On how many occasions did Vitali fight the highest ranked contender available to him that was neither himself nor his brother? My list: 1) Samuel Peter
You point? I see nothing wrong with your list, rather its your thinking and standard. No other world champion also had his brother occupying the Champion, or #1 spot for years. Like I said Vitlai was willing. I mentioned three highly ranked guys who would not fight Vitali one of whom was the lineal champion and backed out of the re-match!. I also mentioned that often the #1 spot was occupied by a Klitschko. You acting like the #2 guy wanted Vitali That's not how it went down, they often fought Wlad instead, meanwhile Vitali often fought those who beat Wlad or gave him a really hard time. I never saw a challenge from you #2 guy to fight Vitali. Can you show me any? Only Peter tired. And he lost even round and was stopped. You can't make whomever you want fight so and so. But to flip it a bit, Vitali was never knocked down, or behind on the cars or needed a gift decsion vs his ranked opponents, many of whom were better the Joe Louis ranked opponents. You don't want to talk about that, you just keep repeating how many time did Vitali fight the highest ranked oppoent that was not his brother. Usually one person not name Wad could quality for the #2 man when Vitali was active. Sometimes that person was an world champion himself and not interesting in fighting Vitali. For example Maskev vs Vitali was talked about when Oleg was #2.
Excellent, therefore we agree that Vitali only once, in his entire career, managed to beat the best fighter available to him. But, for various reasons, he is apparently not to be held accountable for this. Joe Louis on the other hand, who repeatedly met the best fighter in the world available to him, either the most, or second to most times in all of heavyweight boxing history, is to be ridiculed and accused of racism and ducking because he failed to meet a number contender while he performed duties relating to world war two one one-hand, or because he missed out on a number one contender with whom he planned a fight, only for the number one contender to be removed from the number one contender spot. And you don't see the problem?
No. You don't see the problem as Louis gave title shots to many fighter in the top ten ranked from #2 to #10. My issue is NONE of them were black. Not one. Just 2 of 26 title defenses vs black men. Fact. One was half blind and a light heavy, the other Walcott and he was ranked 9th. Are you okay with this as many talented bald fighter never got their shot? Answer yes or no if you can be honest. Louis did not always fight the #1 or #2, and sometimes the #2 was black, You should agree that because Vitali and Wlad were the best for a decade, finding a suitable #2 was not easy. You seem to have a hard time admitting. Also outside of the Klitschko's you be hard pressed to say anyone was a clear #2 for the times expect for Povetkin. In many cases the #3 was better than the #2 guy who was ranked in hindsight. Also if you want to be honest, with just 1 champion like it was in Joe's time the contenders had no option but to fight him. These days ,other words champions , some of whom were #2 at a point can pick who they want and in Vitali's time that was Peter Povetkin, and Massive. Ruiz, Rhaman, and Byrd ( Contracted by Don king who matched them vs each other ) and Valuev. also waned no part of Vitali, as that would likely cost King his only best. Make sense> How about this queison, to mirror your unfair standards. Who fought more ranked black fighters in title fights, Vitali or Louis? Now answer or I just might keep asking you ad nausea Its' a lopsided answer, I know.
Johnson would beat very few of the Heavyweight Champions that came after him. Style wise he would get absolutely slaughtered by many of them. Johnson was great at his time for how he fought and who he fought but his skill set doesn’t really translate to modern boxing.
I think the only responsibility a top fighter has - Joe Louis or Vitali or anyone - is to their number one contender. That's the standard. I don't care about Italian. I don't care about black. I care about number one. NOBODY has a case to be ducked worth looking at except an unmatched number one contender. So yes, I'm ok with it. Louis and his people did one of the three things - a) Easy touch. b) Number One c) Big money. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the Number Ones are properly represented. I won't "admit it" because it's nonsensical. I didn't say number two, number one or any other number. I gave him a VERY special dispensation offered to no other fighter in history: On how many occasions did Vitali fight the highest ranked contender available to him that was neither himself nor his brother? He managed ONE. That is utterly pathetic. I agree. That's why the standard is probably slightly lower era on era. However, it's still higher than: 1. WTF is wrong with you. Vitali. Who fought more white ranked fighters in title fights? See that question ^ It's f*cking pathetic.
