Yeah, I'm absolutely comfortable with my opinions in this thread versus my article. I'm happy with my responses to your incursions. Feel free to pursue them further if you like. I've produced more than one million words and multiple millions of views in terms of my articles. I'm as widely written and widely read as anyone on the boxing internet outside the majors. It would be astonishing if they didn't contain errors and if those errors had not been uncovered. It takes a special kind of wormy c0cksucker to post the above though. I've been through this with you before. I would point out, for the eighth or ninth time that you yourself "scored the highlights" of each round using the ten points must system, like a special idiot. I pointed out to you that the ten points must system was not in use and that in the round-by-round scoring system used, you yourself had the fight incredibly close, in fact 8-6-1. You never did respond. Anyway, you can read details on my opinions as to what occurred in that fight in this very well received article: http://archive.boxing.media/how_to_..._defense_the_shadow_of_jersey_joe_walcot.html Media and judges combine to form a 33% capture for Louis. In no way can this be considered a robbery. You personally scored the video footage incredibly close. You don't have to ask. My position is laid out in detail here: http://www.boxing.com/the_100_greatest_heavyweights_of_all_time_part_1_100_91.html This series spawned around a million hits and in the word of Springs Toledo, who has literally forgotten more about boxing than you will ever know, "We can count on one finger how many boxing historians would think to include him; so let’s make that one finger the middle one. Matt McGrain has it up like a flag, just for Mickey." Louis was the single greatest heavyweight champion in history; fought more defences than any other heavyweight champion in history; fought either the most or second most number one contenders in boxing history; fought the most number one contenders in history as champion. Number of times Vitali Klitschko met the best fighter available excepting himself or his brother: 1 It's absolutely clear Joe Louis has no excuses to make in terms of defences. Only an absolute idiot would dispute this. Clearly, you are one. Fantasy. I absolutely, irrefutably, and beyond all hope of contradiction absolve Joe Louis for not fighting qualified African Americans. My position is impossible to refute, and nothing you have said has refuted it even marginally
Outside of your opinion, we have fact and what you said. I can not believe your arguing with your own words, and yes you are easily refuted. But like I said, I'm going to be busy. Maybe I will quote yourself if you continue to act so angrily and belligerent. It's over Dude. On Louis vs. Walcott one , 66% of the media cards had Walcott the winner. The audio from the crowd was a thunderous boo when the decision was announced. That should tell you what the people who were three thought of it. Louis's body language was that of the loser, by stark contrast, Walcott's corner could not believe it. If we use the surviving video, it's not even hard call as to who was better. Keep acting like this wasn't a bad decision, it defines you. A nerve was hit here, if I were to say a light punching journeyman of a short fatso type floored Louis, you might say someone threw a banana peel into the ring at this point. Guess what , that happened too. The difference between #2-#3 while Vitali was champion wasn't very significant unless it was Povetkin while Vitali was active. However Vitali fought way more African Americans in his title shots, it wasn't close in comparison to Louis and if that bothers you, you'e earned it. Furthermore its a joke who was ranked #1 in Louis time. Louis struggled in many cases with opponents that guys would not even be ranked today and woud not win a round vs Vitali. I'm not saying Louis was't great. I'm saying your approaching or have reached a very sensitive denial point and currently are contradicting what you wrote. You can reply back angrily, its not going to change a thing. Sure fixate on the #1 contender point! Louis missed two of them who were Black in his time, and stop and admit it that Louis had at least two title fights 2 during WWW 2 while Bivins was ranked #1. Fact. The other #1 was Elmer Ray. Your words on it were perfect. As I said I'll be a bit busier in the future. I look forward to tonight's match up, it could be a very good one. I suggest you have a drink.
Fantasy. All but one card by either one or two rounds, same as yourself. No robbery. Your obsession with race is bizarre. The most important thing a fighter can do is fight the most qualified contender available to them. Louis did this on numerous occasions. Vitali managed it once. Louis delivered his title run universally acknowledged as one of the best champions in history of any weight. Vitali, clearly, fell short in this regard. This is irrefutable. This is a serious accusation and I am taking it seriously. Can you explain why? In detail.
