Should Louis have fought more than two black men in his 26 title defenses?

Bivins was Unranked when he fought Lem. The bout that put Lem in contention was his win over Musto and that fight was only a few months before him being koed by Pastor. Then being koed in the first round in two consecutive bouts. Having lots on wins does not mean you are going to fight for the championship unless those wins are against rated hwts. There could have been lots of newspaper articles where Lems call for a title shot was mentioned. Lem blew it by having such a short time in the limelight. Extremely short.

 

It was five months between the time he beat Musto to the day he was koed by Pastor. You blame Louis?

 

Yeah apparently not, given that eight of Louis's title challengers were coming off of defeats prior to meeting him.

 

This content is protected

Article from SurfBrat

 

On the surface, the volume of defenses Louis made makes it suspicious to the lack of black challengers, However looking closely only two have any real claim Ray and Franklin. And both are debatable omissions not glaring.

 

Perry,

Seems the papers recognized Jimmy Bivins as a "threat to upset" Franklin when they fought. He was 23-1 coming into the fight.

Also refers to Franklin as "The divisions biggest puncher next to Joe Louis"

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...s-away-35-pounds-but-hopes-to-menace-franklin

 

Bivins did too for early 1946. Look at his body of work from 1943-1945. He deserved the chance over Conn.

 

By early 1947, Elmer Ray had compiled a 47 fight win streak with about 43 of them by KO.. Walcott and Savold were among his victims and Ray was briefly ranked the #1 contender.. But once again, a potential threat was forced to go through one final elimination hoop before getting a title shot, unlike so many before him who did far less to get a chance at the brass ring.

 

True about Bivins I overlooked him because they fought after Louis was champ.
So we have Ray, Franklin and Bivins. I think the field should be narrowed to those three and cases for and against should be made.

 

What? You took 35 guys over an 18-year period and wondered why Louis didn't defend his title against them?

Here's how ludicrous that is.

Here are 30 "black" welterweights over the last 18 years.

Why did Floyd Mayweather only fight Mosley and Judah?

Maybe he picked fighters who were more qualified at the time. Maybe he picked fighters who were ranked at the time. Maybe he picked fighters who hadn't already retired by the time he won the title. Maybe he fought Manny and Canelo over Shawn Porter and Kell Brook because he could make more money.

Give me a break.

1. Floyd Mayweather
2. Pernell Whitaker
3. Vernon Forrest
4. Shane Mosley
5. Ike Quartey
6. Oba Carr
7. Zab Judah
8. Cory Spinks
9. Andrew “Six Heads” Lewis
10. James Page
11. Tim Bradley
12. Keith Thurman
13. Kell Brook
14. Shawn Porter
15. Devon Alexander
16. Derrell Coley
17. Randall Bailey
18. Joshua Clottey
19. Paul Williams
20. Adrien Broner
21. Andre Berto
22. Mike Jones
23. Lovemore N’Dou
24. Teddy Reid
25. Michael Covington
26. Larry Marks
27. Vince Phillips
28. Raul Frank
29. Freddie Pendleton
30. Jackson Osei Bonsu

 

The point of my thread isn't too say "Louis ducked Black Fighters" Because that's untrue. Louis fought the two best black fighters of the era Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles.

My point is Louis missed out on 2-3 key fighters during his reign that deserved shots...They happened to be black.


All those other black fighters I listed, they deserved to have their moment. Some of them have gotten lost in history, primarily to the lack of opporunities they got in their careers due to their skin color. I will make sure they aren't forgotten.

 

Okay.

The second Simon fight was for Navy or Army relief (I forget which). Louis was already enlisted, and so was a soldier who did what his superiors wanted. He was not a free agent.

Simon was not selected (nor was Buddy Baer in the 1942 fight) because he was a "worthy" contender, but because he would appeal to the crowd whom they were trying to draw to buy war bonds.

Put bluntly, Simon and Baer were Jewish.

Louis donated his purse to the government.

*aside, boy was Louis screwed by this fight. He puts his title on the line in a gesture of patriotism for expenses only. For this gesture, the IRS later comes after him for not paying taxes, and revisionist critics pop up in the 21st century to accuse him of drawing the color line.

**I think the just thing to do would be to forget the 1942 Baer and Simon fights when judging Joe Louis' reign and defenses.

 

No he didn't. Louis-Conn was the last big heavyweight title fight before the U.S. entered the war. If anything, Conn deserved a shot before ANYONE Louis fought during the war. But winning WWII took precedence.

I don't know why Jimmy Bivins and Lem Franklin and every other pro boxer in the U.S. wasn't fighting in WWII. (Pro athletes can't beg out for medical reasons.)

Once everyone returned, Bivins lost to pretty much all of them. Franklin had been beaten to death by a fringe guy.

None of them were beating Louis.

Seems like a pretty pointless argument.

 

Thank you. I can accept this explanation. But not any others which claim those guys were more deserving than some other challengers at the time.

 

Actually it's a pretty easy argument for me..


Jimmy Bivins was the Ring Magazine # 1 heavyweight contender in 1942 and 1943, and # 3 ranked in 1945. He also won the interim heavweight champion of the world and was recognized as the world heavyweight champion in Joe Louis' absence for 3 years. Now, shouldn't Louis in his comeback in 46 take on the man who the press as been calling "Interim World Heavyweight Champion"? This makes Bivins the 2nd best guy in the division next to Louis.


Conn, on the otherhand, had not fought in 4 years. He was out of shape, and an alcoholic.


Could Louis have fought both in 46? Absolutely. That's what should have happened.