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

Thank You MarcianoFrazier

 

Thank You MarcianoFrazier

 

On Franklin's qualifications,

I might consider through the history of heavyweight fights, but right now, I'll just stick to Louis' defenses

Yes--if Franklin is more qualified No--if the actual challenger is more qualified even--if they are about the same

Farr--no
Mann--no
Thomas--yes
Schmeling--no
Lewis--no (I suppose a caveat would be Lewis' physical shape, but he was a lot more proven fighter than Franklin)
Roper--yes
Galento--no
Pastor--no
Godoy--no
Paycheck--yes
Godoy--no
McCoy--yes
Burman--no
Dorazio--even
Simon--yes
Musto--yes
Baer--no
Conn--no
Nova--no
Baer--even
Simon--yes
Conn--no
Mauriello--no
Walcott--no
Walcott--no

(I don't consider Johnny Davis a defense)

If Charles is considered a defense, (as some have historically) he obviously is a no.

of the 25

I have 16 no's

I have 7 yes's

and 2 evens

so I place Franklin in the bottom half in qualifications against the Louis challengers.

Ray would be much higher.

 

When we combine the yes's with the even's that amounts to more than a third of Louis's challengers that he was better than or on equal terms with.. For a champion of 25 title defenses, a third is quite a bit.. and this of course is me giving you the benefit of the doubt that the one's who selected as "no" really were more qualified, as I haven't done an actual side by side comparison. Walcott, Schmeling, Conn and Nova are obvious no brainers. A few of the rest are questionable. But again we're talking about contrasting him to every man who ever challenged for the title and frankly there's been a lot of garbage challengers over the last century or more.

 

Burman, Mann, should be a yes.

 

I don't know about Mann, he was pretty well regarded at one point.

 

Mann had a good 1937. Moved as high as # 3. Franklin earned as high as # 2. Mann beat Pastor and Godoy, good wins. You can call it a wash. On film, Mann was a smaller heavyweight without power, and without elite skills. Beatable fighter.

Burman never moved higher than 7th on Ring Magazine Ratings.

 

Conn was only a more deserving challenger than Franklin in his first fight with Louis.. In the rematch he had been dormant for four years.

 

Mann is no brainer for me as better than Franklin.

His record going into the Louis fight was 40-4-3 and he had never been stopped.

He had wins over Steve Dudas, Gunnar Barlund, Eddie Blunt, Arturo Godoy and Bob Pastor.

Those last two wins give him the edge over Franklin in my judgment.

Burman was ranked #7 in 1938 and 1939, and rose to #3 in the 1940 yearly rankings, behind only Max Baer and Arturo Godoy. I rate him a notch above Franklin because his big win over Farr was over a top heavyweight. Franklin's heavyweight wins were over second-tier guys. His big win was over Bivins, a young but already good fighter, but a light-heavy whose big wins to that point were over Burley and Yarosz.

 

Whatever, but it is off the wall to say that Louis should not have rematched the man who gave him his toughest test as champion, who was ranked the #1 contender, and whom the public was demanding Louis fight and who drew the biggest gate of his career.

You rejected hindsight in putting down Franklin as a contender, but here comes hindsight to put down Conn.

 

A lot.

He certainly wasn't as qualified in my judgment as Walcott, and I think at least Schmeling and Conn and probably Nova of the earlier challengers,

some of this is hindsight though, Ray had a fantastic record of blowing out no hopes and fringe contenders, but at the time Walcott and Charles were not yet champions. Walcott was just an old guy with a spotty pre-war record who had really turned it around, but came into his first fight with Ray off a loss to Maxim. Charles looked like a great fighter, but was fighting at light-heavyweight. Ray edged them both, but lost the rematches.

Still, if Louis had fought Ray, I think I would put Ray at about #5 of Louis's title defense opponents.

 

Partially,

Ray certainly deserved a shot,

but not if it meant Walcott was left out in the cold.

What separates Louis from earlier champions is that he met the outstanding contender(s)--Sullivan did not fight Jackson. Jeffries did not fight Johnson in 1904-05. Johnson did not fight Langford while he was champ. Dempsey did not fight Wills.

Louis did fight Walcott, and also, by the way, Charles and Bivins.

The one guy he missed that means anything is Ray.

I don't see Franklin, or the war-time crowd who faded after the war, as much to get excited about.

 

I we can look at it with a dollop of hindsight now.

Would a win over Franklin have significantly enhanced his legacy?

Not really.

I think that a win over Ray would have been an excellent addition to his resume, but again it is in hindsight.

We know today that Walcott and Charles were better than people thought, and wen't on to be the future champions. Therefore we give Ray more credit for beating them, and less detriment for loosing to them. Simply put, we come down on the side of the contemporary faction who regarded him more highly.

Of course at the time, there was no way of knowing who the future winners and loosers of the division would be. A loss to Walcott or Charles, was a significant setback to your title aspirations.

The hardest thing in these situations, is sometimes being able to block out every single thought, that relies on hindsight.