Joe Louis vs Muhammad Ali

[PEBBLES!]

I'm not one who falls under the Ali mystique. I've never been very impressed with his abilities, and have always felt Joe Louis displayed more skill, and Marciano displayed more determination. I dunno...the Frazier loss had a lot of impact on me. I think a hand full of fighters would have gotten Clay on that night. An ATG but not the ATG that's Joe....12 years mother ****er. C'mon.....

The Joe Frazier loss was a rusty version of Ali and not even the best post-ban version of Ali. If we're going to make mythical comparisons, let's atleast try to be as objective as possible. Why don't you reference a prime Ali who was at the peak of his powers in the mid to late 60's? Why not the physically fittest post-ban Ali (Ken Norton II)?

Should we use the version of Joe who was handily out-boxed by Charles' as an example? I'm sure that loss probably had an impact on many boxing fans, as did his KO loss to Schmeling.


You lost all credibility when you claimed I've never been very impressed with his abilities - Ali was a 6'3, 210+ pound heavyweight who moved like a lightweight, threw faster punches than most middleweights, possessed an iron jaw, and possibly the finest footwork in the heavyweight division. Never been very impressed? You are useless.

[Chief2ndzOnly!]

The Joe Frazier loss was a rusty version of Ali and not even the best post-ban version of Ali. If we're going to make mythical comparisons, let's atleast try to be as objective as possible. Why don't you reference a prime Ali who was at the peak of his powers in the mid to late 60's? Why not the physically fittest post-ban Ali (Ken Norton II)?

Should we use the version of Joe who was handily out-boxed by Charles' as an example? I'm sure that loss probably had an impact on many boxing fans, as did his KO loss to Schmeling.


You lost all credibility when you claimed I've never been very impressed with his abilities - Ali was a 6'3, 210+ pound heavyweight who moved like a lightweight, threw faster punches than most middleweights, possessed an iron jaw, and possibly the finest footwork in the heavyweight division. Never been very impressed? You are useless.

This^^^^. Not to mention the 82" wingspan, and he would have the height and reach advantage. It would not be an easy fight for Joe, just as it would not be an easy fight for Ali.

[StarshipTrooper]

The Joe Frazier loss was a rusty version of Ali and not even the best post-ban version of Ali. If we're going to make mythical comparisons, let's atleast try to be as objective as possible. Why don't you reference a prime Ali who was at the peak of his powers in the mid to late 60's? Why not the physically fittest post-ban Ali (Ken Norton II)?

Should we use the version of Joe who was handily out-boxed by Charles' as an example? I'm sure that loss probably had an impact on many boxing fans, as did his KO loss to Schmeling.


You lost all credibility when you claimed I've never been very impressed with his abilities - Ali was a 6'3, 210+ pound heavyweight who moved like a lightweight, threw faster punches than most middleweights, possessed an iron jaw, and possibly the finest footwork in the heavyweight division. Never been very impressed? You are useless.

While I happen to agree with you that post-exile Ali was no longer prime he was still good enough to beat most of the greats. Let's be fair here: Louis of the Charles fight was a lot closer to being done than Ali of the Frazier fight. Louis at the time of the Charles fight was a closer appoximation to the Ali of the Spinks fights. If you're going to make comparisons like that compare them at similar career stages. That being said, Ali of say 66-67 (his prime years) wins two out of three against a prime Louis. Louis can come close to matching Ali in handspeed which makes all the fights competitive but Ali's clear advantage in footspeed and his inhuman reflexes give him the overall edge. I don't see any Heavyweight in history being able to get the better of a prime Ali in a three fight series and bear in mind I'm not particularly fond of Ali while Louis is my all-time favorite fighter.

On a side note, a lot of people point out that Ali's defense was "crap" because it wasn't technically sound and he "did everything wrong". I'm very much a bottom-line person so the only thing I care about is whether it was effective......and in the case of Ali with his unreal reflexes it very much WAS effective: Ali was as difficult to tag as any "technically sound" Heavyweight defensive specialist that ever lived. It may not be "by the book" but the last time I checked the prize ring wasn't a place where you cram for finals. There is no right or wrong way of doing things in a boxing ring, only is the way you're doing it effective for you or not. Bottom line: Does it work for you or not?

Poet

[RubenSonny]

On a side note, a lot of people point out that Ali's defense was "crap" because it wasn't technically sound and he "did everything wrong". I'm very much a bottom-line person so the only thing I care about is whether it was effective......and in the case of Ali with his unreal reflexes it very much WAS effective: Ali was as difficult to tag as any "technically sound" Heavyweight defensive specialist that ever lived. It may not be "by the book" but the last time I checked the prize ring wasn't a place where you cram for finals. The is no right or wrong way of doing things in a boxing ring, only is the way you're doing it effective for you or not. Bottom line: Does it work for you or not?

