Joe Louis's Bum Of The Month Club

I won't argue that some of the fighter's on Woddy's list were spectacular persay, but I really think that we need to focus on the good fighters that Louis actually DID fight.

Max Baer, Primo Carnera, Max Schmeling, and Jim Braddock were all recent world champions and still reasonably competitive when he fought them. Buddy Baer, Abe Simon, and Primo Carnera were intimidating giants among past heavyweights who could punch, and Louis demolished them with little or no trouble. Joe Walcott was tough as nails and a future champion. John Henry Lewis was a talented lightheavyweight who at 25 years of age had already compiled over 100 pro fights and had never before been knocked out. Lou Nova was no slouch either. Sure, I agree that a guy like Jack Roper getting a title shot was ridiculous, but Louis didn't exactly struggle with him either.

Although I think there have been champions in the history of the sport who had a better looking comp list than Louis, virtually none of them can go without a certain degree of criticism in terms of some of the guys they fought. The most important thing is to credit them for their accomplishments and not always look at the negatives. Joe Louis had much to offer as a champion.

 

In 1934,Louis,s first year as a pro he beat among others Stanley Poreda ,who had been no3 in 1932,Charley Massera no 8 and Lee Ramage no 10,sohe beat one former contender ,and two current contenders.1935,he beat Patsy Perroni ,who had been no 6 in 33 ,Ramage again the no 10 the previous year,ex Champion Carnera,who had been no2 in 34,King Levinskyno5,ex hampion Max Baer,and ex contender Paulino Uzcudun,he also beat Natie Brownno8,and Roscoe Toles who was rated at one time,I think Louis,s record stands up very well.

 

Head to head, i think tim witherspoon and ken norton are alot better than the vast majority of joe louis opponents. Both men are in my top 30, mike weaver is in my top 50. Bonecrusher, berbick, cooney, shavers, mercer, and carl williams are all solid contenders and most of these guys are top 100.

 

Head to head, tim witherspoon and ken norton are alot better than the vast majority of anybodys opponents.

So what is the point?

 

well im just saying that when people claim larry beat no one its ridiculous because he beat 2 of the 30 best heavyweights in the 120 year history of the sport. Tim Witherspoon from 82-91 was a magnificent fighter, he would have easily been a linear champion in a weaker era, no doubt about it.

 

my own theory on "bum of the month club" is that it stems from a misguided white superiority complex of the the 1930's and 1940s. The Louis opponents were no different than the majority of opponents that most champions face/ed.

There were some good, some money makers, and some fairly poor stay busy fights. Slightly different is that Louis had to go through just about everybody before he became champ, so his championship years are mostly thinned out. Great fighters do not come in droves year after year and if you fight four times in a year its not like there are going to be 4 certifiable greats out there each year for you to fight.

It probably cushioned the blow for the establishment to think of the contenders to be "bums" when Louis was sending them home defeated every couple of months. It probably also caused the stock of Dempsey and Tunney to go up (perhaps rightly so), surely they could handle this Louis fellow, unlike these "bums".

 

The bottom line is that if Louis had fallen under the weels of a model T ford the night before he fought Jimmy Braddock then two or more members of the bum of the month club would have been lineal champions.

They would have to be because you simply cant close the 12 year hole without them.