Why is Muhammad Ali considered a better boxer than Joe Louis?

Question

I have my own reasons but my Dad argues that:

1.Louis lost the 1 exhibition match to Max and was otherwise undefeated until he basically retired (and never should've fought Rocky).

2.Ali lost 2 title fights to Frazier and Norton, not to mention the other 3 he never should've fought near the end of his career.

3.Louis won 13 more fights in his career and never lost the heavyweight title as Ali did, twice.

I personally think that Ali faced much tougher competition but I can't find a source to compare the W/L records of their opponents in aggregate. Someone that knows a lot about boxing please let me know how I can combat these points my old man brings up, as boxing is like my 3rd or 4th sport and I'm not too knowledgeable, thanks.

Answer 1

ringmanship and the fact that ali was at the top of his game in the heavyweight division when it was at its best.

Answer 2

THE BEST BOXER P4P GREATEST OF ALL TIME IS "SUGAR RAY ROBINSON"

Answer 3

Sorry I am with your dad on this one :)

Regardless of who beat who and who's style looks the best one of the greatest things in the favour of loius was he came from an era of about three times the competing heavywweights.

back then most ballsports were still amateur, there were no athletics or big olympic sponsorships, so most every young man chose boxing.

By ali's era they had lost about 60% of the available pool to other sports.

A champ from 3 times the field generally has a lot bigger genetic advantage.

its like comparing the US in the olympics to England. England has a few champs but 90% of their guys lose to the US champs badly.

Ali might have been better sure but the maths are just not on his side.

We really cannot even be sure a boxer from the 1970's could last three rounds in top 1930's competition. That is what happens if we compare a middle ranker to a top pro today, he loses in three.

A pro is the champion of at least twice as many people as middle guy, who is in the middle. And that is just twice, not three...

Think about it...

Answer 4

Thumbs up to galactus, The difference was the talent level of their opposition.  Ali had Patterson, Liston, Frazier, Forman, Norton, Holmes and at least as many dangerous B level heavyweights like Spinks, Shavers, Williams, Quarry and Foster.  Nobody in heavyweight history ever fought so many hall of fame opponents.  Louis had Braddock, Schmeling, Walcott, Charles and Marciano, and clearly didn't perform as well as Ali in his biggest fights.  Joe's bum of the month club didn't measure up well against the likes of Ali's lesser opponents.  Ali dominated the most talented group of heavyweights in history, which is why most rate him slightly higher than Louis on the all time great list.

Answer 5

Ali: "You sayin' I'm a bum?"

Joe Louis: "I'm sayin' you'd be in the club."

Answer 6

There are a number of reasons that Ali would be considered the better fighter.  I could go on all day so I'll try to condense it.  First,  Ali and Louis stand well above the rest of the division as far as history goes.  

There are really Two main ways to grade great champions.  One is OVERALL.  In this case, someone like Jack Dempsey or Rocky Marciano might be ranked above Lennox Lewis.  The other way is IN THE RING.  There is no way either Marciano or Dempsey would beat Lewis.  He's not only a bigger fighter but he knows how to use his tools, unlike any other BIG man.  

Quality of opposition is one of the best keys to go by.  Ali Clearly fought the toughest opponents of any other champion in history.  Forman, Frazier and  Liston are regularly listed as Top 10 or Top 12 champions.  Ali beat them all.  He was past his prime when he faced Frazier and Forman.  He would have clearly beat both easier if not for the exile.

The bottom line is that ALi fought fighters with more in common with Louis than Louis did with ALi.  Billy Conn gave Louis fits and ALi is WORLDS above Conn in every way.  

Ali had Louis' number