali fought.

bojangles1987
11-29-2011, 03:26 PM
I had a feeling the usual 'bum of the month' retort would arise in your response.

Either that or the good old 'Two Ton Tony Galento' argument.

Both, however, just stupid. Very very stupid.

Refer to Jab's post for a response to Bum of the month.

Sounds like a character out of a Tarantino movie.

Greatest1942
11-29-2011, 03:27 PM
Did he?

I'm pretty sure Ali beat more Top 10 guys than Louis.

If you go by distinct fighters it is Ali, if you by total number of fights its Louis.

I think you used the distinct fighters figure, which is also logical, its then 32-5 Ali and 30-3 Louis.

If using fights only its 44-3 Louis , Ali 34-5.

IronDanHamza
11-29-2011, 03:36 PM
Sounds like a character out of a Tarantino movie.

:lol1: :lol1: It does.

Not a huge fan of Tarantino myself.

joseph5620
11-29-2011, 03:44 PM
While I might agree or disgaree with a lot you said one is false.

Louis fought past his prime because he was forced to , he was out of money.
Ali fought because he wanted to, not because he was forced to. There is a big difference between jumping to the sea out of your freewill and being pushed into it IMO.

Comparing Walcott to Leon Spinks is a bit clumsy IMO. Walcott is easily top 25 heavy, Leon is hardly top 75.

And to be fair, Louis's technique and style was more suited to ageing than Ali's was. Both were greats, which was showed by their wins against good opponents even when they were past prime.

What does that have to do with how they rank? How is it any different? It's irrelevant. And you don't truly know whether Ali needed the money or not so you shouldn't even speak on that. Money is a big reason for why any fighters continue to fight and if you think not you're naive.



If you don't believe me maybe Ali's words will convince you. 8:29 of the video.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HM84biq0zF4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

joseph5620
11-29-2011, 03:58 PM
Louis has the second best resume at HW of all time, questioning his resume is outright stupid.



Actually Ali jabbed to the body and chest.



It's insane to say he wasn't that impressive after his hiatus, considering he beat ATG heavyweights and top contenders in his comeback, arguably the most impressive wins of his career.



It doesn't damage his resume since he was far past his prime, he deserved the win over Shavers for sure anyway and the Young and Norton fights were close fights against good fighters.

You won't mention the Walcott fight for Louis?



Yet you don't mention anything about Louis' career past his prime?

That stuff becomes irrelevant when your past prime and he only really took unnecessary punishment when he was fully washed up.



Still no mention for Louis who did exactly the same thing, I don't see how it effects either fighters greatness anyway.



Yet he beat ATG heavyweights when his athletic abilities and gifts deteriorated. Wow you are a genius!



There isn't a right or wrong way to box, every gym you go to trainers teach different things, the only things that matter are effectiveness and what Ali did worked for him even when his gifts and athleticism deteriorated he was still able to beat ATG heavyweights and top contenders so your point is void.

Yeah I notice how that is always ignored by many as if a jab is not a punch. Ali actually went to the body a lot in this fight.



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VQMvgueW8v4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Greatest1942
11-29-2011, 04:13 PM
What does that have to do with how they rank? How is it any different? It's irrelevant. And you don't truly know whether Ali needed the money or not so you shouldn't even speak on that. Money is a big reason for why any fighters continue to fight and if you think not you're naive.



If you don't believe me maybe Ali's words will convince you. 8:29 of the video.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HM84biq0zF4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


LOL I don't rate Ali or Louis higher because of either of it. I was responding to someone.

And about Ali I saw that interview, but I will still say whatever were the problems it wasn't never as much as Louis who was more or less compelled to fight...


To make my case simple I might have $100 of which the IRS claims $90...I might have $100 and want $110...both are me wanting money true, but the situation is different.

Joseph one last word, don't take this personally, but you really need to start reading, posts a bit more thoroughly.

joseph5620
11-29-2011, 04:21 PM
LOL I don't rate Ali or Louis higher because of either of it. I was responding to someone.

And about Ali I saw that interview, but I will still say whatever were the problems it wasn't never as much as Louis who was more or less compelled to fight...


To make my case simple I might have $100 of which the IRS claims $90...I might have $100 and want $110...both are me wanting money true, but the situation is different.

