Joe Louis. The 8 black men who got away.

Does Joe Louis get undersold on his 1 round demolition of John Henry Lewis? You always hear all this talk about his left eye being blind, but John Henry was on a 16 bout win streak, and had won 32 of his last 33 fights. Including knocking out Elmer Ray just 7 months before the Louis bout. John Henry claimed he injured the eye in 1935 a full 4 years before the Lewis bout and he tried to fight on after their fight but was denied. He complained vehemently stating that the eye was damaged for years and didn’t hinder him. So how come he was able to win all these fights with a bad eye but blown out by Louis. I think it had more to do with Louis being so good then John Henry all of sudden being blind in the ring when you he just won his previous bout 2 months before and intended on fighting on afterwards.

 

Louis: fought Roscoe Toles won by 6 round KO
He blew away John Henry Lewis in 1 round
Dominated Elmer Ray in 3 exhibition fights including a KO
Came back after the war and knocked out Jersey Joe Walcott after a questionable decision in their first fight. And defeated the younger and fresher Jimmy Bivins as a slow old man on the comeback trail. I don’t think Joe Louis is the fighter whose resume should be picked apart. It’s pretty impeccable.
Guy made 25 title defenses and served his country missing 4 years of his career. He’s either the goat or close to it

 

This statistic might be important or it might be of no importance whatsoever.

 

Well, what about Lou Nova? Whom you seem to think should be dropped.

Louis fought Nova on 9/29/1941

This is the NBA ratings released 9/9/1941
Champion--Joe Louis
1--Lou Nova
2--Billy Conn
3--Buddy Baer
4--Lem Franklin
5--Abe Simon

So Nova was the #1 contender. And how was he viewed? He tied for the second shortest odds of anyone who challenged Louis for the title.

All odds favor Louis:
Max Schmeling--9-5
Lou Nova--13-5
Jersey Joe Walcott--13-5 (2)
Billy Conn (2)--14-5
Billy Conn (1)--18-5
Tommy Farr--5-1
Bob Pastor--6-1
Buddy Baer--6-1 (1)
Tony Galento--8-1
Arturo Godoy--8-1 (2)
Abe Simon--8-1 (2)

*Jersey Joe Walcott was 10-1 in his first challenge

Whom had Nova beaten? He had KO'd Max Baer twice, the only man to stop Baer other than Louis. He had also beaten Tommy Farr, Pat Comiskey, and Gunnar Barland, all of whom were in the NBA top five when he defeated him. His later career might have proven him overrated, but observers at the time considered him the most formidable challenger out there for Louis, as the odds reflect.

Who is he supposed to be replaced with? Tiger Jack Fox? Who was never rated at heavyweight, and wasn't even that screwed by the powers that be? Fox got his shot at the title in his division and lost to Bettina. Toles? He was in the ratings consistently but was losing to guys like Simon and had been stopped already by Louis. Bivins? Still a light-heavy. Franklin? Just moving up and well behind Nova in the ratings.

As for Buddy Baer, he was highly rated, a huge and relatively durable man with the most impressive KO record in the division. If Louis hadn't fought him, there would be plenty of posts about Joe ducking Buddy, but with more justification than with some of the names being brought up. In Baer's case the rematch made sense because of the controversy concerning the first fight.

 

Oh yes

 

Ive added all thats needed: The relevant context of the day, which you continually ignore because it blows your whole criticism out of the water. Whats sad is that you focus so much on skin color and not what actually mattered, the ability of the fighters themselves or their rankings. You say its sad that Louis defended against 2 African Americans of his 25 title defenses. That means 8% of his title defenses were against African Americans. At that time African Americans accounted for 9% of the population. So Louis' title defenses were actually representative of the demographic split of the day. But lets be real here, this idea you have that there should have been some sort of affirmative action in boxing back then is nothing more than a means for you to beat Louis over the head with because we both know you wouldnt approve of African Americans getting more than their fair shake anywhere else in the world, even in boxing, if you werent using it as a way to tear down another black fighter.

