Did Joe Louis duck any fighter???

[Jack Dempsey]

He fought the 5 previous HW Champs (Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock) and fought the next 3 (Charles, Walcott and Marciano)

Fought a string of boxers inbetween ranging in styles and level of difficulty (some not so great as denoted in the 'Bum of the Month Club' name that was attributed to them) also fought highly rated Jimmy Bivins towards the end of his career.

So did he duck anybody???

[Unforgiven]

I dont think so.

But in the boxing business sometimes mediocre fighters get their shots above better ones. There was a Lem Franklin who battered Abe Simon pretty good, and Simon received a second shot in his next fight, probably because he'd lasted 13 with Louis previously and he was Jewish (whereas Franklin was black) and that kind of ethnic stuff was thought to dictate the box-office. Or Simon was just "connected" better than Franklin. Anyway, that one stands out to me because apparently Franklin had Simon up and down like a yo-yo. And Franklin was on a decent winning streak. Then again, Franklin was KO'd by Bob Pastor before Simon and Louis actually fought.

Max Rosenbloom was possibly avoided because he slapped and spoiled and would make anyone look bad.

Generally though, too many of Louis' challengers are under-estimated and their credentials under-acknowledged.

[My2Sense]

People do accuse him of "ducking" certain fighters (basically, any contender he didn't happen to fight), but there really isn't a serious case for claiming he ducked anyone. He generally fought at least one, sometimes two #1 contenders each year of his reign (except when he was in the military of course), and usually a few other top 5 contenders as well. In other words, he fulfilled his obligation as champion.

[Manassa]

There are a few good fighters Louis could have beaten while champion, but didn't: Roscoe Toles, Turkey Thompson and a prime Jimmy Bivins, for instance.

However, there will be fighters like this on anyone's record. No fighter totally cleans his division, there will always be left overs.

Arguments can be made that certain black folk were avoided, but that was more from a political standpoint than anything else. Louis surely would have beaten them, although of course he'd be more vulnerable post-war. In the end, Louis twice (once?) beat the best black contender of the time and that was Jersey Joe.

Louis' total list of 'contenders beaten' is quite long, and many on the Bum of the Month tour were regulars in the RING ratings. The end-of-year ratings for 1938 list ten contenders for the title; Louis would soon beat, or had already beaten, eight of them, including the top seven. Likewise, the ratings for 1942 listed six fighters who Louis had already beaten, or would soon do so.

Of course, RING ratings aren't the end-all, but they usually give a good indication.

[My2Sense]

Arguments can be made that certain black folk were avoided, but that was more from a political standpoint than anything else.

Most of the contenders when Louis was actually an active champ were white. The black contenders, ie: Bivins, generally came around either during or just before Louis went into the army.

[Manassa]

Most of the contenders when Louis was actually an active champ were white. The black contenders, ie: Bivins, generally came around either during or just before Louis went into the army.

Pre-army there were still black contenders who missed out; Franklin and Toles mainly. Post-war, there was Bivins and Thompson, and also Elmer Ray. Not a big deal though, as none of them were outstanding (Bivins was better at light heavyweight) and Louis eventually wiped all doubt with a knockout of Walcott, who was better than all previous.

[Unforgiven]

and Louis eventually wiped all doubt with a knockout of Walcott, who was better than all previous.

Bivins 1942-'46 was arguably better than Walcott, and was actually very possibly robbed against Walcott in their 1946 fight.

[Manassa]

Bivins 1942-'46 was arguably better than Walcott, and was actually very possibly robbed against Walcott in their 1946 fight.

Yeah, in that period, but by '46/'47 I'd say Walcott was better than Bivins ever was.

[Unforgiven]

Yeah, in that period, but by '46/'47 I'd say Walcott was better than Bivins ever was.

I wouldn't.
Walcott was in close fights with Maxim, Bivins, Ray and an old faded Joe Louis. He picked up close losses to Maxim and Ray, and beat them with close decisions, and probably got a gift over Bivins. Looks like all these were in the same ballpark.

Louis knocking out Walcott in 1948 doesn't wipe away any doubt over his chances against a c.'45 Bivins for example. Not that I have much doubt.

Perhaps Louis's KO of Tami Mauriello says more, because Mauriello was a very good fighter, not far behind the likes of Bivins, but then he was too much of brawler and got excited when he rocked Louis in the opening seconds.
Walcott had the longevity or late-career flourish to catch a slipping Louis but still got crushed in the rematch. I dont think Walcott stands out as better than Bivins ever was. Bivins probably peaked too soon, and Louis was still good enough in 1945/'46 to beat him I'm sure.

