Art Donovan, was he at all partial to Joe Louis?

So you are basing this bold statement which goes against what the majority of experts think on seeing less than half of the fight? :-(

You sir are a great historian :good

 

One gifted with ESP.

 

It's a good book but the premise that the gangster influence wasn't strong in the '20s and '30s is just wrong.
There were exposes being printed in the newspapers on how the big racketeers had taken over boxing, back around 1930, dating in back to the mid-'20s, it was an issue back then. Lots of dodgy stuff happening in boxing in the 1920s was linked directly to big mobsters, named or unnamed, and shady gambling syndicates.
Of course the nature of the subject makes it difficult to write a full history, so Kevin Mitchell chose the familiar ground that was covered in the 1950s by a more sustained newspaper campaign and the senate committee investigations on organized crime, the anti-IBC-monopoly stuff etc.

 

I agree that the gangster influence was strong during the 20's and into the 30's . I deliberately used the words," back into prominence". They had gained control of the heavyweight champion with Carnera.Sharkey's crew were not pristine either.

There is not a shred of evidence to connect Louis with the mob however.
Prior to signing for Jacobs, Roxborough had a telephone conversation with Jimmy Johnston then promoter at MSG,Johnston unaware that Roxborough was black told him that,if we steer your n****r to the big bucks he is going to have to lose a few along the way.

Roxborough put the phone down on him.

 

Joe Louis fixed fights with his fists.

 

I disagree that the gangster influence was strong in the 1920s. There was influence but it was not anywhere near what we would see later. Fighters like Johnny Wilson who was as mobbed up as it gets were few and far between. Political connections were the rule of the day at that point. Maybe this changed later, in the late 1920s where my area of expertise is weaker, but up to 1926 or so the mob influence in boxing was limited. Even then of the few fighters that were owned by mobsters either secretly or outright there are very few instances of fixes etc. Instead the influence you see is the fighter being steered away from difficult competition or getting fights that he didnt deserve etc. But this I dont really equate with mob activity because every manager does this or at least tries to do this. Gamblers had a roll in boxing, but again I dont equate gamblers with the mob. Some gamblers had mob ties but from the 1880s or so through the 1920s the vast majority of gambling influence was tied to relatively independant operators, not mob. Yes some of the guys were "organized" to a degree but they arent what we think of as "organized crime" today. I stand by ascertion that up until the 1940s the vast majority of "mobsters" who dabbled in boxing were more hobbyists than anything playing at being boxing managers and denizens of the fight game than actively pulling the strings behind the scene like a puppet master which is what we saw rise in the 1940s, reach its peak in 1950s, and then decline in the early 1960s. Remember, "the mob" was a growing, changing beast in the 1920s that had not yet really congealed (at least not during the portion of the 1920s Im referring to). Its power was growing rapidly, and exponentially, due to prohibition but as someone pointed out above they were making so much money from other enterprises that it wasnt worth the trouble to really push into boxing like it would become later with television rights. So you see some of these guys own fighters (and racehorses) but their influence on the sport was VERY limited and rarely did they ever flex their muscles. Wilson is actually a prime example of this. He is the best example of a mob fighter from this era and their helpfulness to his career was almost non-existent. Look at the high points of his career. He won the title on a disputed decision which was possibly justified and at least very close. BUT when he fought Bryan Downey the mob didnt help him get that decision overturned, his KO loss was actually upheld in New York (Which is why it being a DQ or NC on his record is troubling). When he rematched him and turned in an awful performance and Rickard refused to pay him the mob didnt help him get his money. When New York banned him for not honoring his contract to fight Greb the mob didnt get the ban overturned or help him get fights. He was eventually forced to honor the contract with Greb after nearly two years of making almost no money in the sport. The mob couldnt get him out of that contract. When he fought Greb the mob tried to get Greb to lay down but he didnt. And thats when Wilson was being managed by one of the most powerful mob/gambling figures in New York. In reality these guys were just playing at being part of the fight game and werent really that good at it.

With all that said you cant research Joe Louis even a little bit without coming very quickly to the realization that he was very clean and at the center of the perfect storm for becoming the first black HW champion since Jack Johnson. A lot of factors converged to help his cause, some of which acted as buffers against mob influence, and being associated in any way with the mob or dirty fights would have hindered that if not outright prevented it.

 

""I am not questioning Donovan's
ability, you understand,” said Joe
Webster, the Camden cafe proprietor
who handles Walcott.
“Neither am I questioning his
honesty. But he has handled most
of the champions fights and I
think the fans, as well as myself
and Walcott would welcome a change."