Poet

I completely agree, people throw around the term "textbook" too much, I don't think it has a much of a place in boxing, there are too man varying complex techniques in which to do things and there is no original way to fight, the sport has no script.

[joseph5620]

The Joe Frazier loss was a rusty version of Ali and not even the best post-ban version of Ali. If we're going to make mythical comparisons, let's atleast try to be as objective as possible. Why don't you reference a prime Ali who was at the peak of his powers in the mid to late 60's? Why not the physically fittest post-ban Ali (Ken Norton II)?

Should we use the version of Joe who was handily out-boxed by Charles' as an example? I'm sure that loss probably had an impact on many boxing fans, as did his KO loss to Schmeling.


You lost all credibility when you claimed I've never been very impressed with his abilities - Ali was a 6'3, 210+ pound heavyweight who moved like a lightweight, threw faster punches than most middleweights, possessed an iron jaw, and possibly the finest footwork in the heavyweight division. Never been very impressed? You are useless.

I agree. I stopped reading his post after that.

[joseph5620]

While I happen to agree with you that post-exile Ali was no longer prime he was still good enough to beat most of the greats. Let's be fair here: Louis of the Charles fight was a lot closer to being done than Ali of the Frazier fight. Louis at the time of the Charles fight was a closer appoximation to the Ali of the Spinks fights. If you're going to make comparisons like that compare them at similar career stages. That being said, Ali of say 66-67 (his prime years) wins two out of three against a prime Louis. Louis can come close to matching Ali in handspeed which makes all the fights competitive but Ali's clear advantage in footspeed and his inhuman reflexes give him the overall edge. I don't see any Heavyweight in history being able to get the better of a prime Ali in a three fight series and bear in mind I'm not particularly fond of Ali while Louis is my all-time favorite fighter.

On a side note, a lot of people point out that Ali's defense was "crap" because it wasn't technically sound and he "did everything wrong". I'm very much a bottom-line person so the only thing I care about is whether it was effective......and in the case of Ali with his unreal reflexes it very much WAS effective: Ali was as difficult to tag as any "technically sound" Heavyweight defensive specialist that ever lived. It may not be "by the book" but the last time I checked the prize ring wasn't a place where you cram for finals. The is no right or wrong way of doing things in a boxing ring, only is the way you're doing it effective for you or not. Bottom line: Does it work for you or not?Poet

Absolutely.....

[CarlosG815]

The Joe Frazier loss was a rusty version of Ali and not even the best post-ban version of Ali. If we're going to make mythical comparisons, let's atleast try to be as objective as possible. Why don't you reference a prime Ali who was at the peak of his powers in the mid to late 60's? Why not the physically fittest post-ban Ali (Ken Norton II)?

Should we use the version of Joe who was handily out-boxed by Charles' as an example? I'm sure that loss probably had an impact on many boxing fans, as did his KO loss to Schmeling.


You lost all credibility when you claimed I've never been very impressed with his abilities - Ali was a 6'3, 210+ pound heavyweight who moved like a lightweight, threw faster punches than most middleweights, possessed an iron jaw, and possibly the finest footwork in the heavyweight division. Never been very impressed? You are useless.

I agree with all of this aside from you saying that Frazier beat a rusty version of Ali who who not even the best post ban version. To say that is talking down about Fraziers masterful performance and discrediting the greatest win of his career with nothing to back it up. Ali looked as good that night as he ever did after that, he was just fighting a fighter unlike any he had ever faced. For you to downplay Frazier's win like that is bull****.

That was a great version of Ali who had enough fights prior to FOTC to shake off the ring rust. Frazier was just the better fighter, let's get that straight.

[Marchegiano]

The Joe Frazier loss was a rusty version of Ali and not even the best post-ban version of Ali. If we're going to make mythical comparisons, let's atleast try to be as objective as possible. Why don't you reference a prime Ali who was at the peak of his powers in the mid to late 60's? Why not the physically fittest post-ban Ali (Ken Norton II)?

Should we use the version of Joe who was handily out-boxed by Charles' as an example? I'm sure that loss probably had an impact on many boxing fans, as did his KO loss to Schmeling.


You lost all credibility when you claimed I've never been very impressed with his abilities - Ali was a 6'3, 210+ pound heavyweight who moved like a lightweight, threw faster punches than most middleweights, possessed an iron jaw, and possibly the finest footwork in the heavyweight division. Never been very impressed? You are useless.

I am guilty of bad word choice often here. Allow me to remedy a little.

Firstly I didn't mean to suggest the version of Ali who lost to Frazier versus an on-point Louis. What I meant is Joe's losses bothered me less. I understood why more. The Frazier loss seemed to only happen because Ali didn't take Frazier seriously enough. In training and in the fight.

