Interesting article from an old Ring magazine

[butterfly1964]

My reply was to that post which stated that Ali would be knocked out with one punch. First of all, Ali was never knocked out, period. Second, Ali was probably the hardest man to be hit with clean punch in his prime. We are talking about his prime 1964-67. Liston barely connected cleanly when Ali was blind. Liston had bettter reach than Louis and he was throwing bombs at Ali, and those few that connected didn't hurt Ali, even at that point we could see how good Ali's chin was. I'v seen films of Joe Louis and he looked slow on his feet to me, he was easily outboxed by Conn who was moving like Ali was in his prime. Ali was superior boxer to Conn. Watch Ali - Liston I, and Ali - Chuvalo I, and look how Ali actually blocks punches, slide his shoulder, and not just moving and pulling his head to avoid punches, and his reflexes were amazing. He had of course harder punch than Conn, and faster more accurate. Conn badly hurt Louis on few occassions, can you imagine what Ali would do.

Good post.

[hemichromis]

Schmeling made the list? Fleisher's an idiot!

jack johnson is nuimber one fleisher is indeed an idiot

ali was almost certainly the greatest in the ring and the greatest personality outside of it!

[Kid Achilles]

An idiot? Fleisher is one of the greatest historians of the sport and stuck up for black fighters throughout his career, promoting Johnso, Louis, Langford, etc. The guy was ****ing great, loved boxing maybe more than anyone in history, and well above people on this forum calling him an idiot because they disagree with his article.

Hell, If I were around, I would be skeptical about rating Ali in the top ten in the early 1970's myself. Ali's career is very impressive as a whole but up until that point he really did not beat anyone in their prime who could be considered a great heavyweight. Many of these opponents were thought to be average or below average and only after they finished their careers did we realize how good a guy like Quarry was in a historical sense. It should also be noted that Muhammad lost to his best opponent at the time, Frazier.

IMO Fleisher was correct. Ali had not proven himself to be a top ten heavyweight by the early 1970's. I can see why he'd be a little irritated that people were trying to hype Ali, who just lost his biggest fight.

As for Fleisher putting Schmeling in at the top ten: Schmeling's greatest win was over Joe Louis, and Frazier's greatest win was over Ali. If Frazier gets so much credit for beating Ali, why not give Schmeling credit for what he did to Louis? I don't agree with Schmeling in the top ten, but he's just under it and in 1970 (before Ali proved his greatness, before Holmes, Foreman Tyson, Lewis) he very well could have been a top ten heavyweight of all time.

You need to hop in your little imaginary time machines go back to early 1970 before you read this article. It's the only subjective way to do it.

[butterfly1964]

An idiot? Fleisher is one of the greatest historians of the sport and stuck up for black fighters throughout his career, promoting Johnso, Louis, Langford, etc. The guy was ****ing great, loved boxing maybe more than anyone in history, and well above people on this forum calling him an idiot because they disagree with his article.

Hell, If I were around, I would be skeptical about rating Ali in the top ten in the early 1970's myself. Ali's career is very impressive as a whole but up until that point he really did not beat anyone in their prime who could be considered a great heavyweight. Many of these opponents were thought to be average or below average and only after they finished their careers did we realize how good a guy like Quarry was in a historical sense. It should also be noted that Muhammad lost to his best opponent at the time, Frazier.

IMO Fleisher was correct. Ali had not proven himself to be a top ten heavyweight by the early 1970's. I can see why he'd be a little irritated that people were trying to hype Ali, who just lost his biggest fight.

As for Fleisher putting Schmeling in at the top ten: Schmeling's greatest win was over Joe Louis, and Frazier's greatest win was over Ali. If Frazier gets so much credit for beating Ali, why not give Schmeling credit for what he did to Louis? I don't agree with Schmeling in the top ten, but he's just under it and in 1970 (before Ali proved his greatness, before Holmes, Foreman Tyson, Lewis) he very well could have been a top ten heavyweight of all time.