[Manassa]

I wouldn't.
Walcott was in close fights with Maxim, Bivins, Ray and an old faded Joe Louis. He picked up close losses to Maxim and Ray, and beat them with close decisions, and probably got a gift over Bivins. Looks like all these were in the same ballpark.

Louis knocking out Walcott in 1948 doesn't wipe away any doubt over his chances against a c.'45 Bivins for example. Not that I have much doubt.

Perhaps Louis's KO of Tami Mauriello says more, because Mauriello was a very good fighter, not far behind the likes of Bivins, but then he was too much of brawler and got excited when he rocked Louis in the opening seconds.
Walcott had the longevity or late-career flourish to catch a slipping Louis but still got crushed in the rematch. I dont think Walcott stands out as better than Bivins ever was. Bivins probably peaked too soon, and Louis was still good enough in 1945/'46 to beat him I'm sure.

I would assert that Bivins was more consistent, and that goes for his whole career. More consistent than Walcott, at least, who I feel could step up his game to all-time great levels when prompted. I couldn't see Bivins giving Louis such a tricky fight, even if Louis was fading. Bivins was a Sammy Angott, where Walcott was a Jimmy Carter. On one hand you have a fighter who'll always be a tough fight, on the other, you have a boxer who has a tendency to underachieve but at times shows true greatness.

[Unforgiven]

I would assert that Bivins was more consistent, and that goes for his whole career. More consistent than Walcott, at least, who I feel could step up his game to all-time great levels when prompted. I couldn't see Bivins giving Louis such a tricky fight, even if Louis was fading. Bivins was a Sammy Angott, where Walcott was a Jimmy Carter. On one hand you have a fighter who'll always be a tough fight, on the other, you have a boxer who has a tendency to underachieve but at times shows true greatness.

I think Walcott was a tremendous fighter but tends to get over-rated.
Why call it "underachieve" ?
All fighters have their best performances and their worst. Walcott at his best wasn't good enough to dominate a badly slipped Joe Louis, and lost a disputed decision and got KO'd. The rest of his best performances he beat some decent contenders, sometimes clearly, sometimes less clearer, and lost some close ones. All these fights c.1945-'49 have about the same consistency.
Walcott was pretty much at his best from 1945 through to 1952, and none of the performances stand out as horrible, and his best-remembered fights (v. Louis 1, Charles 3, Marciano 1) were miles above what I'd expect from him judging from his other fights.

Bivins was a tremendous fighter too, but peaked at a time when opportunities (at light-heavy and heavy) to make historically remembered fights just weren't there. And his slick skills and "all-time great" levels of ability - if he had them - aren't as easily ready on film.

That's my take anyway. :good

[mcvey]

He fought the 5 previous HW Champs (Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock) and fought the next 3 (Charles, Walcott and Marciano)

Fought a string of boxers inbetween ranging in styles and level of difficulty (some not so great as denoted in the 'Bum of the Month Club' name that was attributed to them) also fought highly rated Jimmy Bivins towards the end of his career.

So did he duck anybody???
Any good south paw heavy weights around in those years?

[turpinr]

joe ducked exactly as many contenders as ali and hagler............none

[mr. magoo]

I don't think that anyone can really make a case for him " ducking " anyone. There were however, some decent fighters that I suppose he COULD HAVE fought, but basically he beat the best men of his era. A bout with Elmer Ray sometime around 1946-1947 might have been an interesting match.

[Hydraulix]

joe ducked exactly as many contenders as ali and hagler............none

I thought Ali ducked George Foreman? I know George never got a rematch against him.

[mr. magoo]

From the summer of 1940 to 1948, Elmer Ray recorded a streak consisting of 72-2-1-58, with his only losses being to Joe Walcott and Turkey Thompson. His wins consisted of Joe Walcott, Lee Salvold, Buddy Millard and Ezzard Charles ( possibly a robbery. ) Frankly, I think Ray was about as qualified and even more so than many of the contenders that Louis had faced to this point. Louis did however beat the men who were consistantly ranked at the top though.

[turpinr]

I thought Ali ducked George Foreman? I know George never got a rematch against him.
i don't think big george's head was in a fit state to challenge ali.
if it had been and they'd have fought again then history would have been different.but..........

