BEST POUND 4 POUND CHAMP EVER? and top 10

[SABBATH]

I've vaguely remember enjoying getting locked up with you over favored fighters, but if you think that somehow you got something over me, well lay it out and don't be hiding behind some keyboard smirking like some schoolboy on a ****site.

Trust me Bob I don't "hide behind some keyboard". You're a waste of bandwith.

Keep talking tough though. I know you're a pathetic broken down 57 year old former health care worker. Probably got your ass handed to you anytime a real confrontation ensued that didn't inolve sitting on your fat Texas Cowboy ass typing lame put-downs.

Get lost.

[Brassangel]

Opinions and statistics, while they should remain exclulsive (as an opinion is supposed to be a drawn conclusion with personal preference included; while statistics are numbers), statements like, "Louis KO'd more people, so he's better," or, "Ali's opponents had a higher win % at the time he fought them, so he's better," etc., are conclusions poorly drawn.

Why isn't it considered that Ali fought a lot of guys who were young in the division at the time he faced them, thus accounting for their low loss totals in their average record at the time he faced them? For example: Leon Spinks, may have been 7-0 when they fought, but he finished 26-17-3. That alone is a drastic misrepresentation of Ali's competition as champion, and only one of the many potential examples.

Conn may have weighed that of a present-day light heavyweight, but that would generally make him lighter, more agile, and quicker than someone 40 pounds heavier. As swift as Ali was, he would probably be a pinch easier to chase down with the extra weight, and he would present himself a much larger target; who often left the right side of his face completely open when he threw a punch. If Louis could make a simple calculation such as this when preparing for their fight, he'd make Ali pay.

All that I'm trying to say is that, in a vacuum, Louis was the greater champion.

12 year reign, 25 successful defenses (with a 4 year layoff in between), avenging his only loss during his youth (while green) in brutal, convincing fashion, better overall record, comparable competition, higher KO percentage, more longevity, suffered less damage and didn't struggle with subpar competitors nearly as much as Ali did, etc.

vs.

6 year reign, 11 successful defenses (with a 3 year layoff in between), avenging his first prime loss by decision, and then again when they were both beyond their best in a 14 rd. stoppage, losing again to Norton, and then taking two controversial decisions (one of which should have gone to Norton), then losing to someone who was only 7-0, but hey, his name is next to many all-time greats in the ring, and perhaps the most historically bias era in all of sports, so he's given his self-proclaimed title of "The Greatest" by some people today.

Also, I still hear more people say that Joe Louis was the greatest today than I hear of Muhammad Ali. Even ESPN's list picked Louis above Ali. Muhammad Ali can only be realistically selected above Joe Louis when the eras are taken in bias, (ie: the 70's were so much better than the 30's and 40's, etc.) which is relative and not absolute anyway. Furthermore, there are fewer people alive today who remember Louis' prime era, and it wasn't broadcast on national television (because it didn't exist yet), thus unable to make as big of a household impact. More people are generally familiar with Ali's name than Louis' because of things like this, thus there are those among the commonfolk who will utter "Ali" when speaking of the greatest. Even seasoned and respected critics fall subject to this because they lived Ali and not Louis.

Analyze them in a vacuum. Take away their eras, the feel of those eras, and remember that the greats they were surrounded by and scoring wins (or losses) against are only considered as such because of the level of competition they provided one another. Joe Frazier, for example, while my favorite fighter (and #6 or #7 on my all-time HW list), may not really be that good were he in any other era. He just looked good because he beat a bunch of slouches and knew how to give Ali fits. Ali's greatness, meanwhile, is almost rooted entirely in his upset wins against a very old and under-prepared Sonny Liston, and a take-a-beating-but-outlasted the "I can't handle the heat or a poor style matchup" George Foreman.

This could really go on and on to show the other side of the coin, but I think it's redundant; plus I lost focus a while ago in this post, and I apologize for that. Anywho, I'm going to go jogging.

When the vacuum seal is removed

[StarshipTrooper]

Maybe we got off on the wrong side. All I am saying is that Louis didn't try to get up after being dropped by Schmeling the 2nd time.

Louis did show heart in many of his fights and no one can say that he wasn't a Great Great Fighter.

What you read about me is all true. I have been the President of the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame for 22 years, the President of the New Jersey Diamond Gloves for 20 years and I have been both their Historians in 1980. I also ring announce & MC at times, if you go to some of the web sites, you can read about most of it.

