Which fight was the most historical significant?

Good point.

 

Considering blacks made up about 12 percent of the U.S. population, and the fact that "whitey" in the U.S. was rooting for Louis, too, in his rematch with Schmeling ...

MAKES Louis-Schmeling II far more significant, even from a white-black point of view in the U.S., than Johnson-Burns.

It's not like Johnson was MORE POPULAR in the black community than Louis was. Because he never was. And white America was rooting for Joe, too.

If the argument is just going to focus on race, the vast majority of whites (even avowed racists) rooting for black Joe Louis against Schmeling in their rematch was enormous historically.

Jack Johnson never pulled that off during his reign.

 

Were these 20,000 whiteys in MSG rooting for Louis?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fj8gjNtT...ation-rally-madison-square-garden-1939-11.jpg

 

Good thread, but it's easily Louis Schmeling. That was one of the great cultural symbols that presaged WWII. It was the most socioculturally significant bout in history.

 

wtf...

 

And how many of those guys were rooting for Jack Johnson?

There were 130 MILLION people living in the U.S. in 1938, a 100 million of them whiteys. Genius.

I don't see 130 million people in that photo.

 

Dubblechin, who are you?

You've persuaded me away from Johnson-Burns, Johnson-Jeffries.

The most historically significant boxing match ever has to be Louis-Schmeling II. I like to share these topics with non-boxing fans and now I can say that while, yes, Johnson shattered the myth of a white man being "better" than a black man, he did so in a narrow way: now it had to be recognized that the baddest man on the planet was black and that a black man could handle himself on a world-class level, as far as the fighting arts were concerned. The myth persisted in a thousand and one other endeavors.

In spite of himself, Schmeling represented a twisted, bigoted, militant philosophy bent on literal world conquest for a thousand years. Though Jesse Owens had humbled Hitler two years earlier, Louis-Schmeling II in 1938 was two men - champion and challenger, symbols both - standing in a boxing ring vying for superiority in the most basic, primal of sports - the perfect metaphor for the hells of global war to come.

Joe Louis, first and foremost, was the pride of his fellow blacks, but he took on much greater burdens in representing universal freedom ("We're on God's side.") against tyranny. Schmeling, on the other hand, was no Nazi, but he had already crushed an already-acknowledged and respected Louis once before. Though older, the German was a master technician and a powerful man, and it could justifiably be thought that he simply had the world champion's number. As the fighters stood gallantly in the ring awaiting the bell, it seemed the perfect moment for the Third Reich to claim a staggering propaganda blow should Schmeling prevail again.

Well, then the bell rang and the rest is history.

From a sporting perspective, Johnson fought for himself. Louis fought for himself and world freedom.

Had the Brown Bomber lost to the man who had destroyed him in their first meeting, the consequences would have reverberated to the ends of the earth in the realm of morale - and emotions rule the world. He knew this and accepted it. Boxing has never before or since had this platform and certainly Jack Johnson did not fight in these dimensions. Calm, collected, supremely confident and ruthless Joe Louis was a titan - perhaps the best champion of them all. In annihilating Schmeling, Louis transcended a mere race issue - yes, whites and many other ethnicities rejoiced in his victory - while he also demolished a racist creed.

 

Yes , things get skewed as the years pass.

 

the effect of louis schmelling was nothing, the effect of johnson burns was something.

 

These fights aren't most important from historical view but from a boxing fan's
view.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/29/sports/boxng-broadcast-firsts.html?_r=0

 

Couple of points: 1. The idea that Louis-Schmeling was this gigantic historical event is an entirely anglophile (and predominantly American) perspective in the same way that we in the USA were always taught that the USA won WW2. Theres a whole great big world out there and this really is a perspective with blinders on. That fight didnt play to any great degree outside of Europe and North America. Johnson-Burns did.

2. When quoting demographic figures for 80 years ago dont use demographic figures for today. The African American population was not "about 12 percent." When Louis fought Schmeling. It was under 10 percent. That may not seem like a lot but you factor in the actual population of the United States at the time you are inflating the number of African Americans by literally millions.

 

Posting the facts Klompton! Yes Johnson's win over Burns was significant, but can you name me one lineal champion who used the color line to duck his best THREE ( Langford, Jeannette, and McVey ) opponents during his tenure are champion as Johnson did?

I don't think so! Suddenly Dempsey's avoidance over Wills which is bad, can't touch Johnson's use of the color line.

"When Jack became champion, he forgot his old friends and used the color line against his own people. " Joe Jeannette.

