Ali - Why is he not the greatest?

First topic message reminder :

I’m a casual boxing fan, I make no bones about that, though since the site started and you all moved over I’ve spent a lot more time reading the articles in this section.
One thing has particularly struck me (no it’s not D4’s infatuation with Manny or Hitmansam’s hatred of Calzaghe)

How there is a huge difference between the casual fan like myself’s perception of the greatest ever boxer and true boxing aficionados.
Why is it to the mainstream that Ali transcends all others even to the point of coming top in polls such as BBC greatest sportsman ever yet amongst his own he’s behind Sugar Ray Robinson in nearly every poll and Harry Greb and Henry Armstrong in the IBRO top twenty?

Is it purely down to how he used the media to his advantage, that his persona and character lifted him into popular culture?
Go gentle on me fellas.

I can see where your coming from one of my favourite fighters was Pernell Whittaker. But if your judging fighters power must come in to it but it isn't as important as being technically sound for me.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:Still banging on about that then and fail to see why him not being a power puncher makes any difference

You would at least expect a top 3 P4P to have a decent dig.

I dno't want to get into the Saddler vs Pep one again we did that before. I see your point about punching power. Just out of interest where on your ATG list would you have Pernell Whittaker?

The 2 Sugar Rays are 1 and 2. Ali 3rd, Armstrong 4th, Duran 5. I wouldn't have pernell in the top 20 or Floyd for that matter.

Why would you have Whitaker outside the top 20?

imperialghosty wrote:Why would you have Whitaker outside the top 20?

There are better boxers ahead of him. I'd have Floyd ahead of PW.

Out of interest what is your top 20?

imperialghosty wrote:Out of interest what is your top 20?

It changed too often. All I can do is settle for a top 5. Names like Holmes would be in there, RJJ, Ezzard (yes you read right), Benny Leonard, Jack Johnson, Sal Sanchez (short career but what a fighter and probably shouldn't be in there but I give myself licence for actual talent and potential). Louis for what he achieved but on talent alone would not be in there. Hagler, Saddler and so many more.

azania wrote: Louis for what he achieved but on talent alone would not be in there.

~ Why sir, with all due respect to your moderating swagger, such nonsense cannot remain standing without being debunked and shipped over to China for reconstitution into something more useful, like a chopstick perhaps.

Mr Louis was Ring ranked by his 2nd year of boxing in spite of turning pro with a modest ama career background, and then Ring #1 by his 2nd year. Before winning the title he had completely obliterated, literally, 3 of the 4 former champs he faced, the murderous punching Baer, the monstrous man mountain Carnera, and the ever tricky Jack Sharkey, falling to only to Mr. Schmeling in his best ever form.

That in addition to a number of other contenders. There is no heavy in history close to that level of comp in his first 2 yrs.

Before 3 yrs were up, he was the champ scarcely a month after his 23rd birthday.

He avenged the Mr. S fight in spades in just his 3rd year of boxing in the biggest fight in history where the fate of the entire free world and humanity lay in his potent fists with his highlight demolition of the underrated Mr. S.

He stayed the champ for near 12 yrs, finally retiring after conquering several generations of heavies, and when he came back he was #1 contender until Mr. Rocky cracked him open at an advanced age.

Unlike the subject of the thread who has over a half dozen highly controversial and contested fights, Mr. L had very few controversies, all easily settled with highlight KOs in readily granted rematches.

Louis was one of the most talented, most naturally gifted fighters in history, and some would say he was tops, but then the flat earthers think Mr. Everest is just a molehill, so go figure where some get their opinions from.

Perfessor Albertus Lion V wrote:

azania wrote: Louis for what he achieved but on talent alone would not be in there.

~ Why sir, with all due respect to your moderating swagger, such nonsense cannot remain standing without being debunked and shipped over to China for reconstitution into something more useful, like a chopstick perhaps.