I use to be on baseball, football, hockey, basketball trivia sites and contests until people start saying everyone knows that they are after 2nd place, meaning that I had 1st place all by myself.

A while back I found a boxing trivia site and after a couple of weeks they gave me a belt and changed the site to read:
Boxing Trivia: Boxing quizzes, trivia, facts, home of the trivia king hhascup

Well I got to go to the wake now, as I have to give the eulogy.

Thanks once again and lets all be friends, Henry

Harry, this bozo makes a habit that sort of thing which is why he's one of the very few people on my ignore list.

Poet

[LondonRingRules]

What you read about me is all true. I have been the President of the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame for 22 years, the President of the New Jersey Diamond Gloves for 20 years and I have been both their Historians in 1980. I also ring announce & MC at times, if you go to some of the web sites, you can read about most of it.

** Well then Henry, maybe you can provide a link for one of those sites. I enjoy talking to "oldtimers" who have been there and done that.

I mainly stick around the historical site at BS since the regular site is mostly spam by juveniles. As you can see I am a major defender of Joe Louis which lifts my spirits immensely, so again I thank you for that opportunity.

I'm guessing that you have some inside information on the Wepner/Ali affair in Ali's first defense after rewinning the title against Foreman. Wepner was marketed as a bartender as I recall, though it turns out he seems to have been a liquor salesman. He was big, strong and fouled Ali most of the night before Ali did a gut check and caught up to him in the last round.

It wasn't a clean fight and I would be interested in your take on the fight since it seems to have been the origin of the Rocky series of movies.

Before the fight on the Mike Douglas show Ali baits Wepner by accusing him of using the N word which causes a scuffle and ends in Ali leaving the auditorium shouting WWF style. How real do you think the fight was given the blatant fouling and the outcome?

The fight also took place after Ali's Playboy interview where he claimed a black oilman offered he and Foreman 5 million for a rematch in Indonesia as I recall. The Wepner fight must have grossed considerably less at the time, so I have always wondered about this period.

At any rate, Ali will never be duplicated, and like I said, the world would be much poorer without him. It's difficult to see him in his current state, but I'm glad he is getting around again and has some good help. Mike Tyson should end up so lucky.

[LondonRingRules]

Probably got your ass handed to you anytime a real confrontation ensued that didn't inolve sitting on your fat Texas Cowboy ass typing lame put-downs.

Get lost.

** No need to shoeshine me with your Junior of Oz batscat.

Let me know anytime you get near Muleshoe or anywheres in Texas. Not guaranteeing I would bother to introduce you to my "fat Texas Cowboy ass" since travel distances are ridiculous, but sometimes convenience is a godsend when it works out. All legal and in a gym with plenty minders for you of course!

[hhascup]

Opinions and statistics, while they should remain exclulsive (as an opinion is supposed to be a drawn conclusion with personal preference included; while statistics are numbers), statements like, "Louis KO'd more people, so he's better," or, "Ali's opponents had a higher win % at the time he fought them, so he's better," etc., are conclusions poorly drawn.

Why isn't it considered that Ali fought a lot of guys who were young in the division at the time he faced them, thus accounting for their low loss totals in their average record at the time he faced them? For example: Leon Spinks, may have been 7-0 when they fought, but he finished 26-17-3. That alone is a drastic misrepresentation of Ali's competition as champion, and only one of the many potential examples.

Conn may have weighed that of a present-day light heavyweight, but that would generally make him lighter, more agile, and quicker than someone 40 pounds heavier. As swift as Ali was, he would probably be a pinch easier to chase down with the extra weight, and he would present himself a much larger target; who often left the right side of his face completely open when he threw a punch. If Louis could make a simple calculation such as this when preparing for their fight, he'd make Ali pay.

All that I'm trying to say is that, in a vacuum, Louis was the greater champion.

12 year reign, 25 successful defenses (with a 4 year layoff in between), avenging his only loss during his youth (while green) in brutal, convincing fashion, better overall record, comparable competition, higher KO percentage, more longevity, suffered less damage and didn't struggle with subpar competitors nearly as much as Ali did, etc.

vs.

6 year reign, 11 successful defenses (with a 3 year layoff in between), avenging his first prime loss by decision, and then again when they were both beyond their best in a 14 rd. stoppage, losing again to Norton, and then taking two controversial decisions (one of which should have gone to Norton), then losing to someone who was only 7-0, but hey, his name is next to many all-time greats in the ring, and perhaps the most historically bias era in all of sports, so he's given his self-proclaimed title of "The Greatest" by some people today.