Joseph one last word, don't take this personally, but you really need to start reading, posts a bit more thoroughly.[QUOTE]







I don't take anything here personally and I read what you said thoroughly. You responded to a post that made a point about how both looked bad when they were past prime. This was your response:





[QUOTE=Greatest1942;11489870]Louis fought past his prime because he was forced to , he was out of money.
Ali fought because he wanted to, not because he was forced to. There is a big difference between jumping to the sea out of your freewill and being pushed into it IMO.






Also, the thread title is "who ranks higher and why?" That is the topic.

Tiozzo
11-29-2011, 04:22 PM
The bum of the month club does not encompass Joe's entire resume, but that of 13 months, and is a totally misleading nickname given by a newspaper writer.

Despite its derogatory nickname, most of the group were top-ten heavyweights. Of the twelve fighters Louis faced during this period, five were rated by The Ring as top-ten heavyweights in the year they fought Louis: Galento (overall #2 heavyweight in 1939), Bob Pastor (#3, 1939), Godoy (#3, 1940), Simon (#6, 1941), and Baer (#8, 1941); four others (Musto, Dorazio, Burman, and Johnny Paycheck) were ranked in the top ten in a different year.

How many heavyweight champions have fought 5 top 10 ranked fighters in 1 year?

good post, I'm happy to learn what it is about

I don't know that much about Louis career, that's why I didn't really break it down

Tiozzo
11-29-2011, 04:51 PM
Louis has the second best resume at HW of all time, questioning his resume is outright stupid.

well I do admit I don't know much about his career, but I was pretty sure Ali had a better resume, but I agree on the correction about this, I was wrong

Actually Ali jabbed to the body and chest.

oh did he ? big deal, what about throwing some power punches, hooks and uppercutts, or even a straight right hand to the body following that jab, you can say what you want, my point stands here, he was a head hunter, and on the very rare occasions I saw him throw a power punch to the body, he got countered upstairs and looked stupid

how can you be the greatest when you're a head hunter, as successful as you might be ? body punching is so ****in damn important


It's insane to say he wasn't that impressive after his hiatus, considering he beat ATG heavyweights and top contenders in his comeback, arguably the most impressive wins of his career.

I disagree. He came back and struggled against Bonavena. He looked like utter sh*t, and he was fighting FLAT FOOTED. Then Frazier beat him senseless. Then he rematched 3 fighters he had already beaten before. He just wasn't the same fighter anymore after the hiatus. Yes, he did beat many greats, but he wasn't beating them impressively, and his great chin was a big factor in all those wins. Lying on the ropes and waiting for your opponent to empty the tank isn't the stuff the greatest would do IMO. Also Norton broke his jaw and his win streak before he regained the championship.


It doesn't damage his resume since he was far past his prime, he deserved the win over Shavers for sure anyway and the Young and Norton fights were close fights against good fighters.

Shavers was close indeed, but Young and Norton III were not.

You won't mention the Walcott fight for Louis?

I thought it was unecessary since everybody know Walcott got robbed in their first encounter.

Yet you don't mention anything about Louis' career past his prime?

I don't know enough. Retiring as champion after 25 consecutive defenses is already legendary stuff. Then he came back, and he got beat only by the very best, Charles and Marciano, while getting at least a couple of decent wins (I don't know all the fighters he faced during his comeback). But here is the thing : Louis never disgraced himself in the ring like Ali did VS Young, Holmes, Berbick and Spinks I. That's when you really see the difference between a fighter with fundamentals and textbook skills like Louis and a man who relied on speed and athleticism, Ali that is. A good modern comparison would be Hopkins and Jones.

That stuff becomes irrelevant when your past prime and he only really took unnecessary punishment when he was fully washed up.

are you sure ? why is it then that experts usually say that a fighter hurts his legacy when he fights on for too long and loses many fights, say like a Holyfield ?

Ali was washed up after the thrilla in Manila, he fought 5 more years as a shadow of his former self, Frazier III ruined him

Still no mention for Louis who did exactly the same thing, I don't see how it effects either fighters greatness anyway.



Yet he beat ATG heavyweights when his athletic abilities and gifts deteriorated. Wow you are a genius!

I have addressed these above

There isn't a right or wrong way to box, every gym you go to trainers teach different things, the only things that matter are effectiveness and what Ali did worked for him even when his gifts and athleticism deteriorated he was still able to beat ATG heavyweights and top contenders so your point is void.

I have also addressed this above

Barn
11-29-2011, 05:38 PM
Most of the guys Louis beat were also in the top 10. Infact he beat more top 10 guys than Ali.

