Did Joe Louis duck any fighter???

I dont think so.

But in the boxing business sometimes mediocre fighters get their shots above better ones. There was a Lem Franklin who battered Abe Simon pretty good, and Simon received a second shot in his next fight, probably because he'd lasted 13 with Louis previously and he was Jewish (whereas Franklin was black) and that kind of ethnic stuff was thought to dictate the box-office. Or Simon was just "connected" better than Franklin. Anyway, that one stands out to me because apparently Franklin had Simon up and down like a yo-yo. And Franklin was on a decent winning streak. Then again, Franklin was KO'd by Bob Pastor before Simon and Louis actually fought.

Max Rosenbloom was possibly avoided because he slapped and spoiled and would make anyone look bad.

Generally though, too many of Louis' challengers are under-estimated and their credentials under-acknowledged.

 

People do accuse him of "ducking" certain fighters (basically, any contender he didn't happen to fight), but there really isn't a serious case for claiming he ducked anyone. He generally fought at least one, sometimes two #1 contenders each year of his reign (except when he was in the military of course), and usually a few other top 5 contenders as well. In other words, he fulfilled his obligation as champion.

 

There are a few good fighters Louis could have beaten while champion, but didn't: Roscoe Toles, Turkey Thompson and a prime Jimmy Bivins, for instance.

However, there will be fighters like this on anyone's record. No fighter totally cleans his division, there will always be left overs.

Arguments can be made that certain black folk were avoided, but that was more from a political standpoint than anything else. Louis surely would have beaten them, although of course he'd be more vulnerable post-war. In the end, Louis twice (once?) beat the best black contender of the time and that was Jersey Joe.

Louis' total list of 'contenders beaten' is quite long, and many on the Bum of the Month tour were regulars in the RING ratings. The end-of-year ratings for 1938 list ten contenders for the title; Louis would soon beat, or had already beaten, eight of them, including the top seven. Likewise, the ratings for 1942 listed six fighters who Louis had already beaten, or would soon do so.

Of course, RING ratings aren't the end-all, but they usually give a good indication.

 

Most of the contenders when Louis was actually an active champ were white. The black contenders, ie: Bivins, generally came around either during or just before Louis went into the army.

 

Pre-army there were still black contenders who missed out; Franklin and Toles mainly. Post-war, there was Bivins and Thompson, and also Elmer Ray. Not a big deal though, as none of them were outstanding (Bivins was better at light heavyweight) and Louis eventually wiped all doubt with a knockout of Walcott, who was better than all previous.

 

Bivins 1942-'46 was arguably better than Walcott, and was actually very possibly robbed against Walcott in their 1946 fight.

 

Yeah, in that period, but by '46/'47 I'd say Walcott was better than Bivins ever was.

 

I wouldn't.
Walcott was in close fights with Maxim, Bivins, Ray and an old faded Joe Louis. He picked up close losses to Maxim and Ray, and beat them with close decisions, and probably got a gift over Bivins. Looks like all these were in the same ballpark.

Louis knocking out Walcott in 1948 doesn't wipe away any doubt over his chances against a c.'45 Bivins for example. Not that I have much doubt.

Perhaps Louis's KO of Tami Mauriello says more, because Mauriello was a very good fighter, not far behind the likes of Bivins, but then he was too much of brawler and got excited when he rocked Louis in the opening seconds.
Walcott had the longevity or late-career flourish to catch a slipping Louis but still got crushed in the rematch. I dont think Walcott stands out as better than Bivins ever was. Bivins probably peaked too soon, and Louis was still good enough in 1945/'46 to beat him I'm sure.

 

I would assert that Bivins was more consistent, and that goes for his whole career. More consistent than Walcott, at least, who I feel could step up his game to all-time great levels when prompted. I couldn't see Bivins giving Louis such a tricky fight, even if Louis was fading. Bivins was a Sammy Angott, where Walcott was a Jimmy Carter. On one hand you have a fighter who'll always be a tough fight, on the other, you have a boxer who has a tendency to underachieve but at times shows true greatness.

 

I think Walcott was a tremendous fighter but tends to get over-rated.
Why call it "underachieve" ?
All fighters have their best performances and their worst. Walcott at his best wasn't good enough to dominate a badly slipped Joe Louis, and lost a disputed decision and got KO'd. The rest of his best performances he beat some decent contenders, sometimes clearly, sometimes less clearer, and lost some close ones. All these fights c.1945-'49 have about the same consistency.
Walcott was pretty much at his best from 1945 through to 1952, and none of the performances stand out as horrible, and his best-remembered fights (v. Louis 1, Charles 3, Marciano 1) were miles above what I'd expect from him judging from his other fights.

Bivins was a tremendous fighter too, but peaked at a time when opportunities (at light-heavy and heavy) to make historically remembered fights just weren't there. And his slick skills and "all-time great" levels of ability - if he had them - aren't as easily ready on film.

That's my take anyway. :good

 

Any good south paw heavy weights around in those years?

 

joe ducked exactly as many contenders as ali and hagler............none

 

I don't think that anyone can really make a case for him " ducking " anyone. There were however, some decent fighters that I suppose he COULD HAVE fought, but basically he beat the best men of his era. A bout with Elmer Ray sometime around 1946-1947 might have been an interesting match.

 

This content is protected