Ali or Louis. Wh

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by GoogleMe

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]

Originally Posted by IronDanHamza

Please, elaborate.

bum of the month club ?...

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by Tiozzo

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]

Originally Posted by Tiozzo

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]

Originally Posted by Tiozzo

oh really ? how so ?

please break it down for us master

Thank you, come again.

[IronDanHamza]

Originally Posted by Tiozzo

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]

Originally Posted by JAB5239

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]

Originally Posted by Sugarj

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]

Originally Posted by Barnburner

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]

Originally Posted by Sugarj

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...