If however you are trying to say top 10 of all time, okay.

I have Louis and if anyone has Ali its fine with me.
Yeah but, Ali beat them at a higher percentage ie: more consistently.

Also I would argue the overall level of contenders was a little bit higher for Ali's era also.

The thing Louis lacks for me is a signature win, there's no Foreman, Frazier, Liston on there.

Barn
11-29-2011, 05:41 PM
What does that have to do with how they rank? How is it any different? It's irrelevant. And you don't truly know whether Ali needed the money or not so you shouldn't even speak on that. Money is a big reason for why any fighters continue to fight and if you think not you're naive.



If you don't believe me maybe Ali's words will convince you. 8:29 of the video.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HM84biq0zF4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
"You need me more than I need you."
"Well it's entirely erm........ probable."

:lol1:

joseph5620
11-29-2011, 05:45 PM
well I do admit I don't know much about his career, but I was pretty sure Ali had a better resume, but I agree on the correction about this, I was wrong



oh did he ? big deal, what about throwing some power punches, hooks and uppercutts, or even a straight right hand to the body following that jab, you can say what you want, my point stands here, he was a head hunter, and on the very rare occasions I saw him throw a power punch to the body, he got countered upstairs and looked stupid

how can you be the greatest when you're a head hunter, as successful as you might be ? body punching is so ****in damn important




I disagree. He came back and struggled against Bonavena. He looked like utter sh*t, and he was fighting FLAT FOOTED. Then Frazier beat him senseless. Then he rematched 3 fighters he had already beaten before. He just wasn't the same fighter anymore after the hiatus. Yes, he did beat many greats, but he wasn't beating them impressively, and his great chin was a big factor in all those wins. Lying on the ropes and waiting for your opponent to empty the tank isn't the stuff the greatest would do IMO. Also Norton broke his jaw and his win streak before he regained the championship.




Shavers was close indeed, but Young and Norton III were not.



I thought it was unecessary since everybody know Walcott got robbed in their first encounter.



I don't know enough. Retiring as champion after 25 consecutive defenses is already legendary stuff. Then he came back, and he got beat only by the very best, Charles and Marciano, while getting at least a couple of decent wins (I don't know all the fighters he faced during his comeback). But here is the thing : Louis never disgraced himself in the ring like Ali did VS Young, Holmes, Berbick and Spinks I. That's when you really see the difference between a fighter with fundamentals and textbook skills like Louis and a man who relied on speed and athleticism, Ali that is. A good modern comparison would be Hopkins and Jones.



are you sure ? why is it then that experts usually say that a fighter hurts his legacy when he fights on for too long and loses many fights, say like a Holyfield ?

Ali was washed up after the thrilla in Manila, he fought 5 more years as a shadow of his former self, Frazier III ruined him



I have addressed these above



I have also addressed this above

By beating the best fighters. It's that simple. Your comments about "head hunting" are just stupid. Bonevena was a tough fighter who knocked Frazier down twice. Ali was the only fighter to stop him and it was after a long layoff. If you don't think Ali's wins over Foreman and Frazier were impressive than you don't know what you're talking about, plain and simple.



Also, Foreman threw every punch in the book at Ali's body. Ali focused on Foreman's head. How did that fight turn out?

Sugarj
11-29-2011, 05:52 PM
Floyd was excellent but he never threw each punch with as much correctness as Louis did.

His right hand was simply not as short nor as technically correct as Louis's was...


I agree regarding the right.

Technically, Patterson's guard (particularly the higher left hand), head movement and footwork were a touch ahead for me. There were so many things he did so artistically well, hooking off the jab for example.

On the combination punching front its such a tough call. We know that Patterson had the edge in handspeed (not that its relevant in a technical sense). But I don't know.....its close. Louis's short punches have the edge.

I think Patterson is very much up there though technically. If I was training youngsters interested in an amateur boxing career/hobbie!?! ha ha, I think I'd push more towards them studying Patterson.

But just to make my stance firm, Louis was by far the better heavyweight.

Sugarj
11-29-2011, 06:00 PM
Did he?

I'm pretty sure Ali beat more Top 10 guys than Louis.


Its just that the top 10 in Louis's day wasn't quite as good as the top 10 in Ali's day.

Louis certainly didn't duck anyone, his contenders were the best out there at the time.