Tunney called it quits early, and did not have many highly ranked black opponents to fight when he was highly ranked, though as we know he offered Harry Wills a match and Harry Wills declined.

While I do think Louis did great things to advance social justice, he only fought two African American opponents in 26 title defenses and one of the had a vision issue. Louis, if he wanted to could have changed things for the better.

Rocky Marciano ended the color line.

 

Obviously, the African American Population was larger in the 1930's compared to the 1910's.

Far more people saw or heard Louis vs Scheming 2, and many USA whites were going for Louis.

The invention if the radio and the quality of the film and its distribution was much greater than it was in 1908 when Johnson defeated Burns.

Peter Jackson won the British Empire ( 1892 vs. the undefeated Slavin ) title before Johnson went professional. The British Empire title was a big thing in the 1880's and 1890's. So why isn't this fight talked about much for breaking barriers?

 

I think the importance of Schmelling vs Louis II is overplayed because of what happened few years later. If there was never a WWII, it wouldn't be seen as anything more than some American vs Soviet bout during the cold world, in fact it would be seen as even less. Maybe something like an American guy fighting a Chinese guy right now.

But now, in retrospective, people think that USA and Nazi Germany were some sort of deadly rivals even in the 30s just about to fight. In reality, plenty of Americans didn't want a war with the Nazis at all and didn't care what goes on in Europe. A lot of Americans had German ancestry, there were pro-Nazi organizations. People like Lindbergh were pro-Nazi.

Most of the Nazi propaganda was directed against German traditional enemies France and Britain, as well as the Jews obviously. Blacks weren't targeted by the Nazis, they were pretty much irrelevant to them. There was a black minority in Berlin that survived until the end of the WWII and was never harassed. At the time, the situation in Europe was pretty tense and the alliances between countries were constantly switching. The Nazis had much more to worry about than a boxing match in the USA.

Germany also had other athletes to promote at the time. They also had great success in racing with Mercedes and Auto Union cars displaying the might of German engineering. I think this was more important to them back then than some boxer who actually defied them by having a Jewish manager and refusing a reward from Hitler. If he had won it would be a nice propaganda boost for them but to say that his defeat somehow played part in the German army's morale years later is just overreaching.

 

Your whole argument ignores the fact that there was a WWI. And Germany lost. And the country was decimated.

And your statement ignores how propaganda played a huge role in German society, after WWI, and throughout the 1920s and 1930s in helping it recover and become successful on the world stage again.

Lifting the morale of Germans was vital. Positive reinforcement meant everything. Big wins were trumpeted around the nation year after year. And rebuilding the military, reclaiming what was lost and getting revenge was a key part in Hitler's rise to power.

Your "what if WWII never happened" statement ignores the fact that German children were sent to youth camps to build soldiers, teenage girls at these camps were encouraged to get pregnant (and were rewarded for doing so), the nation created a system to birth more and more children to have enough soldiers to take on the world.

Your statement ignores the fact that the 1936 Olympics in Berlin was a showcase for how far Germany had come under the Nazis, how disciplined they'd become, and where they were going. The world attended, except for those few nations who had already boycotted. And the Germans originally demanded no country attending the Olympics could send Jewish athletes, but they rescinded the demand because they didn't want massive boycotts. Schmeling-Louis I was a huge propaganda tool for the Nazis in 1936, and it took place as the world prepared to send its athletes to Germany for the Olympics.

Your statement also ignores the fact that Germany had been gearing up for more war in the years leading up to the Louis-Schmeling rematch in 1938. The world wasn't blind to that. Germany made sure the world wasn't blind to it. They didn't sneak up on anyone.

By the time of the rematch in 1938, the world was aware (with Germany's massive arms buildup) of what was certain to take place and was already taking steps in 1938 to choose sides. Which countries were going to side with which countries, and when it would be necessary to get involved, or how they were going to try to stay out of it ... were topics of discussion. Not whether another large-scale war would actually happen.

Your statement ignores the fact that in 1938 Great Britain and France and Italy met with Germany and signed a pact agreeing to give up parts of Czechoslovakia if Germany wouldn't start a war.

You act like WWII happened "out of the blue."

The feeling of impending war was in the air in 1938.

Louis-Schmeling II was a huge GLOBAL, historical event ... and the outcome was important enough that leaders of nations took an active role in the buildup.

Comparing it to a US-Soviet amateur fight during the Cold War is ludicrous.

As is saying ANY Jack Johnson fight was more important.