Just give up already! Louis fought 2 black opponents in 26 title defenses. Many ranked black opponents never got a shot. But many white opponents not ranked #1 did. If that upsets you so be it. That was my point, then you tried to move it top tanked contender for whoever reason. My point many Louis #1 ranked opponents that would not be ranked today., so let not act like KOing Galento is a big thing. Hardly, however getting floored by him is an embarrassment. Galento wasn't skilled. He was short, fast, and could hit. Good enough for #1 back then. If anything it shows Louis better land his best quick, as numerous other punchers had far more height, reach and skills than Galento, and some of those include the black opponents Louis did not select for title shots. Wlad and Vitali were often 1 and 2 or Ring magazine champion and #1 ranked when both were active. That makes it IMPOSSIBLE to fight the #1 guy ( Louis did not have this problem ), and the #2 guy as I showed you the often had another belt and wanted to make money elsewhere, he did not want to risk vs Klitschko. I also pointed out who avoided Vitlai. You're acting out of character. I'm not sure why you are. The good news is I'm moving on from this thread. By the way, who's you pick between Louis and Johnson, let's end agreeing? Louis KO in 6. for me. There's a pretty big fight coming up this weekend, I rather spend time talking about that one.
Lem Franklin was light years from being in the class of Harry Wills. To say that Joe Louis made a concerted effort to duck Franklin, a heavyweight contender for only a few months at best, is absurd. - Chuck Johnston
Read the following carefully. Basically, you haven't responded to my last post. The following response is only a re-itteration of what has gone before because you response is totally non-sequential. You have essentially failed to respond to my last post an have rather strawmanned an imaginary argument you are having in your own head. If you respond to this message, please ensure it is a response to this message. Note that this should be a direct response rather than a response to your head voices. In no way does this "upset me". To quote a response to my previous post: I think the only responsibility a top fighter has - Joe Louis or Vitali or anyone - is to their number one contender. That's the standard. I don't care about Italian. I don't care about black. I care about number one. NOBODY has a case to be ducked worth looking at except an unmatched number one contender. So yes, I'm ok with it. Louis and his people did one of the three things - a) Easy touch. b) Number One c) Big money. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the Number Ones are properly represented. Understand: IN NO WAY DOES THE FACT THAT LOUIS FOUGHT "2BLACK OPPONNENTS IN 26 TITLE DEFENCES "UPSET ME". To reiterate: I think the only responsibility a top fighter has - Joe Louis or Vitali or anyone - is to their number one contender. That's the standard. I don't care about Italian. I don't care about black. I care about number one. NOBODY has a case to be ducked worth looking at except an unmatched number one contender. So yes, I'm ok with it. Louis and his people did one of the three things - a) Easy touch. b) Number One c) Big money. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the Number Ones are properly represented. If there is ANY further confusion regarding this issue note the above. THIS is my "feeling" on the matter. For, literally, the fifteenth time in this thread I am NOT asking you when Vitali fought the number one guy. I AM GIVING VITALI A UNIQUE PASS IN THIS REGARD. ALSO THE NUMBER TWO CONTENDER WHEN HE WAS NUMBER ONE OR NUMBER TWO. Rather: On how many occasions did Vitali fight the highest ranked contender available to him that was neither himself nor his brother? PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND, BEFORE ONE OF US DIES. VITALI IS BEING HELD TO A LOWER STANDARD!! NOT ASKING FOR "NUMBER ONE RANKED" THIS IS YOUR FANTASY! RATHER ASKING FOR: On how many occasions did Vitali fight the highest ranked contender available to him that was neither himself nor his brother? You and I agree that the total number is "one", that is, "1". You have refused to answer questions about that fighters ranking - ok. THIS IS PATHETIC. VITALI DOES NOT MEET THE BEST CONTENDERS. PATHETIC.
If I was guessing I would say yeah. They didn't help each other. But Wlad, eventually, kicked Vitali out of his camp and got on with it on his own. He also met notably better opposition. I always wonder, and nobody has asked them: why? Same management, same ambitions for dominance (apparently), Wlad met consistently with better competition. Why?