Its just that if you take a snapshot of the top ten in many years between 1966 and 1977 there were so many superb heavyweights:

Ali
Quarry
Chuvalo
Patterson
Ellis
Frazier
Liston
Foreman
Bonavena
Norton
Young
Holmes
Lyle
Shavers

Many of these guys would give Louis a damn good fight.

Barn
11-29-2011, 06:07 PM
Its just that the top 10 in Louis's day wasn't quite as good as the top 10 in Ali's day.

Louis certainly didn't duck anyone, his contenders were the best out there at the time.

Its just that if you take a snapshot of the top ten in many years between 1966 and 1977 there were so many superb heavyweights:

Ali
Quarry
Chuvalo
Patterson
Ellis
Frazier
Liston
Foreman
Bonavena
Norton
Young
Holmes
Lyle
Shavers

Many of these guys would give Louis a damn good fight.
I could actually see Liston beating Louis.

Not the Ali version of course but, the Williams version could cause ****loads of problems.

However apart from that I see no problems there to be honest. Sure there would be hard fights with them but, nothing Louis cannot handle in my opinion.

Sugarj
11-29-2011, 06:30 PM
I could actually see Liston beating Louis.

Not the Ali version of course but, the Williams version could cause ****loads of problems.

However apart from that I see no problems there to be honest. Sure there would be hard fights with them but, nothing Louis cannot handle in my opinion.


Right there bud, my post was only in response to IronDanHamza who felt that Louis didn't beat as many top ten guys as Ali.

Louis of course cleaned out the heavyweight top ten of his day.

I just felt that it was important to see how much stronger the top ten of the late 60s/70s was than in Louis's day. Not that it was Louis's fault, he'd face anyone........

As for the best 60s/70s heavyweights. I'd give excellent chances of victory to the following fighters (in their primes) over Louis:

Ali
Liston
Foreman
Holmes

Although I wouldn't bet on any of these fights!!

Many of the other guys would have a chance too. Frazier was so good over 15 rounds, if Louis didn't stop him early?

Shavers and Lyle hit like freight trains, if Louis thought Schmelling's right was heavy.......

But granted, Louis deserves to be ranked higher.

Barn
11-29-2011, 06:44 PM
Right there bud, my post was only in response to IronDanHamza who felt that Louis didn't beat as many top ten guys as Ali.

Louis of course cleaned out the heavyweight top ten of his day.

I just felt that it was important to see how much stronger the top ten of the late 60s/70s was than in Louis's day. Not that it was Louis's fault, he'd face anyone........

As for the best 60s/70s heavyweights. I'd give excellent chances of victory to the following fighters (in their primes) over Louis:

Ali
Liston
Foreman
Holmes

Although I wouldn't bet on any of these fights!!

Many of the other guys would have a chance too. Frazier was so good over 15 rounds, if Louis didn't stop him early?

Shavers and Lyle hit like freight trains, if Louis thought Schmelling's right was heavy.......

But granted, Louis deserves to be ranked higher.
I don't see Holmes or Foreman being as big a problem stylistically but, that's just my own personal opinion.

joseph5620
11-29-2011, 06:49 PM
I could actually see Liston beating Louis.

Not the Ali version of course but, the Williams version could cause ****loads of problems.

However apart from that I see no problems there to be honest. Sure there would be hard fights with them but, nothing Louis cannot handle in my opinion.

I could too. Liston's Jab, Power,and chin would have caused major problems for Louis IMO. I wish they came along in the same era. The two actually became good friends after Louis retired.

The Surgeon
11-29-2011, 06:57 PM
I could too. Liston's Jab, Power,and chin would have caused major problems for Louis IMO. I wish they came along in the same era. The two actually became good friends after Louis retired.

I read a Great article on the pair's friendship, i'll try and look it out when i get the chance actually as its worth posting.

Barn
11-29-2011, 06:57 PM
I could too. Liston's Jab, Power,and chin would have caused major problems for Louis IMO. I wish they came along in the same era. The two actually became good friends after Louis retired.
I didn't know that, thanks.

I think most fellow pro's liked Liston and sometimes I wish I was around to be a fan back in the day.

I would like to think I would have met him as he came off the plane with the belt.

Tiozzo
11-29-2011, 06:58 PM
By beating the best fighters. It's that simple. Your comments about "head hunting" are just stupid. Bonevena was a tough fighter who knocked Frazier down twice. Ali was the only fighter to stop him and it was after a long layoff. If you don't think Ali's wins over Foreman and Frazier were impressive than you don't know what you're talking about, plain and simple.



