Should Louis have fought more than two black men in his 26 title defenses?

You'll really have to stop weighing polls against Louis/Johnson/whoever because they're famous. It's bull. Marciano, Louis, Ali, these guys have a million more critics than other fighters.

I will give you an example.

Do you know how many of Miguel Canto's 18 odd title fights were against black guys?

Round about none. Might be one.

Do you know why there isn't some weirdo on here making meat***** about that fact? Because anyone who knows enough about Canto to know that fact, also knows enough about the division to know there were no locked in black challengers.

It's a non-issue because Canto did astonishing work against a lot of the best fighters in a stacked division. Something like what Louis did. But because he's a heavyweight, not a flyweight, Louis attracts weirdos like you trying to make something out of nothing. And a whole pile of people who want to vote him down. Start the same thread about Canto. You'll get tumbleweed.

Now, I haven't voted, because Louis had a brief #1 contender who was black. He also had a brief #1 contender, apparently, who was white. One man of each colour who did not get his "rightful" shot (but not really because it was a matter of weeks in each case).

There has been some interesting chat about one or two other fighters, but it's a fact that no black fighter made a case beyond argument for a title shot: That's a fact.

Just as it is a fact that Canto didn't make defences against black fighters, much. It's just that flyweight fans understand that it's not a big deal, heavyweight weirdos get their panties in a bunch.*

Anyone worth talking to on here - anyone worth talking to, at all - would ask, "well were there any black challengers around?" And when presented with the FACTS of Louis defences v #1 contenders vs voluntary defences, and if they were presented with the FACTS concerning these contenders, they could only deduce that Louis should perhaps have fought one more black.

And one more white.

These are FACTS.

But why let the facts get in the way of some bizarre and prolonged race-play, hmmm?



* not necessarily tarring everyone with the same brush here. There are some decent arguments in this thread in favour of Franklin, even if I personally don't buy them.

 

^ that's definitely true. There are loads of black fighters who might have got shots in voluntaries if they were white, and that's unfair. But it's not the same as the Dempsey-Wills question or even the Johnson-Langford question. Because in those cases we are talking about a stuck on#1 contender.

A man who for social reasons was denied his rightful sporting due.

None of Louis's unmatched contenders - black or white - were denied their sporting due for social reasons. It didn't happen.

That's a fact, too. And that's the point. Louis didn't f*ck anybody. He just didn't unf*ck anybody, which isn't the same thing at all.

 

There were very few top black heavyweights for Louis to fight. That was the entire point of my post. You've managed to miss it so I will reiterate it: there is nothing to complain about in Canto's list of opponents concerning the absence of black faces because there were no black fighters who made an inarguable case for a title shot.

This is also the case for Joe Louis's line up. The only difference is, he defended three times against black fighters.

That's a reasonable argument? After all these pages? "Historically"? Historically, it doesn't matter even a little. Who was around at the time? That's all that matters.

Q: Which black heavyweight fighters maintained the #1 ranking long enough to make their right to a title shot inarguable?

A: One. Jersey Joe Walcott.

Q: Did Joe Louis make a fight with him?

A: No, he made two.

Why?? Do you even understand what you are writing?? He fought Arturo Godoy (Chile), Cesar Brion (Argentina) and Omelio Agramonte (Cuba), Latin Americans all. By your weird logic, we should be up in arms that he only fought one in a title match

Incorrect. Three of them were :good

James Braddock had already ended the colour line.

You know it's interesting, all these years on here you've bleated on and on and on about Louis and Johnson and the black fighters they didn't face. I have never once heard you decry the white power structure dominated by white managers and promoters that made this possible? Isn't that interesting? You really, really try, very hard, and on a regular basis to put the failure of boxing to deliver more black v black fights right on the doorstep of the black men who were victimised by the very system you are criticising them for not bucking.




In the end, you are trying to force a social judgement upon Louis where sporting judgement is, and should be, the crucial one. Louis never ended the colour line?? Are you kidding me?? All the white promoters and managers and fighters that guarded that colour line like a pack of wolves down the years and you're bleating about LOUIS and his responsibility to end the colour line (Which had already been ended)???

If Louis had fought only twice a year he would have been absolutely unimpeachable because he only would have fought his #1 contender. Because he fought voluntaries against white fighters, you try to organise footsie-race-play in a transparent attempt to run down a fighter who is black.

There are white fighters - Sullivan, Tunney, Dempsey and Jeffries for example - who never gave a black fighter a title shot. But to my knowledge, you have never started a thread about one of these fighters failing to give a black man a title shot. You ONLY start title threads about black heavyweights and their failure to give black fighters a title shot. Even using your permanbanned Dr.Z account, before you were banned for - you guessed it - alleged racism, you made these same threads all those years ago under that name.

Let's say that for arguments sake you are not a racist man. That's fine. I'm not saying you are, the guy who banned you had his problems. But lots of people on here think that you are. Can you see why that is the case, in the light of the above?

 

I don't really think that's true McVey. But does it matter? He was a fighter. He fought all his top contenders, black, white, whoever. There seems to be two exceptions, one of each colour which tells its own story.

If someone was a legitimate threat to his dominance, he took care of it. With extreme ****ing prejudice.

But where I agree with the tone of your post is why pursue Louis in particular? It's just a strange thing to do. There are literally 0 fighters who made an inarguable case who weren't entertained. That's fact, and that's part of the glory of his reign.