Any information on Lem Franklin

You are not reading what I said.

1 ) Bear lost to Eddie Blunt. 1-15-1941, yet he fights Louis for the title four months later! A loss did not DQ his chancesm did it? A point to those who say Franklin after 19 fights and beating contenders was DQ'd. A double standard.


2 ) So Buddy Baer Beat Glaento who was 1-2 in his last three fights in April 1941 after the Blunt loss. Was Tony even ranked at the time Ed? Not likely, so how does Buddy Bear get a title shot out of the blue being 1-1 in his last two fights, beating a guy way past his prime?

3 ) What Klompton is saying if true indicates that Franklin was in fact a talent which vindicates what I have been saying. I think his winning steak and having netter results vs common opponents means he should have recieved the title offering sooner.

HOWEVER you have to wonder if it is 100% true as boxing has its share of stories. Without proof, what really is it, some guy who never saw Louis fight says his people were going to fight Franklin next. Where do Franklin's people comment to this in print? Show me that and consider me a believer.

The Ball is in Klompton's court, and no Ochs, whom I've never heard of word is not good by itself in this case. Facts, please.

 

John Ochs has written a masterful trilogy about Jack Hurley ,his fighters and the eras he operated in.
What Klompton said was that you are a complete idiot.

"If you are a complete idiot and have no concept of context like Mendoza then this argument might make sense if you squint really hard at it but no, it holds no water."
Carry on with your Louis bashing crusade ,you only discredit yourself!

 

That “winning steak” should have clinched it.

 

That and the," netter results"!lol

 

Note that I wrote that Mike Jacobs was quoted BEFORE FRANKLIN BECAME A CONTENDER as saying that a bout between Joe Louis and a black fighter with Louis' world heavyweight title at stake would not draw flies. Yes, Louis had a title defense in a bout with John Henry Lewis during the late 1930s, but Lewis was a very well-known fighter. Obviously, things changed when Louis fought Jersey Joe Walcott two times.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Really Jacobs contention had some merit. Lewis, despite being a champion, didnt draw as well as some of the lower ranked white contenders Louis fought. Likewise, the first Walcott gate was the smallest post war gate Louis had as champion. The rematch was larger but it was selling off the drama created by the decision in the first fight. You simply cant ignore the numbers and then say Louis avoided guys like Toles et al when absolutely none of those guys had ever shown they were A. Better than their white counterparts or B. Could draw at the gate. Im not saying its not sad fact but its a fact.

 

I'm asking for proof, that's all. Your such a dolt, you probably believe ANY boxing story that suits your narrative, even if there is no proof of it being true!

The irony is I've seen you blast many boxing stories in the past! You are a funny old man at times, I laugh at you not with you.

If you have any reading comprehension skills left, I did say if I see proof in print by Franklin's people or a 3rd party in those times saying it in print, I'll accept it. Re-read that 3 times, as your too mentally bankrupt to buy a clue.

 

Chuck with all due respect, check the gates on Joe Louis vs John Henry Louis and Joe Walcott. I posted the information here. The live gate drew just fine. What Jacobs is saying does not hold water from a financial point of view.

Louis vs Walcott 1
A crowd of 18,194 produced a gate of $216,477.

Louis vs Walcott 2.
A crowd of 42,667 at Yankee Stadium produced a gate of $841,739!

• By contrast the rematch with Buddy Bear had a gate of $189,700

• By contrast the rematch with Godoy had a gate of $149,505

• By contrast the rematch with Simon has a gate of $132,420

Only the Schmeling re-math and Conn re-match had higher gates for Joe Louis....I think. Not researching all Louis gates, but my point was made, I hope by showing you and the board there was a lot of money to be made in All African American title fights.

Louis vs John Henry Lewis.

A crowd of 17,350 produced a gross gate of $102,015.43.
This fight was a mis-match, yet it drew just fine.

You can say Franklin wasn't the Harry Wills of his times ( I agree ), but my point is with 26 title defenses, and only two opponents being African American, what does that say about the color line mostly being in play? As you can see, it wasn't the gate that was the problem, it was Louis and his management.

That is a good point Chuck, but its clear Mike Jacobs was wrong. When did he write this, before Joe Louis vs John Henry Louis? As I posted, that one drew just fine, and everyone knew John Henry Lewis was on the way out!