Also, Foreman threw every punch in the book at Ali's body. Ali focused on Foreman's head. How did that fights turn out?

it's not stupid

you think it's stupid, there is a difference

and your argument about Foreman-Ali is lame, very lame

Foreman fought stupid, he threw everything he had because he thought he could be macho and destroy Ali since he was standing right in front of him, and of course he probably was forced to go to the body more than he wanted to because of the famous rope a dope

here goes your lame argument

and during his career, Ali took a big part of his punishment to the body

Norton worked that body, Frazier worked that body, and they both beat Ali

there's nothing quite as beautiful and effective in boxing as a crushing punch to the body

going to the body is crucial, you people trying to dismiss that is a bad joke really

joseph5620
11-29-2011, 07:14 PM
it's not stupid

you think it's stupid, there is a difference

and your argument about Foreman-Ali is lame, very lame

Foreman fought stupid, he threw everything he had because he thought he could be macho and destroy Ali since he was standing right in front of him, and of course he probably was forced to go to the body more than he wanted to because of the famous rope a dope

here goes your lame argument

and during his career, Ali took a big part of his punishment to the body

Norton worked that body, Frazier worked that body, and they both beat Ali

there's nothing quite as beautiful and effective in boxing as a crushing punch to the body

going to the body is crucial, you people trying to dismiss that is a bad joke really

Exactly my point. Foreman "was forced" because Ali outsmarted him with a superior strategy. And don't start making lame excuses about how Foreman fought because it worked for him in 40 straight fights and he was favored to win. He wasn't going to outbox Ali and he fought in the way that he always fought. Pure aggression. Foreman's body punches didn't work out for him against Ali. Ali's head shots did work which destroys your theory, that body punches are the end all and be all of greatness.


Different fighters use different strategies. But the only one that matters are the one's that work. And Ali's worked for him. Yeah Norton and Frazier worked the body but they also lost fights to Ali too. So don't pretend that Ali never beat them. In fight 3 with Frazier it was Ali who came on late to stop Frazier. Not the other way around. And Frazier hammered Ali's body a lot in that fight. Even if you believe Ali lost the third fight to Norton he did beat him in fight two and he didn't do it with body punches.


Body punches are great but when ranking a fighters greatness it should be based on his results. Not your subjective view on what type of punches you think he should have used more.

joseph5620
11-29-2011, 07:25 PM
I read a Great article on the pair's friendship, i'll try and look it out when i get the chance actually as its worth posting.

Yeah, before Liston's fight with Ali, Louis was behind Liston and Sugar Ray Robinson backed Ali. There is a point in the press conference where Ali goes through his poems and Liston laughs and Joe Louis whispers something in Liton's ear and Listons cracks up which is really something rare to see with Liston. I'll try to find it.

Tiozzo
11-29-2011, 07:32 PM
Exactly my point. Foreman "was forced" because Ali outsmarted him with a superior strategy. And don't start making lame excuses about how Foreman fought because it worked for him in 40 straight fights and he was favored to win. He wasn't going to outbox Ali and he fought in the way that he always fought. Pure aggression. Foreman's body punches didn't work out for him against Ali. Ali's head shots did work which destroys your theory, that body punches are the end all and be all of greatness.


Different fighters use different strategies. But the only one that matters are the one's that work. And Ali's worked for him. Yeah Norton and Frazier worked the body but they also lost fights to Ali too. So don't pretend that Ali never beat them. In fight 3 with Frazier it was Ali who came on late to stop Frazier. Not the other way around. And Frazier hammered Ali's body a lot in that fight. Even if you believe Ali lost the third fight to Norton he did beat him in fight two and he didn't do it with body punches.


Body punches are great but when ranking a fighters greatnes it should be based on his results. Not your subjective view on what type of punches you think he should have used more.


:lol1: I never said that, you're being silly

Sugarj
11-29-2011, 07:33 PM
I don't see Holmes or Foreman being as big a problem stylistically but, that's just my own personal opinion.

With Foreman, it wouldn't really be a stylistic issue. Its simply because prime George hits that hard and has height, reach, weight advantages and is so dangerous in the early rounds. Louis was not that elusive, he would take some frightening shots. Granted Louis might well recover from the storm and catch a tired fading Foreman late, but I wouldn't bet on the match.

