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

it was better than not doing anything, which is what he had left after beating everyone.

 

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.

Dubble,

Wlad, Hopkins, Calzaghe, and Monzon cleaned up on their bum of the month guys beating them rather easily.

Joe Louis was floored ( B. Baer, Galento ), stunned, ( Farr ) Maybe out boxed ( Godoy 1st match ), by his group. So yes, if he didn't have these uneven performances on his record I'd personally hold him in a higher regard, and if he fought more African American fighters in title defenses ( Louis faced two black men in 26 defenses ) I'd hold him in higher regard. Louis did some things for equal rights in his day, but it would have been nice to see it in the ring and fighting the likes of Franklin, Ray, Thompson, and others.

 

Not if you are what I call exposed in a victory. For example, the bum of the month club is alive and well with Deontay Wilder who has not fought one top ten rated opponent in his five title defense and settles for guys that probably would have been in Joe Louis bum of the month club.

Wilder wins but gets stunned, a black eyes, even in rounds with a top 40ish fighter until he knocks him out late ect...

Many of his fans are turning on him. See my point? You have to win cleanly for vs a bum of the month type of title opponent to positive credit, and when you fight too many of them, it diminishes the value of the championship belt.

 

Joe Louis was so dominant as the world heavyweight champion that there were only a few fighters at a given time who could give him a competitive fight during his reign. As a result, it is little wonder that Louis was facing some fighters who really didn't belong in the ring with him when he was the champion. At the same time, Louis never ducked a single heavyweight who really earned a chance to fight him. Moreover, Louis should be given a tremendous amount of credit for being so active for a world heavyweight champion and making so many title defenses in a row without being defeated.

In regards to the assertion that Louis should have faced more black fighters as the world heavyweight champion, I think it is bogus for the most part. Until Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles became top heavyweight contenders, how many black heavyweights came close to being top contenders while Louis was active as a professional fighter, let alone during the time that he was the champion? Roscoe Toles and Elmer "Violent" Ray faced quite a bit of very inferior opposition while Lem Franklin was a contender for a very short time at best before sustaining a number of defeats which put him out of the picture. As it turned out, Louis did make title defenses while facing two black fighters, John Henry Lewis (once) and Jersey Joe Walcott (twice).

- Chuck Johnston

 

Can't argue when you put it like that.

 

Still should have fought Lem Franklin, defended against lesser fights.

 

It helped him out tremendously.

People are often too quick to write off the heavyweights who won consistently once the became champ by downplaying the level of opposition to the point where guys who could barely rack up a few defenses (if that) themselves get the benefit of the doubt that they could have repeated the feat.

I don't buy it. At all. Keeping the title is much harder than winning it in the first place.

Beating rated fighters across a broad spectrum of styles consistently while everyone is gunning for you is a tremendous achievement. More defenses increases the odds of an off night and/or fighting the wrong underdog at the wrong time. It's flat out harder to do than a fighter amassing the same names as a challenger on the way up- partly because the champ's own motivation tends to lapse, and partly because the challengers are extra motivated.

That's why I'll always rate the Louis, Holmes, and Wlads above the Fraziers, Listons, and Bowes. It's not just about names on paper on the way up. What kind of pro were you after you won the title?

 

Franklin was ranked only in 1940 &41,he was ko'd by Louis ko victim Bob Pastor in 42.
Thompson was ranked off and on 41&42 he was beaten twice by Pastor also.Thompson could only draw with Musto and Simon,two guys Louis ko'd.

Louis was inactive from March 1942 until June 46, when he had the long awaited rematch with Conn.
He then ought his number 1 contenderTami Mauriello,the next defence was against his now number 1 contender Walcott who, 9 months previously had beaten Elmer Ray.
Though it would have been nice to see Louis against other black contenders there were no standout ones he missed and he is held to a somewhat higher standard than his predecessors.imo
NB Louis wasn't outboxed by Godoy

• The New York Times reported: "Louis won sloppily against a bruising, mauling and rushing fighter who knew no fear or retreat." Many in the crowd booed the decision, but the Times called the verdict "eminently fair." Its reporter scored the fight 10-5 for Louis and stated that other reporters had a similar score.

• The Associated Press scored the fight 10-5 for Louis. They gave the champion the last five rounds.

• The International News Service scored the fight 9-6-1 for Louis.

• The United Press scored the fight even, giving each fighter five rounds and calling five even.

Post-Fight Quotes


ps.25 defences

 

What if I told you that Johnny Paycheck might have beaten a prime Lennox Lewis???

 

Put it this way, Louis is never going to win the argument based on quality of opposition.

The one unassailable aspect of his resume, is his sheer depth of world class opposition.

The title reign that you have describes would still be one of the best in the divisions history, but it would be impossible to argue that it was the greatest.

 

I don't think that a list with that derogative title enhances any fighter's reputation.

 

That's like asking if Bobby Fisher, the once great world chess champion, would have enhanced his reputation by playing and defeating inferior opposition humorously tagged as bums or patzers.

 

It doesn't matter what people call it.

What counts is what it means in practice.

You are never going to make somebody's record better by removing names from it.

 

Louis fought 8 world heavyweight champions , beating 6 of them.His reputation is secure.

 

What does the Bum of the Month Club mean in practice aside from beating a bum every month? Also, what positive image does that title convey to the public if any? Not everyone is prone to examine such statements meticulously to ascertain their validity. Most people who hear it and are casual boxing fans take it at face value. A negative image of a champ with superior skills taking easy fights just for the heck of it is conveyed.

BTW

Wanting to transform such a negative title into a positive thing comes across as mindless hero worship at all costs. It's like attempting to describe the title of Bayone bleeder as something positive.