Would anyone really rank Louis higher for beating prime Jimmy Bivins and Tiger Jack Fox, or would they be dismissed as undersized easy touchs? I saw another list that was Lem Franklin, Harry Bobo, Turkey Thompson, Lee Q. Murray, Elmer Ray, Curtis Sheppard, and Jack Trammell. The only one I think really would have added anything to his resume would be a prime Elmer Ray. But really it'd jut be another good win at a level Louis has plenty of good wins, and every long reigning champion has a few guys that get missed out somewhere anyway. I don't think any of the others would even be talked about in Louis's best wins had he fought them. I think there's a good case that there was clearly some racial bias, but Louis didn't have a Peter Jackson, Sam Langford or Harry Wills that failed to get a shot despite being a long time dominant challenger. For the most part their records weren't any better than some of the Louis victims that are basically forgotten like Charley Retzlaff or Stanley Poreda. Whoever he fought, there'd always be someone else.
****ing pathetic,miserably pitiful,wormy cocksucker,special idiot, Wow! Thank heavens you didn't call him a fruit loop ,you would have been booted!
McGrain your'e are still at it? How can you rank Ray and Bivins so highly on your own top 100 list ( Above all but one Louis title opponents ). Then clearly state that Ray deserved a shot, and conveniently look past how Louis had fought in 1942, just not with the #1 ranked contender of the times ( Bivins ) and look in the mirror? Louis missed out on his #1's too, and history shows only 2 of his 26 title defense were vs. Black men. The gate was not the problem. I'm going on what you wrote and quoting it, not with the sensitive fan boy reply, calling me names ( Unlike you ), and trying you best to diminish another fighter during the process who's #1 was most often his brother.
If Louis beat all those guys, his stock would go way up, as they were often better than the white guys Louis gave title shots to. Bivins for example was a top boxer. A long armed guys with some movement skills, they type that Louis struggled with. And Ray for example was a a top puncher, the type Louis often tasted the canvas against. Both Ray and Bivins were the #1 contenders. Lem Franklin, Harry Bobo, Turkey Thompson, Lee Q. Murray, Curtis Sheppard, and Jack Trammel. Most of these guys can punch. Individually I'd pick Louis to beat them, collectively he's likely experience a Galento and Braddock type of moment and would not write off an upset loss. The only really good puncher with skills that Louis beat was arguably Schmeling and Walcott, and he lost to Schmeling and was gifted a win over Walcott. They said Schmeling was past it for the first fight.
Are you crazy? Literally NOTHING you are saying makes sense. You sound like crazy person Mendoza. Let's say there were 3 people during Louis's enormous reign who deserved a title reign that Louis didn't fight and ten that did, that he did. That is colossally successful. Enormously successful. That's great. No fighter who ever lived fought every one of the best contenders available to them throughout their whole career. None of them, or at least none of them that had a meaningful title reign (it may be possible that a fighter who had two title defences did it, for example). Louis fought every single fighter listed as his number one contender by Ring (year end) at some point except for Bettina and of the ones he fought, of those he fought, all received title shots apart from Bivins. There were other fighters who were number one contenders for shorter periods who didn't get title shots and others who did. Exceptional performance from Louis. When we contrast it with Vitali, we see that, overwhelmingly, he did not meet the best available contender. It's a good example of a fighter who consistently pursues the best (Louis), but doesn't achieve 100%, and another who consistently does not pursue the best available (Vitali) who was close to 100% rate of failure in meeting his number one contenders. But you are taking the time to paint Joe Louis as a racist who avoided his top contenders, while ignoring Vitali's miserable and pathetic failure in matching the best available. Right, but you're behaving like what I wrote there contradicts what I wrote here. That is in absolutely no way true. There is NOTHING which has been written there that contradicts what has been written here. It doesn't matter how highly I hold Ray in regard that in no way contradicts what I've written here about Joe Louis. You seem to think it's some sort of home-run lock? It's bizarre in the extreme. I can rank Ray in the top 30 but feel that the short number of weeks he was top contender does not incontrovertibly entitle him to a title shot and if i did i have nowhere claimed Louis fought all his number one conteders, nor have i stated i expect him to or that he should be expected to.
