This content is protected It was the right hand that initially had Roper hurt. Then he staggered back to the ropes. Louis then throws a series of punches, only two of which land if you watch it in slow motion. Joe actually does miss a bunch of punches. Verdict: Not a worthwhile Louis watch imo. It's just one of those fights where you walk away scratching your head. It just looked too-what? idk. Really, I guess I would actually have to suggest that you watch it, just to see what I'm talking about, or trying to.
I love Joe Louis and consider him tied with Muhammad Ali as the best heavyweight all time. But for years I criticized this title defense. For as many great fighters as the bomber faced and defeated, Jack Roper should never have gotten a title shot.
Jack Roper was probably the poorest opponent Louis defended his title against. The film isn't that clear and it is sometimes hard to tell if a punch misses, as a glove hitting the point of the chin can look like a miss (see Baer vs Carnera) but be effective. Roper was neither a good boxer nor durable by heavyweight challenger standards. If you are implying Roper was putting on an act, he was in fact a professional actor, and member of the screen actor's guild, even prior to this fight. His main roles were as bad guys in westerns. He had a significant role in the 1938 serial Flaming Frontiers in which he had an on screen brawl with star Johnny Mack Brown, which I have watched. Years later, in The Quiet Man, he is the "good egg" boxer whom John Wayne killed in the ring. Even considering that Roper was a pro actor, I don't think this was an act. He just wasn't that good and any single Louis punch could have finished him. The announcer comments that the fight drew a big turn out from Hollywood. *just on criticizing Louis for defending against Roper, others have fought men no better, including Charles, Patterson, Frazier, Ali, and Holmes. Louis defended against John Henry Lewis, Tony Galento, and Bob Pastor that year, so a gimme defense seems justifiable. He did defend against his top challengers.
This is the few examples when "bum of the month" is really representative for the title fight opponent. Roper was nothing special and he shouldn't have got the chance. Still, how can you criticize Louis when he faced better competiiton than anyone else in his career?
Roper was there simply because he was unlucky.. Or lucky to receive a title shot against the second greatest heavyweight champion ever. There was never going to be a cat in hells chance of Jack troubling him. Think of Ali v Brian London!
I don't find anything off about it. Just looked like he couldn't handle Louis's power. I thought it was a nice enough KO.
Not even comparable. London may have been undeserving of a shot at that time, but he registered a lot of good wins throughout the 50s and 60s.