[TheGreatA]

I thought Walcott was handling Louis pretty well in both fights, wouldn't say dominating but in boxing terms he remained a step ahead all the way, until the sudden KO in their rematch of course when Louis turned the tables.

Lem Franklin was thrown in what was somewhat of an eliminator for Louis's title against Bob Pastor, a fighter you might consider the gatekeeper to challenging Joe Louis (after Louis beat him twice). Louis fought Simon in a rematch with no pay, you could say that it wasn't much more than a promotional event with Simon being used as the punching bag.

Bivins was unfortunate to have his best years during the war. By the time Louis returned, Bivins was starting to fade. His long unbeaten streak was ended by Walcott, who supposedly beat him clearly despite the odd scoring, and ended up winning some and losing some after that.

[mr. magoo]

I thought Ali ducked George Foreman? I know George never got a rematch against him.

I think a tad too much is made out of Ali never giving a Foreman a rematch. It wasn't like the outcome of their first meeting was close or controversial either. Foreman was knocked out....Period.... It also would have been different had Foreman rebounded by putting together a streak over the best heavys out there, but really he didn't. He took a full 16 months off following the Ali loss, then returned and gave a very entertaining, but shaky performance against #5 contender Ron Lyle. After that, he pretty much went down hill, taking on opponents who's quality ranged from mediocre to half way decent. In the end, he lost to Jimmy Young.

[TheGreatA]

I think a tad too much is made out of Ali never giving a Foreman a rematch. It wasn't like the outcome of their first meeting was close or controversial either. Foreman was knocked out....Period.... It also would have been different had Foreman rebounded by putting together a streak over the best heavys out there, but really he didn't. He took a full 16 months off following the Ali loss, then returned and gave a very entertaining, but shaky performance against #5 contender Ron Lyle. After that, he pretty much went down hill, taking on opponents who's quality ranged from mediocre to half way decent. In the end, he lost to Jimmy Young.

Anyone who has seen the farce that Foreman had against 5 opponents of varying quality would know that he was in no way ready for an immediate rematch with Ali. He was intimidated by a journeyman using the rope a dope and seemed to gas after going a couple of rounds.

After facing Lyle and Frazier again he seemed to be on form but soon after he lost to Jimmy Young.

[turpinr]

I thought Walcott was handling Louis pretty well in both fights, wouldn't say dominating but in boxing terms he remained a step ahead all the way, until the sudden KO in their rematch of course when Louis turned the tables.


.
do you think jersey joe regretted that showboatin in the re-match:lol::lol:

[TheGreatA]

do you think jersey joe regretted that showboatin in the re-match:lol::lol:

I do and he did as well. Just a very dumb move by an experienced pro.

[mr. magoo]

Anyone who has seen the farce that Foreman had against 5 opponents of varying quality would know that he was in no way ready for an immediate rematch with Ali. He was intimidated by a journeyman using the rope a dope and seemed to gas after going a couple of rounds.

After facing Lyle and Frazier again he seemed to be on form but soon after he lost to Jimmy Young.

Agreed,

had Foreman and Ali met again anytime around 1976, I think Ali would have at least decisioned him in similar fashion to the way that Young did. Sometimes one fighter has another's number........Simple as that........

[MRBILL]

He fought the 5 previous HW Champs (Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock) and fought the next 3 (Charles, Walcott and Marciano)

Fought a string of boxers inbetween ranging in styles and level of difficulty (some not so great as denoted in the 'Bum of the Month Club' name that was attributed to them) also fought highly rated Jimmy Bivins towards the end of his career.

So did he duck anybody???

NO! Louis never ducked anyone... But his title days from '37 to '49 weren't exactly filled with a shitload of great fighters, either........ Louis' best opponent was Joe Walcott... And Louis and Walcott didn't even fight until 1947....... Louis didn't duck anyone....

MR.BILL

[cotto20]

There will always be some contenders that champion's didnt fight during there reign, but Louis fought really all the deserving challagers and contenders during his reign.

Bivins's best form came during the War, when he was given the title ''Duration Champion'' By the time Louis was back, Bivins was starting to fade. His long unbeaten run was ended when he was defeated by Jersey Joe Walcott.