With Holmes it would be a stylistic issue. Louis didn't ever look good against movers and against Holmes he'd have to deal with a guy with a telescopic reach as well as other physical advantages. Holmes would be a tougher task than Farr, Conn or Walcott. Louis again might well catch Holmes down the stretch, but its a very tough call. Holmes was a tough sod to knock out and I could see him taking quite an early points lead. Again, not a fight I'd bet on.

In a series of fights I could see these guys each taking wins over Louis.

joseph5620
11-29-2011, 07:34 PM
:lol1: I never said that, you're being silly

Translation: "I have no counter point."



And yes you did say that.




how can you be the greatest when you're a head hunter, as successful as you might be ? body punching is so ****in damn important


Don't embarrass yourself by denying what everybody can read.

Barn
11-29-2011, 07:46 PM
With Foreman, it wouldn't really be a stylistic issue. Its simply because prime George hits that hard and has height, reach, weight advantages and is so dangerous in the early rounds. Louis was not that elusive, he would take some frightening shots. Granted Louis might well recover from the storm and catch a tired fading Foreman late, but I wouldn't bet on the match.

With Holmes it would be a stylistic issue. Louis didn't ever look good against movers and against Holmes he'd have to deal with a guy with a telescopic reach as well as other physical advantages. Holmes would be a tougher task than Farr, Conn or Walcott. Louis again might well catch Holmes down the stretch, but its a very tough call. Holmes was a tough sod to knock out and I could see him taking quite an early points lead. Again, not a fight I'd bet on.

In a series of fights I could see these guys each taking wins over Louis.
George doesn't have the defence to stop him walking into Louis' accurate power shots in my opinion.

bojangles1987
11-29-2011, 07:51 PM
With Foreman, it wouldn't really be a stylistic issue. Its simply because prime George hits that hard and has height, reach, weight advantages and is so dangerous in the early rounds. Louis was not that elusive, he would take some frightening shots. Granted Louis might well recover from the storm and catch a tired fading Foreman late, but I wouldn't bet on the match.

With Holmes it would be a stylistic issue. Louis didn't ever look good against movers and against Holmes he'd have to deal with a guy with a telescopic reach as well as other physical advantages. Holmes would be a tougher task than Farr, Conn or Walcott. Louis again might well catch Holmes down the stretch, but its a very tough call. Holmes was a tough sod to knock out and I could see him taking quite an early points lead. Again, not a fight I'd bet on.

In a series of fights I could see these guys each taking wins over Louis.

Louis-Foreman would have to end early. I don't think either could weather an early storm by the other, not with the way they fight.

Tiozzo
11-29-2011, 08:22 PM
Translation: "I have no counter point."



And yes you did say that.







Don't embarrass yourself by denying what everybody can read.

don't flatter yourself

I never said ''body punches are the end all and be all of greatness'', stop lying and misinterpreting what I've said.

and you came back with your lame argument trying to convince me that head punches are better than body punches (which was never my point) because Ali knocked George out :rofl: there is not much to counter here for it's ridiculous

All I'm doing is comparing Ali's style and technique to the one of Louis. When I rank them I don't solely look at their resume. I believe that Louis is a more complete fighter, and being a complete fighter requests boxing basics first, and body punching is basic.

Name me a head hunter who is considered to be the greatest of his weight class apart from Ali. You see what I'm talking about now ?...

Pep 126 ? Arguello 130 ? Duran 135 ? Chavez 140 ? Robinson 147 ? McCallum 154 ? Hagler 160 ? Calzaghe 168 ? Charles 175 ? Holyfield 190 ?

You see... these guys were all commited body punchers AMONG OTHER THINGS. It was part of their arsenal, as it should be.

Yes : I believe lack of body punching is a big defect, and it is a factor in my assessment of Ali's ranking AMONG OTHER THINGS.

joseph5620
11-29-2011, 08:31 PM
don't flatter yourself

I never said ''body punches are the end all and be all of greatness'', stop lying and misinterpreting what I've said.

and you came back with your lame argument trying to convince me that head punches are better than body punches (whkich was never my point) because Ali knocked George out :rofl: there is not much to counter here for it's ridiculous

All I'm doing is comparing Ali's style and technique to the one of Louis. When I rank them I don't solely look at their resume. I believe that Louis is a more complete fighter, and being a complete fighter requests boxing basics first, and body punching is basic.

Name me a head hunter who is considered to be the greatest of his weight class apart from Ali. You see what I'm talking about now ?...

