The influence of the colour line?

"Louis had only 3 title defenses out of 25 against black men."

Do you also criticize Jackie Robinson for facing mainly white pitching during his early years in the major leagues? This is a pointless statistic unless you can name the men who clearly should have been given shots. Lem Franklin? We've been over him. Elmer Ray? But he lost to Walcott and Walcott got the shots. What exactly is wrong with that? Louis broke down the color line and because the color line had been so overwhelming, there were not that many black challengers out there before WWII.

"Chalking up every top black fighter not getting a title shot because of WWII seems lazy."

It is far lazier to ignore WWII and that over 16 million folks in the US alone (out of a total population of 130 million) were in the service, while boxing titles were frozen. Make your points from 1941 and earlier or 1946 and later. But WWII is not something to ignore.

"obstacles were always placed around these black heavyweights"

I don't see the big problem with Ray being matched with Walcott in 1947. Walcott was the one who had beaten a slew of top men. Ray had picked his spots in comparison. After Ray's 1946 victory the two were one and one. A rubber match made sense and Walcott won it. I think Ray was certainly worthy of a shot but he was not clearly more worthy than Walcott.

Name the others and I'll discuss them.

"the Ring Magazine was run by racist white men"

Others have pointed out how you throw racist charges around rather freely. Provide evidence that the ratings were skewed against black contenders. It might have been obvious, but Joe Louis was the #1 contender as early as 1935. In 1936 Al Gainer and Henry Armstrong were #1 contenders. In 1941 Booker Beckwith at lt heavy, Ray Robinson at welter, and Bob Montgomery at lightweight were #1 contenders. All sorts of black fighters were at the top of the contender ratings. Nat Fleischer may have had a lot of blind spots, but racism seems to me a tough sell in his case.

Actually, this racist charge seems to me a lazy way to pump up fighters who never quite made it to the top of the ratings because their records weren't quite that good.

 

You failed to comment on Bivins getting removed from number 1 but not conn

Ray made it to number 1 status. Louis failed to have any title fights from sept 1946-dec 1947. Nearly a year in a half without a fight. Couldn’t squeeze ray in there before Walcott? Louis even said he would fight the winner of ray Charles I

Mauriello gets promoted to number 1 for a few months and immediately signs for a title fight. No eliminator, no having to beat Walcott.

ray gets promoted to number 1 for a few months. Louis doesn’t sign, instead ray has to fight a rematch eliminator with Walcott. Fair?

“Walcott”

More obstacles for Ray. Funny how men like Musto, Simon, Roper, paycheck, Burman, McCoy, all received title shots with low ratings, while you never hear of a black men during that era get a title shot without either dominating everyone in the top 10, or winning 2-3 title eliminators.

Are you saying there wasn’t racism in sports during that period? Klompton already outlined how corrupt the New York RING was back then compared to NBA

“Pump up fighters whose record wasn’t that good”

wills didn’t have a good record? How about rays 74-3 record post 1941? How about Langford’s record?

A number of white men whose records weren’t that good received title shots compared to wills, Langford, Jeanette , Mcvey, Ray, and others.

Plenty of white men who weren’t rated or barely rated received title shots. Not the case with black men.

“Jackie Robinson”

Look at babe Ruth and his amazing numbers. He obviously was an elite talent, but he played in an era only of white ball players. He didn’t compete against josh Gibson types for the batting crown every year.

I’m more impressed with Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle who hit against men of all races.

 

Melio Bettina in 1944.

Max Baer in 1940.

But Max had been champion years earlier. Baer was forced to fight an elimination with Nova (fairly I think) and lost.

I think Dan Bucceroni was briefly #1 in The Ring monthly ratings before Nino Valdes earned the top spot by KO'ing Heinz Neuhaus. I don't think it at all unfair that Bucceroni never got a shot.

Rex Layne and Lee Savold I think never rose above #2 while Charles was champion because of the presence of Joe Louis. But Layne especially had a better case in 1951 for a title shot than some who got shots and even repeat shots.

Steve Hamas--1934 (I guess it might be fair to ask why Hamas fought a rematch with Schmeling in 1935 when he had already beaten him decisively?)

Below heavyweights

Jake LaMotta--#1 contender in 1943 and 1946. Didn't get a shot until 1949.

Joey Giardello--#1 contender in 1954. Didn't get a shot until 1963.

Jimmy Webb--1940

 

Proof Bucceroni was number 1? I don’t believe it

Bettina is your only example for heavyweight. Baer received a title shot at one point in his career. Bettina can be excused because his rating happened right in the middle of WW II

 

Prior to 1952

Only 6 men Jack Johnson Joe Louis Henry Lewis Jim Johnson Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles received title shots. 1894-1960 just 8 black men

How many white men received title shots during that period? How many white men not rated in the top 5 received title shots during this period? Do you think that’s justifiable?

 

I have to go, but I will come back to reply to this. Some of this makes sense and much doesn't.

 

Ok

It’s amazing how many lengths you go to defend harry wills of injustice, yet when it comes to any black heavyweight from 1930-1950 you make excuses why they didn’t earn their title shot. Did racism stop or were white heavyweights that much better? In the case of Louis, he was a one in a billion elite talent who was heavily connected with a white manager who basically paraded Louis around on strings making him act like what he thought the country “wanted” ...and look what he had to go through to get a title shot? Clean out four previous heavyweight champions and have to give up 10 percent of his earnings every fight. Then once he became heavyweight champion, he pretty much only fought rated or unrated white men

What gives?