McGrain, Is something is eating you with. Was your account hacked? If not, like you to use Caps. You aren't a bad poster. What if I were to tell you, you agree with my points on Louis not fighting the top black talents in title matches? I'm sorry, it's going to be a checkmate here. [url]http://www.boxing.com/the_100_greatest_heavyweights_of_all_time_part_seven_40_31.html[/url] Using your own top 100 heavyweights, I see Jimmy Bivins was ranked #40, and ranked ( a #1 ) when Louis was Champion. Louis said “Jimmy is a really good fighter,” Joe Louis would say of Jimmy Bivins in June 1943, “who doesn’t always put out all he’s got. I’ve watched him and I can see in spots he’s got the stuff." -Joe Louis. Guess what no title shot for Bivins! Very few Joe Louis title opponents are better than #40 in our own opinion! " How Bivins would have fared with Louis in the early ‘40s might be deduced from the clues littering the Clevelander’s record and of most concern to Louis should be Jimmy’s incredible record versus punchers. He got the better of series with Lee Q. Murray, Curtis “Hatchetman” Sheppard and in individual fights with Billy Smith and Turkey Thompson, both of whom dropped one-punch booms of the highest order but succumbed to the turgid but deadly stylings of Bivins. " Matt McGrain. Bivins beat some ranked African American opponents that Louis did not fight. Now, let's look at Elmer Ray, you #31 ranked heavyweight of all time! He didn't get a title shot either! Outside of Schmeling who was 1-1 vs Louis and Walcott *( Who evidence suggests beat him in their first fight ) , no Joe Louis title opponent ranked higher than this. " In front of a near sold-out Madison Square Garden, “Ray skyrocketed up to the number one spot among the challengers for Joe Louis’s title” according to the Associated Press. Take note: Ray was the only man who would inhabit the #1 contender’s spot during the greatest reign in boxing history who did not get a shot at the title. It is reasonable to ask why not. " - Matt McGrain Yes, It is reasonable to ask that. *** Footnote, that's not true, Bivins was #1 at heavyweight also in 1943. *** Proof at the below link: [url]https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_1943[/url] I agree with you! On both counts. Thank you so very much for hammering my points. Not only did Louis, fight but two African Americans in his 26 title fights; he completely passed by two of them who were at one point ranked #1. I'm not talking Lem Franklin or Turkey Thompson here ( Guys who Louis did not fight who were African American and ranked ) Argue with yourself on an article that you put a lot of work in; you cannot. But I would like to see a reply back, because I think your a stand up guy . -M
From hereon in where you repeat yourself in an effort to undermine Joe Louis, I will only reply in the form of answers I have already provided. For other readers, these answers will be in italics. Either a) you don't know that Joe Louis didn't fight a defence in 1943 due to World War Two, which is utterly embarrassing given the length of time you have been on the forum or b) you are trying to paint Joe Louis as racist against African Americans because he didn't stage a defence in 1943 even though you KNOW Louis didn't stage a defence because of World War Two. I won't bother to ask which it is; each one is as miserably pitiful as the other. Louis and his people did one of the three things - a) Easy touch. b) Number One c) Big money. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the Number Ones are properly represented. Either a) you don't know that Joe Louis didn't fight a defence in 1943 due to World War Two, which is utterly embarrassing given the length of time you have been on the forum or b) you are trying to paint Joe Louis as racist against African Americans because he didn't stage a defence in 1943 even though you KNOW Louis didn't stage a defence because of World War Two. I won't bother to ask which it is; each one is as miserably pitiful as the other.
I think, for a variety of reasons, he felt unfulfilled, and that might be why the only time he ever match the best available and won was in that comeback fight. But it's not like he came back and then put his pedal to the metal matching the best. In fact, he didn't bother. My point is - why did Wlad meet all the best fighters? Why wasn't it shared in even the least?
McCgrain, I used your own words to sink you. Man up to them! Run from them you can not. Your article has some errors in to too. I will save you embarrassment from asking yoru honest opinion on who won between Wallcot and Louis 1, based on the media scorecards and video footage we have, and not ask how in the world Micky Walker rates among the top 100 heavyweight ever. Louis job in the army was boxing he gave over 90 exhibitions, and could have given Bivins a shot sooner or afterwards. Look, Bivins was ranked #1 in 1942. You do now Louis had two title fights in that year, don't you? ( Simon and Baer ) Why not the #1 contender? I'm not undermining history. Your trying to re-write it now while arguing with yourself! " From hereon in where you repeat yourself in an effort to undermine Joe Louis, I will only reply in the form of answers I have already provided. For other readers, these answers will be in italics. " - McGain? From hereon in I will quote your own words on this topic, if your try to absolve Louis for not fighting qualified African Americans. This game is over, your only winning move it not to play. No worries, I won't bang on as long as you act normally towards me. I received wonderful news today, an executive form the company I work two levels above my own boss gave me a call this AM. I am being promoted and will be busier during the day. My time for boxing may become limited during the week days. As such I am going to try changing my posting style a bit, giving PM's to people who make mistakes and add silly icons to mock, instead do burying them like some feel they might deserve. -M