Mr Louis was Ring ranked by his 2nd year of boxing in spite of turning pro with a modest ama career background, and then Ring #1 by his 2nd year. Before winning the title he had completely obliterated, literally, 3 of the 4 former champs he faced, the murderous punching Baer, the monstrous man mountain Carnera, and the ever tricky Jack Sharkey, falling to only to Mr. Schmeling in his best ever form.

That in addition to a number of other contenders. There is no heavy in history close to that level of comp in his first 2 yrs.

Before 3 yrs were up, he was the champ scarcely a month after his 23rd birthday.

He avenged the Mr. S fight in spades in just his 3rd year of boxing in the biggest fight in history where the fate of the entire free world and humanity lay in his potent fists with his highlight demolition of the underrated Mr. S.

He stayed the champ for near 12 yrs, finally retiring after conquering several generations of heavies, and when he came back he was #1 contender until Mr. Rocky cracked him open at an advanced age.

Unlike the subject of the thread who has over a half dozen highly controversial and contested fights, Mr. L had very few controversies, all easily settled with highlight KOs in readily granted rematches.

Louis was one of the most talented, most naturally gifted fighters in history, and some would say he was tops, but then the flat earthers think Mr. Everest is just a molehill, so go figure where some get their opinions from.

Mate. In English please.

I can name 10 heavies who would KTFO of Louis. More than 10 in fact. He benefitted from a weak era, a war which prolonged his reign and a bum every month practically.

I can name none

azania wrote:Mate. In English please.

I can name 10 heavies who would KTFO of Louis. More than 10 in fact. He benefitted from a weak era, a war which prolonged his reign and a bum every month practically.

The most technically complete heavyweight of them all, with blistering handspeed, knockout wallop in either hand ; the most economical and efficient footwork, allowing him to cut off the ring better than any other heavy, including Foreman ; superb recuperative powers, and a record which includes as victims champs and/or HOFers in Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock, John Henry Lewis, Conn, Walcott, and a couple or three man mountains in Abe Simon, Buddy Baer, etc.

Louis would chop down today's lot without breaking sweat.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Mate. In English please.

I can name 10 heavies who would KTFO of Louis. More than 10 in fact. He benefitted from a weak era, a war which prolonged his reign and a bum every month practically.

The most technically complete heavyweight of them all, with blistering handspeed, knockout wallop in either hand ; the most economical and efficient footwork, allowing him to cut off the ring better than any other heavy, including Foreman ; superb recuperative powers, and a record which includes as victims champs and/or HOFers in Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock, John Henry Lewis, Conn, Walcott, and a couple or three man mountains in Abe Simon, Buddy Baer, etc.

Louis would chop down today's lot without breaking sweat.

Ali
Holmes
Frazier
Foreman
Tyson
Vitali
Bowe
Holyfield
Witherspoon
Liston
Tubbs

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Mate. In English please.

I can name 10 heavies who would KTFO of Louis. More than 10 in fact. He benefitted from a weak era, a war which prolonged his reign and a bum every month practically.

The most technically complete heavyweight of them all, with blistering handspeed, knockout wallop in either hand ; the most economical and efficient footwork, allowing him to cut off the ring better than any other heavy, including Foreman ; superb recuperative powers, and a record which includes as victims champs and/or HOFers in Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock, John Henry Lewis, Conn, Walcott, and a couple or three man mountains in Abe Simon, Buddy Baer, etc.

Louis would chop down today's lot without breaking sweat.

Ali
Holmes
Frazier
Foreman
Tyson
Vitali
Bowe
Holyfield
Witherspoon
Liston
Tubbs

Why have you posted your Christmas card list, mate ?

I literally can not believe what I'm reading on this thread. Seriously. Tony Tubbs to 'KTFO' Joe Louis? Christ Almighty, you don't make it easy on yourself, Azania.

While Ali probably beats Louis, I doubt he knocks him out

Holmes, Frazier, Foreman and Liston aside I wont even dignify the rest of those names with a response.

88Chris05 wrote:I literally can not believe what I'm reading on this thread. Seriously. Tony Tubbs to 'KTFO' Joe Louis? Christ Almighty, you don't make it easy on yourself, Azania.

