Louis's Resume Greater Than Ali's Resume Of Wins, Can It Be Justified?
Collapse
-
I won't try where Jab failed but to ask you a question. Please stay with me
When I watch George Chuvalo vs Ali , I see that the slow George (slower than a prime Louis anyway), getting to Ali and really getting to Ali with his body shots. Louis could not do the same? Or other ATG greats? Or do you believe that the damage they will do if they landed like George did will be the same?
When I see Eddie Futch's plan for Norton and read what Louis said about Ali it seems to be the same. When I see Louis parry Jabs I see he can do as Norton did.
To sum it up do you think Louis was not fast enough to do what George did or not skill full enough to do what Norton did (take him to the ropes parry his jab , jab with him etc).
Ali was fast but as I see it even in his prime (of speed) , guys like Chuvalo got to him and ****** his body. I don't see why Louis or other ATG greats could not do so too.
And I diifer about the resumes, I believe quality quantity wise Sugar Ray, Greb ,Sam have the better resumes.
Amongst heavy's as for the better record Louis has it. Better percentage against top 10 contenders, lesser losses , more Ko% etc. But I will agree that Ali fought better fighters like Foreman, Frazier Liston (top 10 heavys) etc.
I have no problem if you rank Ali at #1. Ali or Louis as #1 heavys is okay with me.
Remember, Ali never lost in his prime. His first lost came post-prime against an ATG fighter in Frazier and even then it was hardly emphatic: It was even on my card after 12 rounds and I believe at least one judge and maybe 2 had it the same.
KO% I don't put much stock in. In my mind it doesn't matter if the ref counts 10 or you win a lopsided decision.....a quality win is a quality win regardless of the particulars. If you win by KO then great! But if you win by decision that works just as well: It goes down as a W either way.
PoetComment
-
It depends on what you consider Ali's prime to be. I consider him past-prime for Foreman, Norton, and the second Chuvalo fight. In their first fight Chuvalo lost about as lopsided a decision you can get without it being a complete whitewash. I consider Ali's prime ending with his 3 year exhile: After that he had diminished reflexes (which I consider the primary idicator of a past-prime fighter) and foot-speed not to mention stamina. Norton MIGHT have given prime Ali some difficulty as his peculiar style was geared toward defusing slick boxers. The problem is Louis fought nothing like that and Norton's style came with it's own cost: It left him helpless against straight-ahead punchers. There is no way I could ever see Louis adopting that style of fighting even on a one-off basis.
Remember, Ali never lost in his prime. His first lost came post-prime against an ATG fighter in Frazier and even then it was hardly emphatic: It was even on my card after 12 rounds and I believe at least one judge and maybe 2 had it the same.
KO% I don't put much stock in. In my mind it doesn't matter if the ref counts 10 or you win a lopsided decision.....a quality win is a quality win regardless of the particulars. If you win by KO then great! But if you win by decision that works just as well: It goes down as a W either way.
Poet
You say Ali's prime was when he was in exile. But how much more faster could he have been?He never learnt anything more..any more conventional boxing skills...would he be much faster? But to drop this I will conclude with saying that its not fair to judge someone with what he could have become..since there are a host of fighters who could have become greater too potentially. Louis also wasted 4 years in the army. I sincerely think those were his prime years too( atleast the first part). Situtations were different albeit but the end result the same. I sincerely do not believe that Ali was so fast that he could not be touched, because even in his prime (about speed) he was touched by lesser fighters and hit frequently enough to make me suspect he will be so by ATG greats.
Yes Ali did not loose in his prime, but the Frazier fight by the end of the 15th round was quite clear cut against him. When Louis lost against Schmelling he was clearly not in his prime but stepping into it. He never lost again till he retired the first time. When Jack Dempsey was beaten by Gene Tunney he was past it and he was also not beaten when his prime started which many state started in 1918. Yes he was inactive but still fought over 15 fights. Rocky Marciano never lost. Period. Holmes never lost in his prime. I will put a brake and state that ATG greats generally don't lose in their primes. Ali was no exception.
No Louis never fought like Norton. But he did Parry jabs and counter a lot. While Norton just jabbed back, Louis might fire a right back. And in the ring 1967 (I may be wrong about the date), Louis wrote explicitly how he would handle Clay. Later when Futch revealed his plan they seemed quite similar (except the JAb part). Louis won't fight like Norton , but parrying and firing back is not Norton's style most old timers did that. The point being Louis had everything that was needed to trouble Ali, what Norton could do Louis did better.(essentially Futch put it best, when he said the jab was the problem which Ali never solved). I will say again although their styles were never the same Louis had what Norton had and in better quantity and quality(better parrying skills, better counter punching, better stamina, better punch power,by a wide margin and a technique).
I put a stock in KO%. Because there are some guys who if you don't put away early will trouble you later. And the later you get them the more trouble will you be in. And also a KO is a less disputed manner of settling a fight.It also proves the other guys dominance. KO a guy cold is a sure way of stamping your authority. Atleast you don't have to rely on judges. Ask marvin Hagler. Its important and much more emphatic way of er..settling a dispute. More Kudos deserved there IMO.Last edited by Greatest1942; 10-26-2010, 05:42 AM.Comment
-
Still in the second fight vs Chuvalo Ali got hammered in the ribs. While ranking heavy's you said speed was your most important criteria for favouring Ali. Good fighters fight better the second time around so naturally Chuvalo got hammered, he still got to Ali even the second time. Did Ali win vs Chuvalo the 2nd time because he was faster or because he fought a better fight? My point is simply that if George cann get to Ali so can Louis,Dempsey and a host of other ATG greats.