[Manassa]

I think Walcott was a tremendous fighter but tends to get over-rated.
Why call it "underachieve" ?
All fighters have their best performances and their worst. Walcott at his best wasn't good enough to dominate a badly slipped Joe Louis, and lost a disputed decision and got KO'd. The rest of his best performances he beat some decent contenders, sometimes clearly, sometimes less clearer, and lost some close ones. All these fights c.1945-'49 have about the same consistency.
Walcott was pretty much at his best from 1945 through to 1952, and none of the performances stand out as horrible, and his best-remembered fights (v. Louis 1, Charles 3, Marciano 1) were miles above what I'd expect from him judging from his other fights.

Bivins was a tremendous fighter too, but peaked at a time when opportunities (at light-heavy and heavy) to make historically remembered fights just weren't there. And his slick skills and "all-time great" levels of ability - if he had them - aren't as easily ready on film.

That's my take anyway. :good

A badly slipped Joe Louis is still Joe Louis. The knockout is what made that rematch, brilliant as it were.

Including the possible Bivins win, Walcott was on a good streak going into the first Louis fight, even if some of them were close. That was his first title shot, the first time he'd performed well against a ring legend, and it must have boosted his confidence. At this stage I think he was better than Bivins was in the early '40s.

The only people Walcott was losing to, aside from Rex Layne, were Hall of Famers who were slightly better than him. Charles beat Walcott twice, but then he'd also beaten Bivins four times. As it turns out, I think both Bivins and Walcott could have been good three or four year champions in a different era.

But this is going off topic.

[Hydraulix]

do you think jersey joe regretted that showboatin in the re-match:lol::lol:

I do and he did as well. Just a very dumb move by an experienced pro.

Walcott said once that the referee forced him to fight. The crowd was booing and the ref said "Stop running! Let's have a fight!!" The result was Walcott getting within Louis' range and getting straightened out.

[TheGreatA]

Walcott said once that the referee forced him to fight. The crowd was booing and the ref said "Stop running! Let's have a fight!!" The result was Walcott getting within Louis' range and getting straightened out.

I remember him saying that during "The Way It Was" program. He did go out more aggressively for the 11th round and paid for it.

Obviously keeping his hands at his side and taunting Louis to take a swing at him didn't help his case either.

[mcvey]

I remember him saying that during "The Way It Was" program. He did go out more aggressively for the 11th round and paid for it.

Obviously keeping his hands at his side and taunting Louis to take a swing at him didn't help his case either.

Walcott arguably lost the first fight by not being aggressive enough in the closing stages, ala ODH against Tito. Perhaps he thought he had to be more forceful?

[TheGreatA]

Walcott arguably lost the first fight by not being aggressive enough in the closing stages, ala ODH against Tito. Perhaps he thought he had to be more forceful?

Possibly although if that was his idea then he was going about it in the wrong way. He basically gave the greatest puncher of all time an opportunity to take a shot at his unprotected chin.

Not that he would have known it but he also had enough of a lead on the scorecards so that he could have given away a couple of rounds and still walked away with the title.

[SuzieQ49]

Bivins 1942-'46 was arguably better than Walcott, and was actually very possibly robbed against Walcott in their 1946 fight.

Completley incorrect. You obviousely have not read a newspaper report on the fight. The New York Times had a segment on it. Walcott knocked bivins down, outboxed him, and the fight was alot more onsided than the scorecards played out. This was a big win for Walcott. He knocked off the previous unbeaten in the past 4 years Bivins in clear cut Fashion.


"Walcott won the fight going away" - New York Times



I could make an arguement Lee Q Murray and Elmer Ray were better than Bivins 1942-1946. Murray was twice jobbed against bivins and held was the duration heavyweight champion recgonized by maryland and ohio commissions. Ray beat better fighters, was more consistent, and was certainly more terrified by louis camp.

[SuzieQ49]

Walcott was in close fights with Maxim, Bivins, Ray and an old faded Joe Louis. He picked up close losses to Maxim and Ray, and beat them with close decisions, and probably got a gift over Bivins. Looks like all these were in the same ballpark.

Old faded Louis? The Joe Louis of 1947 would have beaten the ever loving shit out of Jimmy Bivins. In fact the 1951 louis easily beat Bivins. No heavyweight in the world could have put on a better performance than the one Walcott did. Louis in 1947 still had blazing combinations and still hit very hard with a pistol like jab.


Walcott did have a close fight with Elmer Ray, but he also beat Ray clearly knocking him down 3 times. Ray was the # 1 contender, and louis camp wanted no part of him. In fact, I would go as far to say Elmer Ray was better than Jimmy Bivins.