You need to hop in your little imaginary time machines go back to early 1970 before you read this article. It's the only subjective way to do it.

i've always said if Schmeling gets credit for beating Louis, then Buster douglass should get just as much credit for beating Tyson.

[Kid Achilles]

Douglas caught Tyson when he was past his prime and visibly not in the best shape. Tyson noticeably wilted in that fight and apart from a decent uppercut late in the fight did not offer much.

Schmeling fought an incredible and tactical fight against a young and powerful Louis who was in good shape and was battling back in spite of everything Schmeling hit him with. I don't see the comparison at all.

[SABBATH]

Douglas caught Tyson when he was past his prime and visibly not in the best shape. Tyson noticeably wilted in that fight and apart from a decent uppercut late in the fight did not offer much.

Schmeling fought an incredible and tactical fight against a young and powerful Louis who was in good shape and was battling back in spite of everything Schmeling hit him with. I don't see the comparison at all.

Louis was 22 years old and was 27-0.

Tyson was 23 years old and was 37-0.

Louis and Tyson were huge betting favourites.

According to Louis going into the fight, he wasn't listening to his trainer Jack Blackburn and spent more time on the golf course and womanizing than he did training for Schmeling so since this has been brought up, I actually see a comparable situation.

[Kid Achilles]

Observe how the two guys fight and there's little similarity. Louis was hurt early, took a tremendous beating from a fantastic counterpunching with a lot of power, and still put up a hell of a fight. Tyson was just plain schooled and wasn't the same guy who unified the division in the mid to late eighties.

I'm not saying Schmeling beat Louis at his very best, but he was much closer to his best than Tyson was against Douglas.

[SABBATH]

Observe how the two guys fight and there's little similarity. Louis was hurt early, took a tremendous beating from a fantastic counterpunching with a lot of power, and still put up a hell of a fight. Tyson was just plain schooled and wasn't the same guy who unified the division in the mid to late eighties.

I'm not saying Schmeling beat Louis at his very best, but he was much closer to his best than Tyson was against Douglas.

There are many similarities as both Louis and Tyson were defeated by counterpunchers and Douglas wasn't the only guy doing the schooling. Louis was schooled by Schmeling who capitalized on Joe's tendancy to drop his left hand after jabbing leaving himself vulnerable to a right hand counter. It was the same technical flaw that Jack Johnson had noticed about Louis.

[Kid Achilles]

I know that, as well as anyone who's a fan of boxing history. It doesn't change the fact that Louis was closer to his prime than Tyson was. Similar age yes, but not in boxing years. Tyson was over the hill already, due largely to his own personal problems and the people who choose to surround himself with.

Yes Louis played a lot of golf while preparing for that fight and supposedly spent too much time in the sun as well, which Blackburn claimed left him drained, but watching that fight I don't see Louis looking radically different from himself early on as I do with Tyson. I think Schmeling beat Louis more than Douglas beat Tyson. That is, Tyson beat himself.

[butterfly1964]

Louis was 22 years old and was 27-0.

Tyson was 23 years old and was 37-0.

Louis and Tyson were huge betting favourites.

According to Louis going into the fight, he wasn't listening to his trainer Jack Blackburn and spent more time on the golf course and womanizing than he did training for Schmeling so since this has been brought up, I actually see a comparable situation.

I was about to say the same thing. I think Tyson was closer to his prime, because he had already peaked as a fighter. Louis had not reached his prime yet.

Both men were disinterested in the fight, and both suffered tremendous beatings. Louis' right jaw was swollen, and Tyson's left eye was completely shut. I would actually give Douglass more credit, because Schmeling only had one plan, to use the right hand when Louis dropped his left and that was enough to take it's toll. However, Douglass dominated Tyson in every phase of boxing. He was out fighting him, out thinking him, out moving him, and out punching him.