Things go better with Coca Cola.

88Chris05 wrote:I literally can not believe what I'm reading on this thread. Seriously. Tony Tubbs to 'KTFO' Joe Louis? Christ Almighty, you don't make it easy on yourself, Azania.

Louis had a serious wekness for fast heavies. Tubbs had the fastest hands I have ever seen in a heavyweight boxer. Pity his dedication was lacking.

Atom, Ali had a decent dig. If Schmelling could KO Louis, I fear for him when Ali connects with lightning combos.

HumanWindmill wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:I literally can not believe what I'm reading on this thread. Seriously. Tony Tubbs to 'KTFO' Joe Louis? Christ Almighty, you don't make it easy on yourself, Azania.

Things go better with Coca Cola.

Jack Daniel and my good friend, Chivas.

The Mighty Atom wrote:While Ali probably beats Louis, I doubt he knocks him out

Holmes, Frazier, Foreman and Liston aside I wont even dignify the rest of those names with a response.

Long may it continue

azania wrote:Louis had a serious wekness for fast heavies.

Which ones ? Do tell.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Louis had a serious wekness for fast heavies.

Which ones ? Do tell.

Think about it Windy, he can't have a weakness to something that didn't exist back then
They were all plodding face first brawlers, so any answer would be contradictory

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Louis had a serious wekness for fast heavies.

Which ones ? Do tell.

Sorry, that should read "fast LIGHT heavies".

Erm Holmes and Holyfield anyone?

The Mighty Atom wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Louis had a serious wekness for fast heavies.

Which ones ? Do tell.

Think about it Windy, he can't have a weakness to something that didn't exist back then
They were all plodding face first brawlers, so any answer would be contradictory

That's an excellent point, Ghosty.

Silly me.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Louis had a serious wekness for fast heavies.

Which ones ? Do tell.

Sorry, that should read "fast LIGHT heavies".

You mean ONE. Billy Conn. Whom Louis kayoed.

Well, that's an unshakable argument isn't it ?

You know, like Holmes was bothered by a rookie pro in Witherspoon and dumped on his backside by Snipes ; Ali, ( whom I love, by the way, ) upended by Cooper and Banks and stretched all the way by Jones ? Maybe Tubbs, fllattened in two by Tyson's combos, etc., etc., etc.

A hall of fame Light Heavyweight, rated among the top ten in a talent stacked division no less

The Mighty Atom wrote:Erm Holmes and Holyfield anyone?

What about them? Holmes had the best jab in heavyweight boxing history. Louis wouldn't go past 6 rounds with him. Holy would outwork him to a wide UD.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Louis had a serious wekness for fast heavies.

Which ones ? Do tell.

Sorry, that should read "fast LIGHT heavies".

You mean ONE. Billy Conn. Whom Louis kayoed.

Well, that's an unshakable argument isn't it ?

You know, like Holmes was bothered by a rookie pro in Witherspoon and dumped on his backside by Snipes ; Ali, ( whom I love, by the way, ) upended by Cooper and Banks and stretched all the way by Jones ? Maybe Tubbs, fllattened in two by Tyson's combos, etc., etc., etc.

Yep. That's what I mean. Witherspoon was a class operator. Messed up by King. Snipes was a genuine heavy. Louis would have stayed down had that punch connected on him. Tyson would have flattened Louis as he did Tubby whilst tubbs would have used his speed to negate whatever Louis had.

azania wrote:Holmes had the best jab in heavyweight boxing history. Louis wouldn't go past 6 rounds with him. Holy would outwork him to a wide UD.

And the world is flat, D4 likes Floyd, Santa Claus lives in a two bed semi in Milton Keynes, and Elton John is straight.

Well they both lost to Light Heavyweights so therefore must be complete garbage. If Holmes couldn't knock out an ageing Ali I doubt he knocks out a peak prime Louis who by definition must have been at his absolute best so therefore didn't have any weaknesses.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Holmes had the best jab in heavyweight boxing history. Louis wouldn't go past 6 rounds with him. Holy would outwork him to a wide UD.

