Steve Hamas vs Art Lasky

I certainly agree and have posted that Hamas doesn't look like anything special, which was the point of bringing up this film.

That said, strangely he does look better to me in the 1935 fight against Schmeling. He has his left higher and does show some defensive skill, although obviously not nearly enough to in the end fend off Schmeling.

As for Lasky, other than being rather big for his era, and a strong and willing brawler, he didn't show me much of anything.

The bottom line is the period between Tunney and Louis displays the shallowness of the "whites only" heavyweight division of the American color line era, and raises issues about the level of competition Dempsey and Tunney faced earlier.

For me, it is obvious that overall competition was much stronger by the 1940's and 1950's, and the reason is the fall of the color line.

 

It might have in Europe, but I don't see much evidence it did in the United States. The top men of the late 1940's were Louis, Charles, Walcott, Ray, and Baksi. I think that compared to most heavyweight eras this is a pretty good list.

Nor do I see the lower divisions as weak in the late 1940's.

light-heavies--Charles, Moore, Maxim, Lesnevich.

middles--LaMotta, Cerdan,

welters--Robinson, Gavilan

lightweights--Williams

feathers--Pep, Saddler

The question of the impact of WW2 on boxing is a provocative one. I would be interested in an elaboration of the "obvious reasons"

If the argument is a lot of men died, the same is true of WWI, with the Spanish Flu epidemic killing even more men than the war did (and the flu tended to kill younger people as death was caused by the overreaction of the immune system, which is stronger in the young). So the 1920's should have been a weak era. Was it?

Anyway, a potentially very interesting topic.

 

Which films from the 1950's between men who were rated in the top three contenders at the time look like this? Would you give an example?

In fairness, Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer and some others at their best show a lot. And there were skilled boxers around like Loughran.

 

"Joe Louis losing to Max Schmeling disproves that theory completely"

I said the "American color line"--Max Schmeling was not American. It was competition in America which was flattened by the color line.

Notice that Louis went the 15 round distance twice prior to the war. Once with the Welsh Tommy Farr. And once with the Chilean Arturo Godoy. No American lasted 15 rounds with him although the vast majority of his championship opponents were American. And only the German Schmeling defeated him.

 

You make some valid points.

"White Americans defeated Schmeling. Baer defeated Schmeling."

This is valid but begs the issue of what wasn't there because of the color line.

"Art Lasky has a KO win over black boxer Tiger Jack Fox."

A worthy win, but Fox was never rated at heavy, and was not rated at all in 1933. Fox was a light-heavy who lost to John Henry Lewis and Melio Bettina. He was never the best light-heavy or possibly even the best black light heavy.

"Walcott"

Here is where the rubber hits the road. Walcott was a journeyman in the 1930's who suffered several bad losses to less than the best white, and also black, fighters.

" having old guys like Walcott come to the top showed that the quality of the division had dipped."

This is weak for me. Film simply undercuts this. No way I accept that Walcott is a regression from contenders like Hamas and Lasky, or champions like Carnera and Braddock. What is missing here is that a fighter can improve if given proper training. There are all kinds of examples. D-ck Tiger had an in and out and pretty mediocre record in the 1950's. As an aging fighter in the 1960's he won the middle and light-heavy titles. We can argue about whether the middleweight division slipped, but another, and I think larger factor, is that Tiger improved.

"Everyone in boxing in the 1950's reckoned the quality was further decreased by TV taking away most of the business from the local clubs and producing less fighters and ultimately inferior fighters."

And what would ever stop this regression? TV hasn't gone away. So the argument here is that the pre-TV era is a golden age? Do you think #1 contender Eddie Machen in 1957 is clearly inferior to #1 contender Steve Hamas in 1934? Or that the heavyweights of the 1960's or 1970's are obviously inferior as a group to the heavyweights of the 1930's?

"revisionist theory"

There might have been a consensus among old-timers that Walcott and Charles were inferior to the fighters of the turn of the century, but how many actually viewed them as inferior to the 1930's champions?

Bottom line--the color line didn't mean there was no competition, only that the competition was not what it otherwise would have been. Also, better competition improves an athlete. That is why NFL Q-backs are better than college q-backs as they are facing better defenses. Major league hitters get better because they face major league pitching. I think the same process happens in boxing. Better competition forces fighters to improve and be the best they can be.