 

"Conn"

Conn getting the #1 contender spot back in 1945 is what that generation wanted to do. They are the ones who fought the war and made the sacrifices during the war. What I think or what you think about this is not where I want to go. It was their decision to make about a unique situation and I don't see a point in second guessing now.

"Bivins losing his rating to Mauriello"

I agree with you. I don't understand this part at all. But Bettina also lost his rating to Mauriello. So I am not certain racism is the key. It does seem in conflict with Conn getting his rating back after war service. Bivins and Bettina don't.

"Ray gets promoted to #1 for a few months."

Did he? Not by The Ring I think. Mauriello was actually the #1 contender at the end of 1946. I don't understand that, frankly. But it appears to me that in the Ring ratings Ray was never #1. He lost in March, 1947 to Walcott a couple of weeks before Mauriello lost to Shkor. I think The Ring was way off base for not having Ray #1 at the end of 1946. Why didn't they? I suppose it is because Walcott had already lost to Maxim before his loss to Ray.
After winning the rubber with Ray, Walcott was the legit #1 I think.

"while you never hear of a black man in that era get a title shot w/o dominating everyone in the top ten, or winning 2-3 title eliminators."

Walcott in July, 1951. He was coming off losses to Layne and Charles. He had already had four title challenges.

Still, there is validity to this point. The black challengers were clearly top level. The white contenders were sometimes worthy and sometimes not worthy. But unworthy white contenders getting shots continued for the rest of the century. Scott Frank anyone?

But if you are talking about Louis prior to WWII. Yes, some mediocre white guys got shots, but the top contenders were white and got shots. So is your complaint that mediocre black challengers should have been at the table along with the mediocre white contenders? Okay, but this is hardly in the same class as outstanding black contenders being denied well-earned shots.

"Walcott and Ray"

Walcott was the other leading contender. Why is it so fair to bypass Walcott in 1947 for Ray? It is arguable that Walcott had done a lot more. I see no big problem with the two fighting a rubber match considering their second fight was so close.

"Are you saying there wasn't racism in sports during that period?"

Come on. What I am saying is I don't see having Ray fight Walcott with the winner eventually getting a shot at Louis as much of a sign of racism.

"Klompton already outlined how corrupt the New York Ring was back then compared to the NBA."

I would be interested in his viewpoint on if he thinks the Ring ratings were racist. I don't think that is what he implied.

"Wills, Langford, Jeannette, McVea"

We are talking about the Louis to Marciano era, after the fall of the color line.

 

My original post was about the Louis to Marciano era. Joe Louis, John Henry Lewis, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, and Archie Moore got shots in this era. This was an era of black champions for the most part.

I am simply not referring to Sullivan or Jeffries or Dempsey. Those men were in the color line era.

 

Ah ok I see. So you think Sullivan to Dempsey era Was a lot tougher on black heavyweights than Louis to marcianos era?

 

Are you equating Harry Wills being avoided for 7 years with Lem Franklin? Buddy Walker? Roscoe Toles?

Even Elmer Ray? Ray lost to Walcott who fought Louis. Is a bit different from Wills.

Lem Franklin beats one so-so white contender, Simon, and then gets KO'd by Pastor and Savold.

Buddy Walker--moves into the ratings and then loses to Tony Shucco (2), Red Burman, and Gus Dorazio. Roscoe Toles hangs around at the bottom of the top ten while losing to Rosenbloom, Simon, and Pastor.

What gives is balance. These men don't compare with Peter Jackson or Sam Langford or Harry Wills, nor does Joe Louis compare on this issue with Sullivan or Dempsey. Sorry if you and Mendoza think otherwise.

 

Wasn't it? Louis, Lewis, Walcott, Charles, and Moore wouldn't have gotten shots back then. All of them would have been on the outside looking in. As for others like Ray or Franklin or Henry, it is different not winning key fights than not getting a chance to get into the ring at all with Sullivan or Dempsey or Tunney no matter what.

 

No I don’t. I rate louis the greatest of all time, he fought the three best black fighters of the era Walcott, Charles, and Bivins. So I don’t agree with Mendoza. I do not think he ducked Franklin. However, I do think he missed out on Ray in 46-47, and having only 3 title defenses out of 25 against black men when Musto, paycheck, Burman, Thomas, roper got title shots seems a bit unfair to really good black heavyweights like Bivins, Ray, Toles, Franklin, Murray, Blunt, Trammell, Thompson, and Bobo who never got a title shot.

You are right, Joe Louis does not compare with what Dempsey did, not even close. Louis did fight the best of his era, Dempsey did not.

My criticisms isn’t necessarily directed at Louis, just the times. I just don’t understand why 1930-1950 only 4 black men got title opportunities out of over 40 heavyweight title fights

 

I agree here

One point, how many obstacles did Franklin and Ray have to face?

Franklin went on a 19-0 run with 17 knockouts from 39-41 and scored early knockouts over two men who had already received title shots. He rose to a Number 2 rating. Why did he have to fight an eliminator vs Pastor? Seems like they asked too much of Franklin. I think he had already more than earned his shot


Same with Bivins entering 1946...went undefeated 1943-1945 I believe 33-0. Why not get a direct shot against Louis right after Conn? Instead had to go through Walcott, Murray Charles? Terrible management

How about ray...went on a 70-1 run from 1943-1946, beat walcott. Why have to fight a rematch vs Walcott to earn a title shot? Then he beat Charles in 47 where before the fight Louis said he would fight the winner. Instead of a shot, he had to fight a rematch with Charles.


So many obstacles for these guys while men like roper, Thomas, McCoy, paycheck, Burman, Musto simon rematch got shots coming off low ratings or losses

 

Its not an Olympic sport, however fencing is. See the difference?