Also, I still hear more people say that Joe Louis was the greatest today than I hear of Muhammad Ali. Even ESPN's list picked Louis above Ali. Muhammad Ali can only be realistically selected above Joe Louis when the eras are taken in bias, (ie: the 70's were so much better than the 30's and 40's, etc.) which is relative and not absolute anyway. Furthermore, there are fewer people alive today who remember Louis' prime era, and it wasn't broadcast on national television (because it didn't exist yet), thus unable to make as big of a household impact. More people are generally familiar with Ali's name than Louis' because of things like this, thus there are those among the commonfolk who will utter "Ali" when speaking of the greatest. Even seasoned and respected critics fall subject to this because they lived Ali and not Louis.

Analyze them in a vacuum. Take away their eras, the feel of those eras, and remember that the greats they were surrounded by and scoring wins (or losses) against are only considered as such because of the level of competition they provided one another. Joe Frazier, for example, while my favorite fighter (and #6 or #7 on my all-time HW list), may not really be that good were he in any other era. He just looked good because he beat a bunch of slouches and knew how to give Ali fits. Ali's greatness, meanwhile, is almost rooted entirely in his upset wins against a very old and under-prepared Sonny Liston, and a take-a-beating-but-outlasted the "I can't handle the heat or a poor style matchup" George Foreman.

This could really go on and on to show the other side of the coin, but I think it's redundant; plus I lost focus a while ago in this post, and I apologize for that. Anywho, I'm going to go jogging.

When the vacuum seal is removed

I agree with a lot of what you say, BUT I still feel that Ali fought the better opponents and so do most of the boxing experts.

As far as their records go, Louis fought several that lost near the end of their careers. When he fought Charles, Ezzard had a record of 61-5-1 and when Charles retired he ended up 90-25-1.

Just match up Ali's opponents with Louis's that they beat.

I have my picks in BOLD

Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Max Baer 50-6-0
Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. Schmeling 48-7-4 & 52-7-4
Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. Braddock 50-25-7
Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Walcott 44-11-2 & 44-12-2 Pick-Em
Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Conn 59-10-1 & 62-11-1
Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. Nova 26-2-4
Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Galento 76-23-5
Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Sharkey 38-13-3
Folley 74-7-4 vs. Farr 66-20-13 Pick-Em
Terrell 38-4-0 vs. Carnera 82-7-0
Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Godoy 53-8-7 & 53-9-7
Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Simon 34-7-0
Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Buddy Baer 50-5-0 & 50-6-0

This is their records at the time(s) they fought Ali and Louis. You can also witch them around if you want, just try to pick the best against the best. Meaning you should have the top opponents and Ali box the top opponents of Louis.

[hhascup]

** Well then Henry, maybe you can provide a link for one of those sites. I enjoy talking to "oldtimers" who have been there and done that.

I mainly stick around the historical site at BS since the regular site is mostly spam by juveniles. As you can see I am a major defender of Joe Louis which lifts my spirits immensely, so again I thank you for that opportunity.

I'm guessing that you have some inside information on the Wepner/Ali affair in Ali's first defense after rewinning the title against Foreman. Wepner was marketed as a bartender as I recall, though it turns out he seems to have been a liquor salesman. He was big, strong and fouled Ali most of the night before Ali did a gut check and caught up to him in the last round.

It wasn't a clean fight and I would be interested in your take on the fight since it seems to have been the origin of the Rocky series of movies.

Before the fight on the Mike Douglas show Ali baits Wepner by accusing him of using the N word which causes a scuffle and ends in Ali leaving the auditorium shouting WWF style. How real do you think the fight was given the blatant fouling and the outcome?

The fight also took place after Ali's Playboy interview where he claimed a black oilman offered he and Foreman 5 million for a rematch in Indonesia as I recall. The Wepner fight must have grossed considerably less at the time, so I have always wondered about this period.

At any rate, Ali will never be duplicated, and like I said, the world would be much poorer without him. It's difficult to see him in his current state, but I'm glad he is getting around again and has some good help. Mike Tyson should end up so lucky.

You can go to the following to see my bio:





I don't want to give you too many more BUT I am a trivia checker on several sites and I won just about every sports trivia contest I went into. If you google "Boxing trivia Boxing quizzes, trivia, facts, home of the trivia king hhascup" you will see the boxing trivia site I go into.