Joey Maxim: Walcott argueably won all 3 fights. The one he lost AP scored it for walcott and reported "Clevelander won a very unpopular decision here last night". Even so, Walcott still went 2-1 vs Maxim, a hall of famer by the way.



Lastly, I see it was convenient for you to leave out Walcotts victories over Lee Q Murray, Tommy Gomez, Hatchetman Sheppard, Lee Oma, Joe Baksi...ALL top 10 contenders.

probably got a gift over Bivins.

Now your telling lies. read a fight report some time. Should have been a wide unanimous win for Walcott. Walcott knocked bivins down and outboxed him.


Louis knocking out Walcott in 1948 doesn't wipe away any doubt over his chances against a c.'45 Bivins for example. Not that I have much doubt.

Bivins during this time was getting gift decisions over Lee Q Murray(who louis camp wanted no part of), and losing clear cut decisions to Jersey Joe Walcottt. Yes Bivins was 26 years old and in his prime when Walcott knocked him off his pedastool. Do not try to argue differently.


Honestly you have it backwards...Louis camp never feared Bivins. They feared Lee Q Murray, and Elmer Ray, and Lem Franklin.


Walcott had the longevity or late-career flourish to catch a slipping Louis but still got crushed in the rematch. I dont think Walcott stands out as better than Bivins ever was. Bivins probably peaked too soon, and Louis was still good enough in 1945/'46 to beat him I'm sure.

Your foolish. Both Bivins and Walcott met in there primes, Walcott won a clear cut decision. Walcott also beat far better opposition than Bivins did having beaten Ezzard Charles(not the 165lb teenager bivins beat, the one bivins lost to 4 times), Harold Johnson(better than bivins), Elmer Ray(Better than Bivins), Joe Louis in 1947(By far better than anyone bivins beat)...as well as the countless other Ring Magazine contenders walcott beat. Also Walcott being ahead after 13 rounds against a prime Marciano is something Jimmy never accomplished against an elite great heavyweight in his career.


Louis easily beat bivins in 51 at age 37. Bivins would have gotten killed in 46 by louis. Bivins was tailor made for Louis.



Skillwise: Watch the film. Walcott is loads better than Jimmy. Much better jab, much better footwork, he hit much harder, He was better technician, better defense, more elusive and slick, and he was physically stronger/bigger.

[TheGreatA]

I think you're selling Bivins a bit short. While it's true that Walcott has the better credentials at heavyweight, Bivins was still a great fighter on his own who was more of a light heavyweight.

The fight fight was controversial but Bivins beat him decisively in their rematch, dropping Murray along the way.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Louis met Bivins in an exhibition and called him the toughest opponent he faced in such a contest.

I also wonder what filmed fights of his you are basing your opinion on Bivins. He doesn't look too impressive against Charles but he had turned into a bit of a journeyman at that point. He seems skilled against Moore although he was washed up. Perhaps you have seen the film of him in his prime though.

[janitor]

If Louis did avoid anybody it might well be sombody who would seem absurd in hindsight.

People today have their pet theories about who a champion of the past avoided based on looking at the records, but the truth is often more bizzare because the champion in question can only see fights that have taken place up to that point and can only guess at the future sucess of a challenger.

Louis himself said that the only challenger his managment purpousfully avoided was Melio Bettina of all people. He also said that he declined th fight Maxie Rosenbloom despite being confident of beating him because "he would make him look bad".

[SuzieQ49]

I think you're selling Bivins a bit short. While it's true that Walcott has the better credentials at heavyweight, Bivins was still a great fighter on his own who was more of a light heavyweight.

Never did I not say Bivins was an ATG fighter, he was most certainly. He argueabably is a top 50 heavyweight of all time as well. Just don't sit here and tell me he deserves to be rated on par as Jersey Joe Walcott because he certainly does not.

First fight was highly controversial. In Fact Murray deserved to win there series 3-2. Lee Q Murray is such an overlooked fighter. 6'3 210lb Ray Arcel described him as the best puncher of the era next to Joe Louis.

[My2Sense]

Lem Franklin was thrown in what was somewhat of an eliminator for Louis's title against Bob Pastor, a fighter you might consider the gatekeeper to challenging Joe Louis (after Louis beat him twice). Louis fought Simon in a rematch with no pay, you could say that it wasn't much more than a promotional event with Simon being used as the punching bag.

