Did the 'Bums of the Month' HELP or HURT Louis?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Dubblechin, Aug 10, 2017.


Page 1 of 4
  1. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,640
    18,441
    Jun 25, 2014
    Joe Louis made 25 successful title defenses. He reigned for more than 11 years. Most consider him the best heavyweight ever ... or no less than number two.

    Much was made then and now about his "Bum of the Month" tour.

    But I was reading a book about the Louis-Schmeling fight and it said many black fans at the time were upset that Louis had to defend so often because most of the other heavyweight champs (with the exception of Carnera who defended three times in a year) who preceded him only defended the title once a year, if that.

    Braddock (waited two full years before making his only defense). Baer (one defense in one year). Sharkey (one defense in a year). Schmeling (two defenses in two years). Tunney (two defenses in two years). Dempsey (six defenses in seven years). Willard (two defenses in four years).

    They certainly weren't defending the title three or four times a year.

    So how would Louis' overall standing be impacted, in your opinion, if, let's say, Louis' title run looked more like theirs? Meaning one or maybe no defenses a year?

    Let's say his run looked like this:

    *Braddock June 1937 (wins the title)
    *Schmeling II June 1938 (defends the title against his top contender)
    *Galento June 1939 (defends title against his top contender)
    *1940 ... no fights/no logical contender
    *B. Baer May 1941 (defends against a name contender)
    *Nova September 1941 (defends against top contender)
    *Baer II January 1942 (rematch with Buddy)
    *WWII - no defenses
    *Mauriello 1946
    *Walcott 1 1947
    *Walcott II 1948 (retires)

    Louis makes no defenses during WWII, so he doesn't incur that tax debt that forced him to keep fighting after he donated those purses.

    He leaves with eight defenses in 11 years (instead of 25 defenses).

    How does that change things?

    Did the "Bums of the Month" add to his legacy or hurt it?
     
    Dubblechin, Aug 10, 2017
    Dubblechin, Aug 10, 2017
    #1
    Pedro_El_Chef likes this.
  2. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,640
    18,441
    Jun 25, 2014
    I believe Joe's final record, had he avoided the "Bums" and fought the schedule above would've resulted in a 40-1 record with 35 kos.

    And he'd still have wins over champions like Sharkey, Schmeling, Max Baer, Carnera, Braddock and Walcott.

    But he wouldn't have losses to Charles and Marciano in his comeback.

    Just a clean 40-1 with about eight defenses.
     
    Dubblechin, Aug 10, 2017
    Dubblechin, Aug 10, 2017
    #2
  3. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    I think the best wins on his records are still there so we still have all the stunning precision that puts him where he is anyway. Right now, I don't think the Charles and Marciano losses detract from Louis as it is because there is no shame in a great fighter going down fighting once past his best. So not having them on there dosnt really harm him at 40-1.

    The so called "bums of the month" were really only bonus fights between the defences with logical contenders. They mostly provide a highlight reel of extra knockouts. More examples of how consistent he was on film. I don't think Harry Thomas or johnny Paycheck Really add anything to the legacy. Even the better ones just represent wins for winnings sake. With the war looming joe was put on the road so they could cash in on the hurry up. That's all it was about.

    That's not to say a lot of them were not really good full time pros with really good wins on their records. Guys like Gus Dorazio, Tony Musto, Nathan Mann, Bob Pastor and Abe Simon are quite overlooked. Sure nobody expected them to win but they were all worthy. If you sift through their resume these guys had the credentials to fight a champion it's just that there were so many similar pros to pick from. By all accounts the un-filmed Red Burman fight was a really good scrap so there is a real argument that Louis perhaps benefits from the fact that some competitive fights are not available and he therefore does not get quite the scrutiny of Ali and Holmes.

    Back then contenders fought so often they were really only rated on their win-loss record per year. There was none of this 20-0 baloney we have now. I honestly don't think Louis ever fought a bad fighter. He really didn't. Not in the way later champions could be charged with fighting bad fighters.
     
    choklab, Aug 10, 2017
    choklab, Aug 10, 2017
    #3
    Pedro_El_Chef likes this.
  4. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    It helped.

    While the bum of the month tour might leave a bad taste to some, it pales in comparison to the 26 defenses stat. A record still held today.
     
    reznick, Aug 10, 2017
    reznick, Aug 10, 2017
    #4
    Pedro_El_Chef and escudo like this.
  5. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,640
    18,441
    Jun 25, 2014
    So, if Louis had eight title defenses and ran off a record of 40-1 ... let's say ... and still beat the collection of champs who came before him (and one after him) would you still rank Louis where you do all-time?