Pep 126 ? Arguello 130 ? Duran 135 ? Chavez 140 ? Robinson 147 ? McCallum 154 ? Hagler 160 ? Calzaghe 168 ? Charles 175 ? Holyfield 190 ?

You see... these guys were all commited body punchers AMONG OTHER THINGS. It was part of their arsenal, as it should be.

Yes : I believe lack of body punching is a big defect, and it is a factor in my assessment of Ali's ranking AMONG OTHER THINGS.


You said "How can Ali be considered the greatest" by head hunting without body punches. Nothing else needs to said about that. End of story. Everybody can read it so the only one lying is you. I never said "head punches were better than body punches" I said it worked for Ali who had the superior strategy against Foreman. You have no counter point to that other than to call it "lame" and lie about what I said. Show everybody where I said "head punches are better". When you can't, we'll see who the liar is.


It's already been established that Ali did work the body primarily with his jab. And whether you like it or not a jab is a punch that can be used as a weapon in the ring. Deal with it.





And you keep contadicting yourself. You say you don't use body punches as the end all and be all of greatness but you keep using it. You're not fooling me with that BS.


And you've already convinced me(and probably others) how ignorant you are by claiming Ali was not impressive in his comeback by saying "so what" to everything he did. You admitted you knew little about Louis. Time to admit you know next to nothing about Ali either. Ali just laid on the ropes and waited for Foreman to get tired huh? LOL

NChristo
11-29-2011, 09:21 PM
I read a Great article on the pair's friendship, i'll try and look it out when i get the chance actually as its worth posting.

I've got a whole load of pictures of them together and knew they were friends, read a little bit about them in a book I can't remember but not an article, would be interested :).

Tiozzo
11-29-2011, 10:32 PM
You said "How can Ali be considered the greatest" by head hunting without body punches. Nothing else needs to said about that. End of story. Everybody can read it so the only one lying is you. I never said "head punches were better than body punches" I said it worked for Ali who had the superior strategy against Foreman. You have no counter point to that other than to call it "lame" and lie about what I said. Show everybody where I said "head punches are better". When you can't, we'll see who the liar is.


It's already been established that Ali did work the body primarily with his jab. And whether you like it or not a jab is a punch that can be used as a weapon in the ring. Deal with it.





And you keep contadicting yourself. You say you don't use body punches as the end all and be all of greatness but you keep using it. You're not fooling me with that BS.


And you've already convinced me(and probably others) how ignorant you are by claiming Ali was not impressive in his comeback by saying "so what" to everything he did. You admitted you knew little about Louis. Time to admit you know next to nothing about Ali either. Ali just laid on the ropes and waited for Foreman to get tired huh? LOL

you're stubborn and you duck my arguments, I'm done here

joseph5620
11-29-2011, 11:29 PM
you're stubborn and you duck my arguments, I'm done here










:wave: Come back again soon.

Sugarj
11-30-2011, 05:42 AM
George doesn't have the defence to stop him walking into Louis' accurate power shots in my opinion.


Your right, George would ship some heavy leather. They both would........but I'd wager that Foreman's chin was a touch better. If Louis made it past rounds five or six, he'd probably win, but for five rounds or so it'd be very tough for Louis.

I don't think Louis was ever hit by punches as hard as Foreman's. Baer would have had a shot, but let let so few rights loose when they met. As concussive as Schmelling, Walcott and Marciano were, I think Foreman's power would be an issue.

Sugarj
11-30-2011, 05:45 AM
Louis-Foreman would have to end early. I don't think either could weather an early storm by the other, not with the way they fight.



I think it would have to be Foreman early or Louis late.

Foreman's chin was too good and he was too strong to be knocked out early. I don't think there is a man in history who could knock out prime Foreman in under five rounds.

SBleeder
11-30-2011, 07:44 AM
I think it would have to be Foreman early or Louis late.

Foreman's chin was too good and he was too strong to be knocked out early. I don't think there is a man in history who could knock out prime Foreman in under five rounds.

Sonny could have. And I think Louis could too, but that's about it.

Barn
11-30-2011, 07:44 AM
I think it would have to be Foreman early or Louis late.

Foreman's chin was too good and he was too strong to be knocked out early. I don't think there is a man in history who could knock out prime Foreman in under five rounds.
I see Louis middle as a very probable outcome and the most likely.

Louis would likely get dropped just by being knocked of balance as he adjusts to Foremans power.

Greatest1942
12-01-2011, 04:21 PM
[QUOTE=Greatest1942;11490092]LOL I don't rate Ali or Louis higher because of either of it. I was responding to someone.

