who was better the black contenders or the white contenders? 10 best black men vs 10 best white men of the 1940s excluding Louis Tier 1: Walcott, Charles, Moore, Bivins, Ray, Murray, Thompson, Toles, Bobo, Franklin, Tier 2: Conn, Pastor, Baksi, Maxim, Bettina, Savold, Nova, Oma, Mauriello, Godoy Anyone calculate the record tier 1 fighters produced against tier 2? Counting Louis and Charles title defenses 1940-1950, there were 22 title defenses total. Only 3 were against black men. Louis vs Walcott 47 Walcott 48 Charles vs Louis 50 The remaining 19 title defenses were against white men Were the white contenders that much better during this period to deserve that many more title shots?
*First, just a minor point. I don't think Godoy was a white fighter. He was from Chile and I thought he was of mixed Native American ethnicity. Don't know for certain, though. But he seems an odd one to lump with American whites. Second, you are following Mendoza's lead in confusing differing periods, and confusing stats. First place, I think there were only 20 heavyweight championship fights in the 1940's. 3 were black on black fights. Louis & Walcott in 1947 & 1948, and Charles & Walcott in 1949. The problem with going after Louis is 13 of his 17 defenses were in 1940 to 1942. Most of your black contenders were not contenders back then--Walcott, Charles, Ray, Moore, and Murray. Thompson was losing to Pastor twice. Bivins was still getting it together against Pastor, who beat him in their first fight. Toles was around, but not in the top five, and he had been KO'd by Louis. That leaves Franklin, and we have gone around with that one. Louis is in the service from 1942 to 1945. If that is your criticism, make it. After the war Louis defends his title four times, against Conn and Mauriello, and twice against Walcott. Could Louis have fought more men. I suppose, but defending four times against #1 contenders in two calendar years is actually pretty good. Saying Walcott or Charles or Ray were better than the 1940 or 1941 fighters is historical nonsense. It is somewhat like calling it unfair that Mickey Mantle hit .365 in 1957, which would have won the battling title in almost any other year, but didn't that year because Ted Williams hit .388. But it really isn't unfair, it is just life. Mantle's average was not the best average in 1957. Same with any batting champion. Saying X hit higher in this or that year than several guys who won batting titles in other years means nothing. If X didn't have the highest batting average he wasn't the batting champion. Charles defending against Lesnevich and Valentino seems more questionable, actually, to me than Louis' defenses.
Ok So change the period. 30s and 40s together Which was the stronger period for contenders?? White or black?