You say Ali's prime was when he was in exile. But how much more faster could he have been?He never learnt anything more..any more conventional boxing skills...would he be much faster? But to drop this I will conclude with saying that its not fair to judge someone with what he could have become..since there are a host of fighters who could have become greater too potentially. Louis also wasted 4 years in the army. I sincerely think those were his prime years too( atleast the first part). Situtations were different albeit but the end result the same. I sincerely do not believe that Ali was so fast that he could not be touched, because even in his prime (about speed) he was touched by lesser fighters and hit frequently enough to make me suspect he will be so by ATG greats.
Yes Ali did not loose in his prime, but the Frazier fight by the end of the 15th round was quite clear cut against him. When Louis lost against Schmelling he was clearly not in his prime but stepping into it. He never lost again till he retired the first time. When Jack Dempsey was beaten by Gene Tunney he was past it and he was also not beaten when his prime started which many state started in 1918. Yes he was inactive but still fought over 15 fights. Rocky Marciano never lost. Period. Holmes never lost in his prime. I will put a brake and state that ATG greats generally don't lose in their primes. Ali was no exception.
No Louis never fought like Norton. But he did Parry jabs and counter a lot. While Norton just jabbed back, Louis might fire a right back. And in the ring 1967 (I may be wrong about the date), Louis wrote explicitly how he would handle Clay. Later when Futch revealed his plan they seemed quite similar (except the JAb part). Louis won't fight like Norton , but parrying and firing back is not Norton's style most old timers did that. The point being Louis had everything that was needed to trouble Ali, what Norton could do Louis did better.(essentially Futch put it best, when he said the jab was the problem which Ali never solved). I will say again although their styles were never the same Louis had what Norton had and in better quantity and quality(better parrying skills, better counter punching, better stamina, better punch power,by a wide margin and a technique).
I put a stock in KO%. Because there are some guys who if you don't put away early will trouble you later. And the later you get them the more trouble will you be in. And also a KO is a less disputed manner of settling a fight.It also proves the other guys dominance. KO a guy cold is a sure way of stamping your authority. Atleast you don't have to rely on judges. Ask marvin Hagler. Its important and much more emphatic way of er..settling a dispute. More Kudos deserved there IMO.Comment
-
No it cant be justified.
All it shows is a complete lack of knowledge or Islamaphobia. Wins over Schmelling, Baer and Braddock are not comparable to wins over Foreman, Liston and Frazier.
As for head to head well Ali would school Louis in his prime. Even the faded Ali in 71 would no doubt beat Louis. The Ali after thrilla in manilla still has a good shot at beating Louis. The Ali after Shavers would probably get beat by Louis though.
Billy Conn who weighed in at 174lbs was winning the fight with Louis up until he was stopped in the 13th. Not saying you can compare Ali and Conn stylewise but it shows that Alis great footwork would enable him to outbox him. Ali has the jab of a welterweight and would be able to land it at will imo.
Louis's era was very poor compared to Alis. You put Ali, frazier, Foreman in that era and they would dominate it also. Its clear Ali is on a completely different level to anyone Louis ever fought. For Ali, Louis is not better than Foreman, Liston or Frazier.Comment
-
No it cant be justified.
All it shows is a complete lack of knowledge or Islamaphobia. Wins over Schmelling, Baer and Braddock are not comparable to wins over Foreman, Liston and Frazier.
As for head to head well Ali would school Louis in his prime. Even the faded Ali in 71 would no doubt beat Louis. The Ali after thrilla in manilla still has a good shot at beating Louis. The Ali after Shavers would probably get beat by Louis though.
Billy Conn who weighed in at 174lbs was winning the fight with Louis up until he was stopped in the 13th. Not saying you can compare Ali and Conn stylewise but it shows that Alis great footwork would enable him to outbox him. Ali has the jab of a welterweight and would be able to land it at will imo.
Louis's era was very poor compared to Alis. You put Ali, frazier, Foreman in that era and they would dominate it also. Its clear Ali is on a completely different level to anyone Louis ever fought. For Ali, Louis is not better than Foreman, Liston or Frazier.Comment
-
Comment
-
but now where using triangle theory's which hold absolutely no weight.Comment
-
Comment
-
Joe louis was not on Alis level ability wise either. People highlight the very few flaws Ali had but forget the ones that Louis had. Louis was knocked down by the likes of Cinderella man and Galento. Ali has a higher KO% than these guys against much better opposition. Billy Conn who came in under the LHW limit was able to outbox Louis before being stopped in the 13th.
Before anyone mentions cooper knocking Ali down, notice I didnt mention Louis getting KOed by Schmelling as both were green at those stages. Ali proved his chin later on when he took the best Foreman and Shavers had. His recovery ability is also shown by him getting up in Frazier 1.Comment
Comment