Second, I didn't mean to suggest Ali wasn't highly skilled I meant he's boring. I don't care for running backwards in circles. It's not a matter of right or wrong or anything to be credible about. It's a matter of opinion.

[PEBBLES!]

I agree with all of this aside from you saying that Frazier beat a rusty version of Ali who who not even the best post ban version. To say that is talking down about Fraziers masterful performance and discrediting the greatest win of his career with nothing to back it up. Ali looked as good that night as he ever did after that, he was just fighting a fighter unlike any he had ever faced. For you to downplay Frazier's win like that is bull****.

That was a great version of Ali who had enough fights prior to FOTC to shake off the ring rust. Frazier was just the better fighter, let's get that straight.

There are a few things to take into account because you are absolutely wrong - firstly, the physically fittest, toughest & sharpest version of post-ban Ali was the version that fought Ken Norton in their second bout. Anyone who has seen the fight will testify to the conditioning of Ali that night - he displayed most of the skills he possessed in his absolute prime during the 1960's and exhibited them with fluidity and guile. Ali realised he had to be in peak physical condition to go 12 rounds with Norton, after the shock he received 6 months previous. He was throwing his combinations with power and accuracy, hurt Norton in the 11th round with a straight right and was landing violent uppercuts the duration of the fight. He was also able to clinch Norton when necessary and the most crucial element that night was that he had most of his abilities with his footwork and legs back. The way he moved in portions of the fight were reminiscent of the way he moved during the 60's.


The dividing factor between the Ali that fought Frazier I and the Ali that fought Norton II were his legs. You claim that Ali had enough fights prior to the FOTC to shake off the ring rust? After an almost 4 year exile, he only had 2 fights, within a 2 month period, one of which was stopped on cuts in 3 rounds and the other against Oscar - simply put, Ali did not shake off the cobwebs. His fight with Oscar serves as evidence that Ali was clearly not ready to step into the ring with Frazier, just yet. Ali was flat-footed against Oscar, he looked sloppy and this fight must have been a shocking revelation to Ali himself, who would have realised he could not fight the same way he did prior to his ban. He lost that split second of reflexes he possessed which enabled him to avoid punches, and was getting tagged by punches he would never get tagged with during his physical prime.


This is not to downplay Frazier's win as you so aptly put it, this is to simply state one which is blatantly obvious. Frazier was an absolute juggernaut that night, at his supreme best and Ali put up a gallant effort, even though he had lost his legs and was slowly adapting to new ways of fighting, spending greater periods of the match on the ropes, which he was forced to do during his post-ban career. Ali's performance may have arguably been his most determined of his post-ban career period, but in no way possible, was he at his physical zenith. Frazier was the better fighter that night, but simply because I state Ali was not at his physical peak that night, during his post-ban career, doesn't mean I'm out to discredit Frazier.

[PEBBLES!]

While I happen to agree with you that post-exile Ali was no longer prime he was still good enough to beat most of the greats. Let's be fair here: Louis of the Charles fight was a lot closer to being done than Ali of the Frazier fight. Louis at the time of the Charles fight was a closer appoximation to the Ali of the Spinks fights. If you're going to make comparisons like that compare them at similar career stages. That being said, Ali of say 66-67 (his prime years) wins two out of three against a prime Louis. Louis can come close to matching Ali in handspeed which makes all the fights competitive but Ali's clear advantage in footspeed and his inhuman reflexes give him the overall edge. I don't see any Heavyweight in history being able to get the better of a prime Ali in a three fight series and bear in mind I'm not particularly fond of Ali while Louis is my all-time favorite fighter.

On a side note, a lot of people point out that Ali's defense was "crap" because it wasn't technically sound and he "did everything wrong". I'm very much a bottom-line person so the only thing I care about is whether it was effective......and in the case of Ali with his unreal reflexes it very much WAS effective: Ali was as difficult to tag as any "technically sound" Heavyweight defensive specialist that ever lived. It may not be "by the book" but the last time I checked the prize ring wasn't a place where you cram for finals. The is no right or wrong way of doing things in a boxing ring, only is the way you're doing it effective for you or not. Bottom line: Does it work for you or not?

Poet

Louis of the Charles fight was a lot closer to being done than Ali of the Frazier fight. Louis at the time of the Charles fight was a closer appoximation to the Ali of the Spinks fights. If you're going to make comparisons like that compare them at similar career stages.


I think this might have been in response to the paragraph I made;

Should we use the version of Joe who was handily out-boxed by Charles' as an example? I'm sure that loss probably had an impact on many boxing fans, as did his KO loss to Schmeling.


Note: I was simply using the other posters unlearned rhetoric, meaning I agree with you.


re; the bold, excellent points, Poet.