And the world is flat, D4 likes Floyd, Santa Claus lives in a two bed semi in Milton Keynes, and Elton John is straight.

Which HW had a better jab that Holmes?

Liston by a country mile

The Mighty Atom wrote:Liston by a country mile

Matter of opinion which I disagree. Liston had a great jab though.

azania wrote:Which HW had a better jab that Holmes?

That wasn't the thrust of my argument, but rather the ' lasting six rounds ' bit.

Holmes has a case for best jab, as does Liston, Louis, and possibly Johnson. Pinklon Thomas also had a terrific jab when he was ' on.' Each different, and each effective in its own way.

How many heavies beat Louis' combos for speed, accuracy and power ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Which HW had a better jab that Holmes?

That wasn't the thrust of my argument, but rather the ' lasting six rounds ' bit.

Holmes has a case for best jab, as does Liston, Louis, and possibly Johnson. Pinklon Thomas also had a terrific jab when he was ' on.' Each different, and each effective in its own way.

How many heavies beat Louis' combos for speed, accuracy and power ?

YOu are bound to be more accurate when hitting a punch bag.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Which HW had a better jab that Holmes?

That wasn't the thrust of my argument, but rather the ' lasting six rounds ' bit.

Holmes has a case for best jab, as does Liston, Louis, and possibly Johnson. Pinklon Thomas also had a terrific jab when he was ' on.' Each different, and each effective in its own way.

How many heavies beat Louis' combos for speed, accuracy and power ?

According to Azania's posts the other day, any Heavyweight who reached their peak after WW2 apparently. Although he never got around to explaining why or how fighters went from being basic, face-first brawlers with no finesse and footwork to suddenly always being refined, supremely smooth and technical boxers with lightning speed and reflexes in the space of, say, three short years in the mid forties.

Listons jab could take opponents out, Holmes couldn't, he also became lazy in many fights and tended to paw it out with little conviction. It's easy to look good when your best win happens to be over Cooney or Witherspoon, neither of whom were world class.

Maidana/Khan is an intersting one, surely the stronger, faster and fitter one should win easily rather than being taken to hell and back by a face first brawler?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Listons jab could take opponents out, Holmes couldn't, he also became lazy in many fights and tended to paw it out with little conviction. It's easy to look good when your best win happens to be over Cooney or Witherspoon, neither of whom were world class.

Maidana/Khan is an intersting one, surely the stronger, faster and fitter one should win easily rather than being taken to hell and back by a face first brawler?

That's an old cliche. Fiction dressed up as fact. He had a good jad but it wouldn't KO anyone. Its like saying that Watson KOd benn with a jab. Whilst he actually did, it was because Benn was already finished.

Boxer/brawler are always the best match-ups. Brawlers are not necessarily face first fighters. Take Duran for example. A class operator with excellent defensive skills. Rocky was your typical face first brawler. I'll add LaMotta, Basillio etc.

Holmes pawing out his jab was better that Louis at his best. Holmes' paw was better than Lennox's best jab also.

azania wrote:That's an old cliche. Fiction dressed up as fact. He had a good jad but it wouldn't KO anyone. Its like saying that Watson KOd benn with a jab.

Erm, it's on film. First round kayo.

LaMotta and Basillio while having exceptional chins didn't clocked full bloodied very often, they used very subtle head movement to either avoid punches or negate their power, doesn't say a lot for Robinson that he lost to both now does it.

Now that's just a darn right lie, Holmes when he threw it with purpose had a great jab but when he pawed it was simply that a paw, Lewis' jab at it's best for very much the equal of Holmes. Listons stands above all others for me because he threw it with real menace and was piston like, he used it inflict damage not just to control things like Holmes.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:That's an old cliche. Fiction dressed up as fact. He had a good jad but it wouldn't KO anyone. Its like saying that Watson KOd benn with a jab.

