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

Care to cast a vote?

 

Had to go with no.

He should not have overruled the rankings, in order to make a political point.

 

Woah woah woah you have film of Thompson vs Haynes? Can you please share that footage. What does Haynes look like?

 

Well you do hate Marciano Layne Lastara Matthews Beshore Savold shkor Reynolds cokkell.... But you love Clarence henry and bob baker

 

Haynes is nothing special. I also have his fights with Lenglet and Godoy. His fight with Godoy is one of the worst fights you will ever see.

 

I don't hate any of those fighters
.Im 66 years old I don't have fan boy crushes or irrational hates on fighters
The only fighters I dislike as people are Naseem Hamed, because I think he is an ****hole. Tyson ditto, and that piece of **** who has just died Ayala.
I consider Marciano a great fighter and from what I have seen in interviews, and read about him, a good man.
As I mentioned I met C*ckell, he was a brave and fine gentleman .
I've never given any hint about my likes or dislikes concerning Shkor other than he was an average fighter .
Ditto Reynolds who put up a brave fight against Marciano in what may be Marciano's most impressive stoppage outside his title fights. Neither them, or the others you mentioned.
You are talking out of your rectum, and not for the first time either.

 

Godoy was 7 yrs past his last fight with Louis. Take that meaningless fight out of the equation and his record against Louis defenses is 2-2-2. The lone guy he beat was Dorazio, one of Louis' lesser defenses. Like I said, pretending he was anything based on that is a major stretch.

I couldnt care less that he beat Ray. My point all along is that Ray is being overhyped based on a padded record and the color of his skin. How do you take a guy with a padded record, claim he was something special based on nothing, then claiming another mediocre fighter was something because he beat the first fighter seems more like an endictment of fighter a. Than a feather in the cap of fighter b.

 

Two errors are being made by the Louis critics.

One--they just aren't paying attention to the time line. A good example is the debate about Galento and Thompson. Thompson was not around in 1939, so it is irrelevant if he was or was not a bigger threat than Galento. It would be like arguing during the Ali era if Duane Bobich would have been a better challenger than Brian London. Doesn't matter. They weren't around at the same time.

two--even more egregious is ignoring World War II and its impact on boxing. This is the real elephant in the room. Louis and other champions were in the service and not fighting. Saying someone was a top contender during the war is pointless.

And it is certainly a valid point that with over ten million young men in the service, how badly depleted was boxing during the war?

It is noteworthy that many of the wartime contenders, black and white, failed rather noticeably from 1946 on.

Ray is the big heavyweight exception and I think he probably should have gotten a shot in 1947, but Walcott proved the better fighter and more qualified challenger.

For the rest, there is a toting up of the number of pre-war white challengers when most of the top ten, and the top four entirely, except for Franklin in late 1941, were made up of white boxers, and Louis was very actively defending, to compare with the rising number of black contenders during the 1942 to 1945 era when Louis was in the service, to make a phony mathematical case to bash Louis.

I find it ahistorical at best, and a bit distasteful at worst.

 

I dislike him as a human being, I'm a big fan of his as a boxer.

 

And Louis ko'd Dorazio,Godoy,Simon and Musto. Godoy when he was a decent fighter, not when he was in decline.Dorazio and Musto were B*m of the month defences in between more stellar challengers.Louis fought them in1941. He also defended against Buddy Baer no 7 ,Red Burman, Billy Conn no1,Abe Simon no5
and Lou Nova number 1 that year. So that's defences against two number one contenders, a defence against the number 5 contender, and a defence against the number 7 contender plus two others against fringe contenders ,all in one calendar year.:think

 

Was Joe Louis probably the best #1 or #2 heavyweight of all time? Absolutely

Was Joe Louis a great champion who defended against the best about 98% of the time? Absolutely.

Would I have favored Joe Louis to beat all of the members of the black murderers row list? Absolutely

Were there perhaps a "few" fighters who never got title shots during Louis's reign, that probably COULD have? Sure why not?

I realize that there are reasons why SOME of those men didn't get title fight opportunities due to things like timing in the ratings, ratings that were short lived, the disruption of the war or even just plain lack of public interest.. But what the hell is wrong with pointing out there were perhaps one or two guys that although weren't mandatory probably COULD have gotten title shots, especially considering that a few lesser men did? And furthermore I don't see why some are taking exception to this thread and getting offended or defensive about it... Its boxing history.. Let's discuss it without getting upset..

 

mr. magoo

I think the original title of the thread is invidious.

I don't think Louis' defenders are all that defensive, but if you put out criticisms you should expect criticism of your criticisms.