And about Ali I saw that interview, but I will still say whatever were the problems it wasn't never as much as Louis who was more or less compelled to fight...


To make my case simple I might have $100 of which the IRS claims $90...I might have $100 and want $110...both are me wanting money true, but the situation is different.

Joseph one last word, don't take this personally, but you really need to start reading, posts a bit more thoroughly.[QUOTE]







I don't take anything here personally and I read what you said thoroughly. You responded to a post that made a point about how both looked bad when they were past prime. This was your response:












Also, the thread title is "who ranks higher and why?" That is the topic.

I was simply answering someone.

to clarify H2h at age 37, I will favour Louis, because I believe his style suited old age better, but it does not have any implications on my rankings...even if I believed that louis will Ko ali in 1 , it would have little bearing in ranking them.

I hope you understand.

Greatest1942
12-01-2011, 04:27 PM
George doesn't have the defence to stop him walking into Louis' accurate power shots in my opinion.

One thing that might bother George seriosuly was Louis's jab, which was very accurate and powerful.

Secondly I do think his wide punches were open to be countered by Louis who had very fast hands and was a precision counter puncher.

I see Louis stopping George in the mid rounds as he tired.

As for Louis- Liston I favour Louis again , but Liston will be tough. Tougher than Foreman. But I will still favour Louis to win it.

BTW funnily Louis once pulled Liston by the ears, to a photoshoot.

Terry A
12-01-2011, 06:01 PM
I rank Ali higher, but this is like a 1 and 1A proposition. I wouldn't argue with either one as the top choice.

I have Ali ranked 1 & Joe Louis ranked 2 in the all-time heavyweight list. But I wouldn't argue too strong if someone had Joe Louis as #1.

What sealed the deal for me was that Ali beat more better quality fighters than Joe did. Ali had the fortune to be born in an all-time great era for heavyweights. Ali's resume on who he beat is second to no other heavyweight champs.

And in a head to head match up, I can't help but remember how much trouble a little boxer like Billy Conn gave Louis. Image what a bigger, stronger, faster version of that would do to Joe Louis......

Greatest1942
12-01-2011, 06:12 PM
I have Ali ranked 1 & Joe Louis ranked 2 in the all-time heavyweight list. But I wouldn't argue too strong if someone had Joe Louis as #1.

What sealed the deal for me was that Ali beat more better quality fighters than Joe did. Ali had the fortune to be born in an all-time great era for heavyweights. Ali's resume on who he beat is second to no other heavyweight champs.

And in a head to head match up, I can't help but remember how much trouble a little boxer like Billy Conn gave Louis. Image what a bigger, stronger, faster version of that would do to Joe Louis......

Terry this kind of logic is fun...The bigger the guy was the easier it was for Louis...sometimes smaller faster boxer will trouble you more.

I can also say that "Look what a small guy like Cooper did to ali, he almost knocked him out,imagine what can the #1 puncher of all time do".

Both these arguments are silly IMO.

Terry A
12-05-2011, 12:20 AM
Terry this kind of logic is fun...The bigger the guy was the easier it was for Louis...sometimes smaller faster boxer will trouble you more.

I can also say that "Look what a small guy like Cooper did to ali, he almost knocked him out,imagine what can the #1 puncher of all time do".

Both these arguments are silly IMO.

You make a very valid point using my logic in reverse re: Henry Cooper.

Still, if I ever debate anyone outside this forum, I'll pretend that I don't remember Ol' "Enry knocking Clay down and stick to my "Look what Billy Conn did against Louis" routine. :D

It is fun!

Greatest1942
12-05-2011, 05:02 PM
You make a very valid point using my logic in reverse re: Henry Cooper.

Still, if I ever debate anyone outside this forum, I'll pretend that I don't remember Ol' "Enry knocking Clay down and stick to my "Look what Billy Conn did against Louis" routine. :D

It is fun!

LOL, I understand...cheers mate.

pwilky
12-07-2011, 02:42 PM
I think the simple answer to this is that Joe Louis beats Muhammad Ali every time...

Whether he beats Cassius Clay is another question!

Sugarj
12-07-2011, 04:41 PM
I think the simple answer to this is that Joe Louis beats Muhammad Ali every time...

Whether he beats Cassius Clay is another question!


Most observers would be of the opinion that 'The Greatest' was in his prime in late 66/67.......when he was very much Muhammed Ali.