He also injured his hand in the first Walcott fight, and knocked Walcott out in the rematch. If he fought all of them on top of his current fights, his stock would go up, because it'd be an insane schedule with an absurd number of title defences. For the most part he'd realisticly need to be taking these fights instead of other contests. Lem Franklin was losing to Tony Mustio and Eddie Sims in 1939, didn't do much in 1940, got some decent wins in 1941, then was losing to Bob Pastor in Feb 1942. Harry Bobo, really a guy going either way with Lee Savold and Bill Poland? His whole record is peppered with losses. At what point did he deserve a title shot over any number of other contenders? Turkey Thompson, completely undersized, and losing at least as much as he won against top heavyweights. Lee Q Murray, never won anything to demand a title shot, and numerous losses certainly don't help his case. Why did Curtis Sheppard deserve a shot? Multiple losses nearly every year he fought to guys who weren't top heavyweights. Bivins was a capable fighter who had a decent run, if all was fair him and Elmer Ray probably should have gotten a title shot, but neither was anything above the level Louis beat, and there's always some guys like that with any long reigning champion. I don't think Bivins was even as good as John Henry Lewis anyway, though his record at heavyweight is probably a bit stronger than I'd initially given credit for. Ultimately Louis fought Walcott twice, who beat them both, and he did it while Louis was significantly past it. Plus he KOed Ray in an exhibition and beat Bivins after his comeback. Frankly had he beaten all of them, only the wins over Ray and Bivins would probably even crack his top 10 wins.
Looking at the end of year ratings during Louis' reign we have 15 black fighters rated. Roscoe Toles in 37,38,39, 41,42, Highest ranking no 4 in1942. Buddy Walker in 40.no5 Otis Thomas in 40.no9 Lem Franklin in40,41. no 10 and no2 Turkey Thompson in 41,42,43.no6,no2,no8 Jimmy Bivins in42 ,45,no1 ,no3 Big Boy Brown in 42, no6 Harry Bobo in 42,no5 Lou Brooks in42,no8 Lee Q Murray in43, 44, 46,no 3 no6, no5 Curtess Sheppard in43,44,no4,no3 Elmer Ray in 44,45,46,no8,no4,no2 Jersey Joe Walcott,in 45,46,no9,no3*Louis beat him twice Al Hart in44, no9 Ezzard Charles in 48, no2*Louis retired came back in1950 and fought Charles I don't think Louis consciously avoided any black fighters,but if he had defended against two of the above,[ excluding Walcott of course,]which would you say were them two most deserving of a shot? It should be noted that Louis defended his title twice in1942,inJan and March against Simon and Buddy Baer and he did it for training expenses only,his purses going to the Army and Navy Relief Funds,and,apart from that aberation against Johnny Davis in Nov44, Louis did not fight again until Jun1946, being in the service and engaging in exhibitions all over the world for the war effort . This effectively rules out challengers that were ranked between those dates.I see no case for the argument that Louis ,of all people ducked fighters of whatever colour.
Ah, ok. Well I'll just make the observation that yourself and Mendoza are the most frequently banned regulars on the Classic forum, and there was probably a bit more too it than that.
No actually there wasn't and it had nothing to do with Mendoza.I've been banned for overiding the censor button which I was unaware was a problem,havent you done that on this thread? Banned for making a thread that was potentially racially inflammatory ,though the late Peter Wilson boxing writer for the Daily Mirror wrote an article on the same subject and also included it in a book. Banned for about 12 hours for calling Rhas a Fruit Loop and I think that's it? If that's the most frequent then the booted signs I see against others names must be erroneous.I'll make another observation,if I had used the language you did against Mendoza on this thread I would have been booted, no question. NB I'm not implying I didn't agree with your posts by the way LOL. ps Im rather dissapointed you chose to respond to that post of mine ,which was a throwaway remark,rather than the other one, which I thought made a valid case for Louis visa vis black challengers.