    Or did the additional wins give him a slight boost?
     
    Dubblechin, Aug 10, 2017
    Dubblechin, Aug 10, 2017
    #5
  6. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,640
    18,441
    Jun 25, 2014

    I think the number of defenses tends to help everyone who runs up a big number.

    With Louis, most of his name wins occurred before he won the title. Yet, without all those defenses, even though the names aren't as big, I wonder if he's still held in the same high regard?

    So are you saying you'd rate him lower all-time without all those defenses?
     
    Dubblechin, Aug 10, 2017
    Dubblechin, Aug 10, 2017
    #6
  7. Mendoza

    Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

    55,255
    10,354
    Jun 29, 2007
    I would say to the uninformed fan, the bum of the month club helped Joe Louis as they added to his title defenses.

    To the more informed fan who watches the films, you could say it hurt him a little as, he struggled a bit too much by getting knocked down, losing too many rounds against, and avoided some better African American competition along the way.
     
    Mendoza, Aug 10, 2017
    Mendoza, Aug 10, 2017
    #7
  8. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,640
    18,441
    Jun 25, 2014
    So, are you saying you'd hold Joe Louis in higher regard if he defended once a year or so like the previous champs and didn't have so many defenses against the people he defended against?

    Also, I can't think of any champ who was actually "hurt" by having a lot of ''successful" title defenses, even if the comp was on the weaker side.

    Wladimir Klitschko. Bernard Hopkins (at middleweight). Virgil Hill. Joe Calzaghe. Carlos Monzon. None of them met a murderer's row during their title runs, but they certainly seemed to benefit (from an all-time perspective) from making a lot of defenses against the comp they did meet.
     
    Dubblechin, Aug 10, 2017
    Dubblechin, Aug 10, 2017
    #8
    Pedro_El_Chef likes this.
  9. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010

    I think opposite.
    To an uninformed fan, a "bum of the month club" sounds like he didn't fight many good opponents.
     
    reznick, Aug 10, 2017
    reznick, Aug 10, 2017
    #9
    Pedro_El_Chef likes this.
  10. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    He would technically be rated lower, but I'm not sure if enough to bring him down a rank. Every defense is a chance at losing your belt. The more you have, the more consistency you prove.
     
    reznick, Aug 10, 2017
    reznick, Aug 10, 2017
    #10
    Pedro_El_Chef likes this.
  11. richdanahuff

    richdanahuff Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,489
    13,037
    Oct 12, 2013
    Legacy wise the moniker hurt him the seasoned fan sees a fighting champion who took on all comers.....fighting less IMO would have hurt him more he would have been meeting the status quo of previous eras and simply the longest reigning champion but as it sits he is the fightenest champion who fought every style available and won. Sure he fought some less than hopeful types but his not fighting the top black fighters was a carry over burden his mgmt chose since the Johnson reign like it or not.........he was a great champion.
     
    richdanahuff, Aug 10, 2017
    richdanahuff, Aug 10, 2017
    #11
    choklab likes this.
  12. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    29,586
    36,160
    Jan 8, 2017
    I believe it adds to his legacy. A guy who kept busy, didn't put the title in cold storage. He kept putting himself out there. He was a great champion who ever he fought. People of the time knew that anyway. Even with 8 defence s he's still a great.
     
    Fergy, Aug 11, 2017
    Fergy, Aug 11, 2017
    #12
    Pedro_El_Chef and reznick like this.
  13. Radrook

    Radrook Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,923
    917
    Feb 24, 2017
    What do you mean when you say that not fighting the top black fighters was a carry-over burden that his management chose?
     
    Radrook, Aug 11, 2017
    Radrook, Aug 11, 2017
    #13
  14. Radrook

    Radrook Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,923
    917
    Feb 24, 2017
    Sounds like you are saying that Charles and Marciano were bums.
     
    Radrook, Aug 11, 2017
    Radrook, Aug 11, 2017
    #14
  15. BCS8

    BCS8 VIP Member

    60,704
    80,984
    Aug 21, 2012
    More wins always help.
     
    BCS8, Aug 11, 2017
    BCS8, Aug 11, 2017
    #15
Page 1 of 4