 

Again most of these examples are the exception, not the rule. For example: Battalino didnt even start boxing until 1927 so the influence the mob had on him in the 1920s was nil. Indeed, look at his record from the time Reilly took him over and he lost a ton of fights. Reilly was connected but he was also the most prominent manager in CT so one guys claim of muscling in is like saying Don King muscled in on Hasim Rahman when in reality he just offered Rahman a boatload of money and access to one of the sports biggest and most prominent promoters. Thats a big difference from putting a gun to someones head and saying either your brains or your signature is going to be on this contract, particularly when you are talking about CT fighter coming up and looking for the breaks signing with CTs biggest manager.

With *********-Shea you are talking about a very minor, bantamweight championship fight. It may have been fixed but you are talking about one of the lowest profile championships at a period when the title was seen as on the decline. In short the possibility that it was fixed when everyone was looking elsewhere doesnt really lend itself to the idea that mob had so deeply infiltrated the sport.

Boo Boo Hoff is another example of a guy who while being a powerful mobster perfectly illustrates just how limited their reach was in boxing. None of his fighters became anything more than lower tier contenders. His best fighter was Benny Bass and when he got Bass Bass had already lost the title and never got another shot. By the early 1930s Hoffs influence in the sport was extremely limited.

Again, being a numbers runner in Detroit is a far cry from having influence with the Italian and Jewish mobsters in New York, particularly if you are black. As to Blackburn, if he participated in fixed fights its far more likely they were of the variety where he had to lay down or where the cuffs because he was black rather than because he was connected to the mob and his murders were all the results of personal drunken arguments, not mob related hits. When I say these guys were clean Im speaking of their ties to organized crime, particularly in New York as it relates to this discussion, and any backroom dealing/influence those supposed ties had on Louis' career.


As a side note I will say that while the numbers racket was by and large controlled by mobsters most of the time (not always) it was a pretty clean business and actually had a higher chance for a payoff to those who participated in it than the modern lottery (which is basically just legalized numbers running).

 

A. You made that comment in regards to Godoy, not Farr.

B. If you think half of a fight is "plenty" enough for you to make that judgement call so be it. Just realize that those fights were edited to make them as exciting as possible for public consumption. Its entirely possible that while Joe Louis won most of the less than half of the fight youve seen, that the other more than half that was edited out is Joe Louis dominating (which is rarely exciting) meaning that its entirely possible that the vast majority of that fight was controlled and won by Louis. But keep on clinging to your belief that you can make a judgement call on the entirety of a fight from not having seen half of it.

C. You dont need to be a historian to score a fight. BUT to score a fight you need to have seen it and you havent. To pretend otherwise is not objectivity.

D. Ok, so youve seen a film with canned crowd sound (and yes the crowd sound minus the announcements is canned on those films) what does Bill Corum say at the end when doing color commentary live from ringside? Or Don Dunphy? or Joe Louis when hes interviewed (if you really think he thought he lost)? Louis was adamant immediately after he won in the ring, afterwards in the dressing room, and his entire life that he won that fight. He stated very plainly that he was disgusted with his performance, hence his early exit, but that he felt (along with others) that Walcott had done so much running that he threw the fight away.

 

Only one person questioning both ,and that is Mendoza.

 

In his autobiography Louis was positive he had beaten Walcott,and years later he was just as adamant about it and reiterated it on national TV.. Here it is.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFc7WIKuZvQ[/url]


[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ccf2jUAA9I[/url]

Its been explained to you that it is nonsensical to form a positive opinion on a fight when you have seen barely half of it and that in edited highlights.

I don't know how you can make a case for yourself that even you can believe.

 

No, Ive already stated that I dont believe Donovans lopsided card was criminal because he could have justifiably believed that all of the swing rounds went to Louis. Its not like Farr was dominating at any point of the fight.

Again, you keep falling back on the footage which is FAR from complete to base your judgement and totally ignore the majority of opinions of people who ringside including the judges. So who do we believe, the majority that holds a consenus that saw the fight in its entirety or you who is going against the grain and hasnt seen the fight in its entirety? Pardon me if I go with the experts.

Your comparison of my criticism of Greb-Tunney is ridiculous for the simple fact that, again, the vast majority of ringside critics in the fight you are referring to felt the decision was bad. Here, in regards to the Louis-Godoy, the vast majority AGREE with the decision. To pretend that they went against Godoy simply because he was foreign is about as weak an argument as you can get.

Im not basing what they said 40 years after the fight, like you (which still backs up my characterization of Louis) Im basing what they said on their interviews IN THE RING LIVE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FIGHT. Now, Ive even said that I feel based on everything Ive seen, heard, and read that Louis probably deserved to lose a close decision. BUT close decisions going either way are not robberies (a term overused today) and they dont point to a fix, and the fact is that Walcott, like a lot of cuties, didnt do enough to TAKE the championship in an era when you had to TAKE the championship particularly in the championship rounds. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. Whether you use it in your small way to try to bring down Louis and suit whatever agenda you think you are championing is irrelevant. The fact is that Louis won fight and to his credit when people questioned it he gave a return bout and left Walcott on the canvas with his eyes rolling in his head like slots.