Erm, it's on film. First round kayo.

It wasn't a jab per se.

The Mighty Atom wrote:LaMotta and Basillio while having exceptional chins didn't clocked full bloodied very often, they used very subtle head movement to either avoid punches or negate their power, doesn't say a lot for Robinson that he lost to both now does it.

Now that's just a darn right lie, Holmes when he threw it with purpose had a great jab but when he pawed it was simply that a paw, Lewis' jab at it's best for very much the equal of Holmes. Listons stands above all others for me because he threw it with real menace and was piston like, he used it inflict damage not just to control things like Holmes.

I'm not going to argue too much about Liston's jab and Holmes's jab. They were both excellent and I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either.

Lennox's jab was never as good as Holmes's. Not even close.

SRR was best at welter. That has been my point always. At that weight he was unbeatable. When he moved up, he became beatable by strongmen. In that instance, strength beat skill (remember that)/ But SRR learnt from his mistakes and beat them over and over again. Reduced them to what they were. Skileld, but face first brawlers. Look at their face as evidence.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:That's an old cliche. Fiction dressed up as fact. He had a good jad but it wouldn't KO anyone. Its like saying that Watson KOd benn with a jab.

Erm, it's on film. First round kayo.

It wasn't a jab per se.

Well, if you're going to get all scientific :

Statistically, how much harder to moderns hit , PER SE ? How much faster are they, PER SE ? How much better skilled, PER SE ?

C'mon, must be easy for you. This is SCIENCE ( PER SE ) so these things MUST have been measured, PER SE and proven PER SE.

Bring on the proof, Percy !

Basillio WAS A WELTERWEIGHT, considering he was at the weight for longer it's fair to say that Robinson was the naturally bigger man in their fights, so how do you explain that?
He also adapted so well to Basillio he beat him via split decision and then decided never to face him again.

Is Cotto a face first brawler?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:That's an old cliche. Fiction dressed up as fact. He had a good jad but it wouldn't KO anyone. Its like saying that Watson KOd benn with a jab.

Erm, it's on film. First round kayo.

It wasn't a jab per se.

Well, if you're going to get all scientific :

Statistically, how much harder to moderns hit , PER SE ? How much faster are they, PER SE ? How much better skilled, PER SE ?

C'mon, must be easy for you. This is SCIENCE ( PER SE ) so these things MUST have been measured, PER SE and proven PER SE.

Bring on the proof, Percy !

Hang on there old chap. Liston is one serious boxer. He should have had the title years earlier but for boxing politics. I have total respect for his skills and is certainly one boxer who would destroy Louis without breaking sweat. But it wasn't a jab. It was a straight left not snapped out like a jab, but punched like a cross.

Of course Liston destroys Louis who retired a mere two year before Listons debut just because he has 'modern training' and without breaking sweat either, now that is impressive

The Mighty Atom wrote:Of course Liston destroys Louis who retired a mere two year before Listons debut just because he has 'modern training' and without breaking sweat either, now that is impressive

Nothing to do with modern training why Liston destroys Louis. Mainly because imo Liston was the better fighter.

Liston is the same era as Louis pretty much so must therefore lose to all these modern lot along with Ali?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Liston is the same era as Louis pretty much so must therefore lose to all these modern lot along with Ali?

It doesn't matter what era he comes from. That is a debate you are having with yourself. He was just better than Louis. Boxing politics and the mob kept him from being an ATG top 10 imo. Plus Ali had a huge role also.

Stylistically how does Liston beat Louis?

Also the fact he was well into his 30's by the time he reached top didn't help

The Mighty Atom wrote:Stylistically how does Liston beat Louis?

Also the fact he was well into his 30's by the time he reached top didn't help

Liston was the best for at least 3 years before he got the title shot. Politics.

Louis was slow on foot. Ponderous. He was over to the right over the top and succeptible to straight punches. Liston was also exceptionally strong and very cute when he heened to be. His punch powwer would overwhelm Louis.