 

People need to ask themselves how much time they spend worrying about how many white opponents Larry Holmes defended his title against.

Do they worry about whether there white contenders he didn't fight, who were better than the worst men he did fight.

Sometimes the racial composition of a champion's opposition is important, and sometimes it isn't.

 

Cyberboxingzone--"don't list Toles as an exhibition"

More importantly for me, the old Ring Record Books listed the Toles KO on Louis' record. Nat Fleischer might deserve criticism on a lot of issues, but he was there and a close observer while Joe Louis was the hottest new thing in boxing. I consider his judgment on matters like this convincing.

 

The important fact about Wills is that he was good, better than the men Dempsey was defending against, and viewed that way at the time.

Black is important only in the sense that this was the reason he didn't get a shot.

With someone like Lem Franklin or Nino Valdes, or for that matter Joe Baksi, there were other reasons.

 

I certainly don't think that it is never important.

The Dempsey Wills situation is a very different case, because you had a clear cut #1 contender over a period of years, who was refused a title shot.

Having said that, if Dempsey had fought Wills, I could probably give him a pass for not fighting Norfolk Tate and Godfrey.

With regard to Louis's resume, I would say that Ray is the exception that proves the rule.

This fight really should have happened, but with a big dollop of hindsight.

What we know today, that was not known at the time, was that Charles and Walcott would go on to become champions, and that he split a series with both of them.

This piece of knowledge puts a very different slant on Ray's resume, because at the time it would have looked a lot like splitting a series with Lee Oma.

 

Excellent point about Ray in hindsight. At the time his two big wins were over the apparently slipping Savold, who was no longer in the ratings, and Walcott, a top contender but not the highest rated contender, and who was coming off of a loss to Joey Maxim.

Here are the 1947 NBA ratings, with the date:

January 13, 1947
Champion-Joe Louis
1-Elmer Ray
2-Tami Mauriello
3-Bruce Woodcock
4-Jersey Joe Walcott
5-Joe Baksi

April 10, 1947
Champion-Joe Louis
1-Jersey Joe Walcott
2-Bruce Woodcock
3-Elmer Ray
4-Tami Mauriello
5-Joe Baksi

July 11, 1947
Champion-Joe Louis
1-Jersey Joe Walcott
2-Joe Baksi
3-Elmer Ray
4-Tami Mauriello

September 11, 1947
Champion-Joe Louis
1-Jersey Joe Walcott
2-Elmer Ray
3-Ole Tandberg
4-Joe Baksi
5-Tami Mauriello

December 30, 1947
Champion-Joe Louis
1-Jersey Joe Walcott
2-Ole Tandberg
3-Elmer Ray
4-Joe Baksi
5-Joey Maxim

Only four rated July 11.

 

The argument that Ray clearly deserved a title shot doesnt jive. Thats hindsight at best and revisionism at worst. When Louis came out of the Army he defended against his top contender, Conn, and then again he defended against his top contender, Mauriello. Ray was ranked #3 at the time he defended against Mauriello. He didnt become the #1 contender until the end of 1946 when he beat Walcott. That fight was a split decision one round swing on all cards and so a rematch was held which Ray lost. After that Walcott became the #1 contender and stayed there until he fought Louis. After the first Louis-Walcott fight a rematch had to take place given the close controversial nature of the first fight. After the rematch Louis retired, which is all academic because after Ray lost to Walcott he was never rated #1 again. Ray was only ranked #1 for four months from January to April 1947. By the time he entered the top place Joe Louis had defended his title twice in the past six months against two men who were both rated #1 at the time. He then took time off because because the tax situation would have meant that had he fought more he would have had a bigger chunk of his purses taken. Sometimes fighters dont get ducked the timing just doesnt work out for them. A guy who was only top rated for 4 months hardly has a claim to being ducked when Louis is consistently defending against the top rated fighters. I dont really get all of the love for Ray anyway. Thats just hipster revisionism to me. The guys record is a masterpiece of padding. Im amazed hes in the hall of fame. But then again the guys running that joke dont know their ass from their elbow.