Mendoza says Louis did not give black boxer Larry Gains a title shot, he is correct. The question is did Gains deserve one off his record during Louis's reign? Gains was 36 years old when Louis beat Braddock for the crown, he had 20 fights during Louis's reign , won 12 lost 5 all by stoppage, and was held to one draw. I say Gains was marking time, past his best and had settled for competition against third raters , no shame in that, he was being realistic. Gains had not been a rated heavyweight since 1932 when he was briefly number 9 The 5 best men he fought during Louis's title tenure all stopped him. He was not a viable contender for a title challenge Anyone disagree with my opinion?
Larry Gains was a contender in the early 1930s perhaps. Certainly not a relevant name during the Joe Louis reign.
McVey is not quoting me in full context. My point was Louis only fought two black men in title defenses ( one was in very bad shape ) , while leaving the rest of the black talent out of the picture, who in many cases were better than some of the white opponents Joe Louis selected.
Yeah, but it's a very worn drum you are beating and naturally the fact that you've been beating it for years creates frustration. Nobody you mention - nobody - made a STRONG case for a title shot. Some you mention made almost no case at all, and your mentioning them is preposterous. Because we know you will go on mentioning them until you die or lose interest here, despite the weighting of evidence being heavily against you is kind of annoying. However, I agree with Magoo. If McVey makes a thread every time Mendoza says something stupid we'll never get anything else done.
I find I don't need any support in effectively ridiculing his agendas. But I'll start whatever threads I like thanks. Not enlisting support ,just exposing bullsh*t.
Just standing up for Joe Louis.The mob controlled fighter who had the benefit of crooked referees during his reign of ducking deserving challengers.:good What was it you wanted to get done? Maybe rehash the Floyd /Manny non- event some more?
I didn't realize that exposing someone's falsehoods required an advertisement inviting others to join the festivities. I find that carrying out the debate right where and when it occurs works fine. But if it makes you feel better to start threads informing others that you "disagree" with someone, then carry on.
It makes me feel better exposing a congenital liar and I do it whenever and wherever I can. If you don't approve of my starting threads for that purpose I suppose you have two options,complain to the mods ,don't post on them, or both. I don't see how my threads have impacted on anyonelse's threads or in anyway denied them access to threads or space for posting anything they would wish to. In fact I think several posters have made interesting contributions to these three threads .If my threads didn't arouse some interest I guess they wouldn't have any responses? Sorry If I've got up your nose but that's how I se it Mr M.
I think it's admirable to put forth historical truth and to counter vigorously those that misinterpret said history.
I think it's necessary, and I appreciate the posts:good NB Mr Magoo is a fine poster whom I seem to have upset.:think