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

Simon (and Buddy Baer) in 1942

"Louis's contender selection was based on them being BETTER or more deserving is denial at its finest."

They were selected for fights with Louis who was then a SOLDIER because they were judged to be able to draw the folks who would purchase war bonds.

Louis donated his purses for these fights to the government.

 

And again, this is far more explicable than Simon getting a shot over Franklin because he was more deserving.

 

Not to mention Eddie Blunt(Who defeated 3 of Louis's title challengers), Willie Reddish (defeated 3 of Louis title challengers), Jimmy Bivins( Hall of Famer, future # 1 rated heavyweight)

 

"he was unrated"

Actually he was the #1 contender.

1945 yearly Ring Magazine rankings

Champion--Joe Louis

1---Billy Conn
2---Tami Mauriello
3---Jimmy Bivins
4---Elmer Ray
5---Bruce Woodc-ck
6---Lee Oma
7---Freddie Schott
8---Arturo Godoy
9---Jersey Joe Walcott
10--Joe Baksi

*why was Conn #1?

Because they took the position that those who served in the military during the war should not be penalized for their service and so got the same ranking coming out as they had going in.

Conn had been the #1 contender in 1942 when he enlisted.

At that point, he could be reasonably considered better than Bivins. Bivins split with Pastor. Conn KO'd Pastor. Bivins won one, lost one, and drew one with Bettina. Conn beat Bettina twice.

So Conn was rated higher when he returned,

and got a shot at Louis which drew a really big gate of nearly two million.

 

I made a mistake on that point, but regardless....Bivins was the interim heavyweight champion of the world for 3 years of Louis' absense. He was in his prime, and fighting often. He had an amazing winning streak from 1943-1945.

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

Conn may have deserved a title shot, but so did Bivins. Louis should have proven that he was the One and Only heavyweight champion during those war years by emphatically beating Bivins, and at the very least given Bivins a title shot for all the good work he did from 1942-1945.

 

Musto lost to Franklin after he fought Louis. He had beaten Franklin before he fought Louis. Louis actually defended against the man who won the first Musto-Franklin fght.

Louis wouldn't fight Savold for a decade.

Yes, Franklin had a KO of Savold,

but he also suffered two KO defeats by Savold.

Did Savold KO Louis?

 

The problem for Bivins is that he lost to Walcott, Murray, and Charles in 1946. He was not even in the 1946 yearly rankings. Bettina also dropped, although in his case he had not lost to anyone, and was rated 7th in 1946.

*Frankly, these rankings are hard to understand,

but I do understand the position on Conn and not penalizing soldiers for their military service.

 

"Eddie Blunt (Who defeated 3 of Louis' title challengers)"

Actually four--Buddy Baer, Tony Musto, Abe Simon, and Nathan Mann

as well as Louis opponents Lee Savold and Jorge Brescia

sounds very impressive, but

let's look a bit closer at Blunt

overall record 36-20-6 (14 KO"s) (was KO'd 7 times)

besides the wins above also beat Jack Trammell, Leroy Haynes, and Al Gainer.

He was obviously a tough opponent,

but he was also beaten by Simon, Mann (2), Red Burman, and KO'd by Savold. Jack Trammell also reversed his loss.

Blunt was KO'd by Tiger Jack Fox, Lem Franklin, Bill Poland, Curtis Sheppard, Turkey Thompson, and Perk Daniels, as well as Savold

He lost decisions to Tony Galento, Freddie Fiducia, Alberto Lovell, Al Hart, and Bill Petersen.

Sort of a typical forties record when the color line had fallen and most fighters were fighting most other fighters. Blunt has a lot of big wins, but even more big defeats. Should he have gotten a shot at Louis? Blunt was probably better than a few of the guys Louis defended against, but he would certainly have fit in the bottom third, and was not, and was not viewed as, a top contender.

 

Of course he should of .. I don't see any of them beating him but he should have fought some for sure ..

 

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

Not all of them.

I think the best contender who didn't get a shot in the 1937-1939 time frame was Alberto Lovell.

Melio Bettina certainly deserved a shot and in my judgment was overall a more impressive challenger than Lem Franklin.

Using the "he was better than so and so who got a shot at Louis" argument, there are quite a few white fighters you can make a strong case for, like Joe Baksi.

*In my perspective, Louis is being criticized for defending his title so many times. As he not only met the best contenders, but second-tier guys, a lot of names can be brought up as being better than this or that second-tier contender, as one could bring up names as being better than Terry Daniels or Jose Roman or Jean-Pierre Coopman.

The real issue is did Louis defend against the best out there?

1937 to 1939--obviously, and all of them--Schmeling, Pastor, Farr, Galento

1940 to 1941--Conn was the best out there, then Nova and Godoy. Franklin had a big run, but his collapse in 1942 makes it impossible to see him as one of the top guys.

1942 to 1945--Louis is in the service. The top contenders were Bivins and Bettina, who never got title shots, although Louis did later defeat Bivins.

1946 to 1948--Walcott is the best contender and Louis defends against him. Charles is up there and Louis fought him. Ray is probably the strongest contender during Louis' active defending years who didn't get a shot. He should have.

*bottom line--Louis fought his top contenders, except when he was in the service, which really shouldn't count