Simon, like Baer that same year, were intended only as big money rematches against fighters that had previously given Louis trouble; and like you said Louis donated his entire purse both times. Franklin was not the first in line for a shot anyway, that was Conn, which was also the most in-demand fight in the division. The Baer and Simon rematches were basically charity event time-fillers while awaiting the upcoming megafight with the #1 contender Conn. Louis was scheduled to fight Conn following those fights, but Conn ultimately pulled out with an injury, and the whole thing was scrapped altogether when both men went to war. And of course, any title shot prospects Franklin had were smashed anyway when he was basically "exposed" by Pastor and then quickly faded from the big scene. Franklin only had a relatively brief run (about 6 or 7 months) as a top 5 contender, and I don't believe was ever #1. Not really solid ground for making a case that he was "ducked."

[mcvey]

If Louis did avoid anybody it might well be sombody who would seem absurd in hindsight.

People today have their pet theories about who a champion of the past avoided based on looking at the records, but the truth is often more bizzare because the champion in question can only see fights that have taken place up to that point and can only guess at the future sucess of a challenger.

Louis himself said that the only challenger his managment purpousfully avoided was Melio Bettina of all people. He also said that he declined th fight Maxie Rosenbloom despite being confident of beating him because "he would make him look bad".
The Louis camp avoided Bettina for one reason,he was a southpaw.Louis never met one.Hence my earlier post.

[My2Sense]

I thought Ali ducked George Foreman? I know George never got a rematch against him.

They both share the blame for that. Foreman didn't pursue a rematch straightaway (and in fact took a year off, except for his "one on five" sideshow attraction); and then when he did come back, Ali put off the match a couple times, and eventually Foreman lost to Young and that was the end of it.

[Bokaj]

As far as I know there's no real case to be made that he actually ducked someone. His reign after WWII wasn't really that much, though. Walcott was the only really dangerous guy who got a shot, even though the rematch with Conn made sense.

[Bokaj]

They both share the blame for that. Foreman didn't pursue a rematch straightaway (and in fact took a year off, except for his "one on five" sideshow attraction); and then when he did come back, Ali put off the match a couple times, and eventually Foreman lost to Young and that was the end of it.

I think Ali should have rematched Young there, though. He should have promised to meet the winner of the fight and then made good on the promise.

Strange feeling to argue with you from this side, I have to say.

[My2Sense]

His reign after WWII wasn't really that much, though. Walcott was the only really dangerous guy who got a shot, even though the rematch with Conn made sense.

Mauriello may not look "dangerous" from today's perspective, but at the time he was actually the #1 contender.

[Bokaj]

Mauriello may not look "dangerous" from today's perspective, but at the time he was actually the #1 contender.

Wasn't he sick, though. Was he really nr. 1?

Anyway, even counting him that was two dangerous contenders over more than 3,5 years....

I liked how he was quick to give rematches in close/controversial fights, though.

[SuzieQ49]

Franklin only had a relatively brief run (about 6 or 7 months) as a top 5 contender, and I don't believe was ever #1. Not really solid ground for making a case that he was "ducked."

Franlin made his way up to # 2 in the rankings in a heavily bias racist white era.


Franklin from 1939-1941 went on a 19-0 with 17 knockout run..take a look at some of the names he knocked out during that time...Quite impressive. Filled with Ring Magazine contenders/very good fighters.

Franklin certainly deserved a shot over abe simon rematch, after franklin disposed the giant in 5 and was ranked higher.


19-0 with 17 knockouts winning streak!

[Jack Dempsey]

Thanks for the responses guys, very informative as ever

[TheGreatA]

Wasn't he sick, though. Was he really nr. 1?

Anyway, even counting him that was two dangerous contenders over more than 3,5 years....

I liked how he was quick to give rematches in close/controversial fights, though.

Louis didn't fight too many times from 1946-1948 while he was still the champion. Conn, Mauriello and Walcott (x2) made up for those defenses, which isn't bad, but he could have made room for a title defense against Elmer Ray when he didn't fight for a year and 3 months in between the Mauriello and Walcott bouts.

[Bokaj]

Louis didn't fight too many times from 1946-1948 while he was still the champion. Conn, Mauriello and Walcott (x2) made up for those defenses, which isn't bad, but he could have made room for a title defense against Elmer Ray when he didn't fight for a year and 3 months in between the Mauriello and Walcott bouts.

Well, how often your defend your title is part of how your reign is viewed in hindsight.