As far as Wepner goes, he is a very good friend of mine. Chuck was and still is a liquor salesman. WEpner always claims that he did knock Ali down with that body punch. He said that Ali didn't complain about it until after the bout was over.

Chuck told me that he was so tried in the end of the bout that he just couldn't go on. The Referee was Tony Perez and I had the pleasure of introducing him and Chuck at many functions.

The Rocky movies were made when Stallone saw Wepner fighting Ali.

Chuck and Ali are very good friends now and even make appearances together at times, or at least they use too.

[Brassangel]

I just made a great, lengthy post, and lost internet because of a t-storm. In a nutshell:

Ali's best opponents:
Liston (50-4) made 1 successful defense.
Frazier (32-4-1) made 4 successful defenses.
Foreman (76-5) made 3 successful defenses in two careers.

Louis' best opponents:
Charles (96-25-1) made 7 successful defenses.
Walcott (52-18-2) made 1 successful defense.
Marciano (49-0) made 6 successful defenses.

Louis' opponents fought more, fought more frequently, and were tough-as-nails style competitors. They made more successful title defenses, and didn't fight under protected, high promotion, groom for the payday environments.

As a side: Liston is considered by many to be one of the ten best champions in heavyweight history, yet he only made one successful defense (against the same guy he beat to get the title), and lost the only important defense he made against Clay. George Foreman arguably has the largest list of tomato cans in heavyweight history as opposition. How they can be considered "great" champions when they never truly reigned? Walcott also only made one defense, losing to Rocky Marciano. He was always a contender, but never a reigning champion.

Again, it can go on and on in the comparison war, but even a consensus doesn't make something so. For example: Most of America dislikes our president's economic policies. If they did a little research, however, they'd see that companys are booming, taxes have been lowered in the middle and lower classes moreso than the upper class, the stock market has never been higher, unemployment is steadily declining, and America's private healthcare providers still rate higher than all other first world (public) healthcare providers. EXPERTS say he's handling the war poorly, yet 8 of 12 major objectives have been completed (3 of the remaining 4 ivolving mostly Iraqi effort), the troop surge was a resounding success according to the Generals, fewer troops have died over the course of the war than any other in American history, especially compared to insurgent casualties....*sigh* I guess what I'm saying is, the media feeds us fodder, likeable phrases such as "the 70's are the Golden Age of boxing!" or "universal healthcare!" and people eat it up, because it sounds good on the outside. Doing even a little research reveals a far more interesting, competative line of statistical comparisons.

One thing we forget as well, is that the 60's and 70's were the first full decades where boxing could be broadcast on national television on open circuits. Obviously boxing was booming then, as the previous eras had brought it to the forefront of the sport. The promotional side of things became huge, grooming and protecting fighters in the right places to set up super, moneyfights.

Crazy. Anyway, my wife is calling. I love this thread. It's totally made me nuts with the wealth of information present. Current list:

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Larry Holmes
5. George Foreman
6. Joe Frazier
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Mike Tyson
9. Lennox Lewis
10. Sonny Liston
11. Jack Johnson
12. Evander Holyfield
13. Jim Jeffries
14. Ezzard Charles
15. Floyd Patterson

[SABBATH]

Liston is considered by many to be one of the ten best champions in heavyweight history, yet he only made one successful defense (against the same guy he beat to get the title), and lost the only important defense he made against Clay.

Liston was the number #1 contender for years and openly ducked by Patterson's management. Had Patterson been mandated to face Liston he would have lost his belt earlier and Liston's reign would have lasted at the very least a few years. Liston cleaned out the division of any meaningful comp while Patterson defended against guys like Roy Harris, Pete Radamacher (pro debut!) and Tom McNeeley.

Bad example.

[Panamaniac]

...When I asked Bert Sugar how come he changed his all-time ratings, he stated because he listens to what others have to say... I am not saying that I know more then anyone on this site, BUT I do have a background. I am a charter member of IBRO, which started back in 1983. I am one of the editors on BoxRec. I have researched or worked with Herb Goldman, Bert Sugar as well as many other boxing experts and historians...

Your mention of Bert Sugar as a colleague is rather interesting precisely because he does not share your perspective of Ali ahead of Louis. Not only is Louis the greatest heavyweight in his book, he is ranked 4th. overall, ahead of Ali, 7th.

In fact, most boxing historians, scribes, experts and polls rank Louis ahead of Ali. Again, your opinion is just as valid as the next guy's, but in the grand scheme of things, it is as significant as a fly on an elephant's ass.