" A crowd of 17,350 produced a gross gate of $102,015.43 for Louis vs. JH Lewis. " Sorry Mike Jacobs, that the opposite of drawing flies.

There is a much better case for Louis missing out on Elmer Ray who was highly ranked for a while.

I have a Ring Magazine article that says Louis people saw Elmer Ray fight at Madison Square Garden, and quickly changed their mind on selecting him as an opponent. This was post the Walcott's gate, so here the two black fighters will not draw has categorically been proven false.

 

Louis' purse for the Lewis fight was just $34,413 which was $437 less than he got for the Jack Roper fight!
Louis received $75,968 for the first Walcott fight.His previous purse was $103,611 for defending against Mauriello.
Title defence purses for Louis that were appreciably higher than he got for Lewis are;
Farr $102,578
Schmeling $349,228
Galento $114,332
Pastor$118,400
Conn1 $152,905
Nova $199,500
Conn2 $625,916
Mauriello$103,611
Other defences for which Louis received larger purses were
Mann
Godoy2
Baer 1
Simon2
Baer2
Louis also got bigger purses for fight non title fights before he became champ;
Baer
Schmeling
Sharkey
Carnera
Levinsky
Uzcudun
Pastor

"Jacobs,worried that few people would come to see two black men fight,kept ticket prices low,and as a result MSG was sold out".Richard Bak "Joe Louis The Great Black Hope ".
Ten to one shot Jack Roper earned Louis a bigger purse in his next fight,in LA!



It isn't how many bums are on seats, it's how much their owners are paying to sit there! lol

 

It isnt up to us to educate you. You simply lost an arhument and cant admit you were wrong. Its happened countless times on here before and will continue to happen every time you post. If you had any sense at all youd stop posting about subjects you know nothing about so that this doesnt continue to happen.

John Ochs is the greatest living boxing historian. He has made the most thorough study of Jack Hurleys life and by extension Lem Franklin that ever was or ever will be conducted. Of that I have no doubt. I will defer to his wisdom on the matter, not some idiotic internet troll who is attempting to use what amounts to a factually inaccurate footnote in history as a means of bashing Joe Louis.

 

They quickly changed their mind because Ray barely won a controversial split decision over light heavyweight Ezzard Charles. Not exactly a great way to announce yourself as a threat to Joe Louis. Instead Louis chose to fight Walcott, the guy who beat Ray earlier.

 

In other words, there is NO Proof! I thought so. Klompton, I could list dozens of boxing stories, quoted by people more famous than Ochs, and you might blast some of them. In fact, I've seen you do it!

See my point?

Nope, you're too invested in this and you have a history of tunnel vision once you dig in your heels. In this case, I ask for facts. You've produced squadoosh, nada, zip, zilch and nothing. Just give me the facts, then I'll believe it. A simple request.

Or you can pick and choose which boxing stories are real, and oh this sport has 1,000's of BS quotes and opinions. You know it, I know it and best of all you know that I know it.

If you were trying to prove this in a court of law, the judge would laugh at you.

Congratulations.

PS: If you want to break down Louis on film with me, count me in. He a counter's puncher's delight, poor on defense, with a low guard and a stationary type of stance and leans forward too often with his face. Chin is just nothing special, and he was caught by guys who would not sniff the top ten, even today. He's very fortunate not to have faced a skilled jabber with some size.


PPS: ON Ray

1944 ranked #8
1945 Ranked #4
1946 Ranked #2
1947 ranked #2

Pretty funny how guys ranked lower got shots, yet Ray did not.

In addition the following black fighters were ranked

1944, Sheppard 8, Murray 6
1945 Bivins 3
1946 Murray 5, Sheppard 6
1947 Murray 3, Thompson 8

The Common theme, not one of them got a title shot

Louis is still in my top ten of all time, but his competition was pretty suspect aside from Schmeling, Conn, Walcott and Charles, who if you correct give Walcott the nod in the first fight he's 4-3 vs. these guys, losing the majority of rounds boxed. No need to list Marciano, but if you want to you can do the rest of the math.