Taking on two top rated guys in 3,5 years is far from the poorest of ratios, but it's not among the best either.

Hate to harp on about this, but Ali's second reign gets a lot of stone from some quarters and while there is some reasons to critize how he held himself as a champion during that reign, he took on guys like Lyle, Frazier, Young, Norton and Shavers in a similar period of time.

So if we're going to citize him some, one also has to say that Louis taking on Conn, Maurelio and Walcott during the last 3.5 years of his reign just isn't that impressive. But it's not terrible either.

His reign up until WWII was very good, though.

[My2Sense]

Taking on two top rated guys in 3,5 years is far from the poorest of ratios, but it's not among the best either.


Actually, Conn had been restored to his #1 ranking by some bodies after coming out of the army. So technically, Louis had a total of four fights against the #1 contender over roughly 3 years.

[Bokaj]

Actually, Conn had been restored to his #1 ranking by some bodies after coming out of the army. So technically, Louis had a total of four fights against the #1 contender over roughly 3 years.

Well, that sounds better, but it's hardly all there is to it. Walcott was the only up and coming fighter of the three.

What was wrong with Mauriello? Louis gave him the fight as a favour as the story goes. But if he was nr.1 contender he shouldn't need that favour, though.

[SuzieQ49]

Elmer Ray certainly deserved a shot in 1946-1947. Louis took a 1 year 1/2 gap between the conn fight and walcott fight. Ray was currently in the middle of a 65-1 winning streak and worked his way to # 1 in the rankings with a win over walcott, and would go on to beat a prime ezzard charles in 47. In Louis defense, both fought an exhibition in 1949 and Louis knocked the Alligator Wrestlers out cold.


Bottom Line: Joe Louis fought one of the best black hall of famers in the 1930s and won by KO 1 John Henry lewis, and he fought the best black heavyweight of the 1940s Jersey Joe Walcott and knocked him out. He also fought the 2nd best black heavyweight of the era ezzard charles. He took on Hall of Famer Jimmy Bivins and won a clear decison.


While Louis did fight a long list of black fighters, he did take on the very best. Just imagine if louis had not been inactive from 1943-1945, he most certainly would have taken on some of the top rated black men.

[SuzieQ49]

Franklin and Toles mainly

Paul,

Joe Louis knocked Roscoe Toles out. Both were young prospects at the time, but this does say something.

[TheGreatA]

Well, how often your defend your title is part of how your reign is viewed in hindsight.

Taking on two top rated guys in 3,5 years is far from the poorest of ratios, but it's not among the best either.

Hate to harp on about this, but Ali's second reign gets a lot of stone from some quarters and while there is some reasons to critize how he held himself as a champion during that reign, he took on guys like Lyle, Frazier, Young, Norton and Shavers in a similar period of time.

So if we're going to citize him some, one also has to say that Louis taking on Conn, Maurelio and Walcott during the last 3.5 years of his reign just isn't that impressive. But it's not terrible either.

His reign up until WWII was very good, though.

I agree with you, I was just stating that he didn't fight too many times.

I'm not too sure why he didn't defend his title for more than a year in between the Mauriello and Walcott fights. Perhaps boxing exhibitions (which were often more like real contests) were enough to keep the public pleased.

Mauriello vs Louis was a fun fight:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Bokaj]

I got it wrong. I mixed Mauriello up with John Henry Louis. My bad.

Fighting 4 times against top 1 ranked guys in 3.5 years isn't shameful by any stretch of the imagination, that's true. Fighting more often and taking on at least one of Bettina and Ray would make it better, though.

[Bokaj]

I agree with you, I was just stating that he didn't fight too many times.

I'm not too sure why he didn't defend his title for more than a year in between the Mauriello and Walcott fights. Perhaps boxing exhibitions (which were often more like real contests) were enough to keep the public pleased.

Mauriello vs Louis was a fun fight:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

It's a nice one. Louis looks very sharp still.

[MrMarvel]

Not trying to start trouble (I know how people feel about Joe Louis), but if Louis didn't duck anybody what does that say about the heavyweight division during his reign? I regard his title fight opposition, with few exceptions, as very weak.

[MrMarvel]

Louis must have had bolts for hands.

[My2Sense]

Not trying to start trouble (I know how people feel about Joe Louis), but if Louis didn't duck anybody what does that say about the heavyweight division during his reign?

Why would it say anything? The division is what it is, regardless of whether Louis chooses to "duck" anyone or not.