 

"Eddie Blunt" "Tony Galento"

Baer didn't get KO'd by Blunt, which was far less damaging to his rep. Galento had lost over the last four years only to Joe Louis and Max Baer. Whether he was a rated paper contender or not didn't matter a great deal to the public, and frankly doesn't to me. Galento had only lost to Max Baer since he came out of 1939 having knocked down Louis and stopped Nova and being ranking the number one contender. This was a big win and certainly made Buddy a viable contender.

"Buddy Baer"

Interesting that Baer is being dissed. Why do I think if Louis never fought Buddy that there would be at least one poster who would mention Baer being 56-5 with 50 KO's, coming off a KO of former top contender Galento, as well as having KO's of Mann and Simon, being the biggest good contender out there at five inches taller and about forty lbs. heavier than Louis, and conclude from all this that Louis was obviously afraid of this huge puncher and ducked him.

"Franklin was in fact a talent"

He wasn't the talent in my judgment that Conn and Nova were, and wasn't rated as high at the time, so I see no problem with Louis defending against those two instead.

"you have to wonder if it is 100% true"

Healthy skepticism is always a good thing, but this info comes from a source who has done a lot of research, and your skepticism is not based on any actual evidence but only unsupported assumptions.

*On your stats of Louis defenses. You always use 2 of 26 (although 25 would be accurate), but it is actually 3 out of 25 fights, or it is 2 men out of 20 men. Louis didn't defend against 25 different men.

The bottom line is this criticism is of a champion who was in the process of making 10 defenses in 18 months. This blows away the entire reigns of almost all previous champions in defending the title.

**Also, I question focusing so heavily on Franklin and other black contenders. Looking at the Ring's yearly rankings, there really were more top rated white fighters who didn't get a title shot--Gunnar Barlund, Lee Savold, Pat Comiskey, Melio Bettina, Joe Baksi, and Bruce Woodcock--during Louis' title reign. Elmer Ray aside, this group largely matches the black contenders. It seems a stretch to me to try to bring in the color line as the crucial explanation. It is difficult for any champion to defend against every decent contender. Defending against the best at the time is the proper standard.

***I don't doubt that Franklin being black hurt with Jacobs, but I also think getting badly KO'd by a light punching former victim of Louis like Pastor hurt more. How would Jacobs sell a fighter who couldn't survive Pastor as likely to survive Louis? Had Franklin only lost a decision to a jabbing and moving Pastor, a different spin could have been put on the loss. Pastor ran, but Louis would be there to slug it out.

 

Proof of what? Proof that Jacobs agreed to fight Franklin? Here:

“Franklin Must Start Over - Loss Humiliates Hurley” Fitzgerald, Fargo Forum February 27, 1942.

Read that and then come back here and post for everyone exactly what it says? Cant be bothered? Then stfu.

You keep talking about these black fighters that were ranked. Ranked by who? Ring magazine? If I have to hear another moron on this forum quote Ring Magazine annual rankings as gospel proof of anything Ill puke. Ring magazine was a ****ing magazine and had no power to dictate who got title shots. Period. Annual rankings arent even an accurate indicator of the rankings at any given time, they are nothing more than a lazy mans tool because he can easily peruse them on boxrec rather than have to actually read context. i.e. perfect for you. Furthermore you list these guys being ranked in 44 and 45 with great indignation that Louis didnt fight them, ignoring that Louis was inactive those years. In ‘46 there was no getting around the Conn rematch and in 47 and 48 Louis fought and defeated the best black heavyweight on the scene. So what exactly is your point? You have absolutely zero leg to stand on, a position you are well acquinted with, yet keep blabbering on because you cant admit you are wrong. Its pathetic.

 

It's very gratifying watching you compulsively mug yourself.You are pontificating about a subject on which you are totally ignorant,and are being schooled every time. Confidently announcing the correct verdict for the Louis vWalcott 1st fight would have been a Walcott win though you have only seen highlights of the fight !
Anyone with half a brain would have folded his tent and slipped away by now.Are you under some kind of deluded impression you are winning anything here? Ive shown you Jacobs pitched his prices very low for the Louis v Lewis fight because he didn't think it would draw otherwise,that Louis took home only $34,000 pre tax for the fight ,less than he got for his next fight against 10/1 shot Roper! You're in a little parallel universe of your own!