Tweet
Originally posted by NextRocky
By the end of the Louis era the white establishment accepted a black heavyweight champion and from then on starting with Louis-Walcott the color barrier was gone...
-
You're right. As I said it's not an indictment of Louis. It's a sign of the times. I also believe that the powers in boxing at that time did not want a black man to hold the title other than Joe Louis. Louis demeanor was contructed, formulated and presented in a way that white society accepted. Had Louis been more of a Jack Johnson type character I doubt he ever would have gotten a title shot against Braddock after being convincingly KO'd by Schmeling only a year previous. It's quite possible Louis would have been shut-out of a title fight oppurtunity for the rest of his career. Joe's connections through numbers men Julian Black and John Roxborough as well as a promise of future ring earnings to Jim Braddock helped Louis secure a title shot so soon after a devastating KO loss. Based on the outcome of Schmeling-Louis, Schmeling should have gotten the title fight not Louis.
By the end of the Louis era the white establishment accepted a black heavyweight champion and from then on starting with Louis-Walcott the color barrier was gone... -
only because louis was so respectable.Comment
-
There were certain rules Louis agreed to abide by (don't be seen with white women, don't gloat over fallen white opponents etc), but the humble nature that was so beloved by America at the time was all his. Louis was always the nice guy who ran from the bullies as a kid, rather than fight them. That is just the way he was. Obviously he wasn't in reality a perfect saint but your insistance that his demeanor was a fabrication is insulting to the man, especially when those who knew him in private saw a laid back, sensitive gentleman with a sense of humour and who disliked violence, very similar to his public image.Louis demeanor was contructed, formulated and presented in a way that white society accepted.
I could just as easily say that Ali and Johnson had constructed their personas in a way meant to provoke white America and get attention. I know for certain that the way Ali behaved around the media wasn't the way he behaved around close friends. What would you say to that, that Ali's media personality was all an act? It was, after all, largely inspired by professional wrestling.Comment
-
Never did I use the word fabrication but the truth is Joe Louis WAS NOT the image portrayed to the public. While he was a beloved champion Louis was also a womanizer (while married) which included affairs with white women (taboo in the 30's-40's) a heavy drinker in his army days, a gambler and later a smoker and in retirement an alleged drug user, all things that his management would never have wanted the public to know of.Originally posted by Kid Achilles
The humble and respectable Louis was never so humble and respectable to speak out in print about what he would have done to "Clay" had he ever fought him. "HOW I WOULD HAVE CLOBBERED CLAY" was an article by Louis in Ring Magazine in 1967. I'm sure white America loved the fact that Louis continued to refer to Ali as 'Clay' even though he had changed his name to Muhammad Ali 3 years earlier all the while mapping out exactly how he would win by KO and downplaying Ali as a fighter, saying things such as "he has a million dollar mouth and a dime's worth of courage" things he sure as hell never would have said regarding a white opponent.
Ali was his own man and did and said what he pleased or believed in often to the detriment of his acceptance by the public. Ali's image was designed by no one else but himself.Last edited by smasher; 03-24-2006, 12:53 PM.Comment
-
This is all well known, but womanizing and drug use does not change the fact that he was a quiet, modest guy who felt uncomfortable talking trash to his opponents. The very core of the Louis image was the real Louis who everyone loved. I couldn't care less if he cheated on his wives or if he abused coke and heroin. There are plenty of people in the world right now who are good willed, loving people but are drug users or who cheat on their wives. The fact that Louis gambled or cheated on his wives during his career or used dope after his career does not change the fact that he was at the core of it all a lovable person.Joe Louis WAS NOT the image portrayed to the public. While he was a beloved champion Louis was also a womanizer (while married) which included affairs with white women (taboo in the 30's-40's) a heavy drinker in his army days, a gambler and later a smoker and in retirement an alleged drug user, all things that his management would never have wanted the public to know of.
IMO it was was his perogative to talk some **** about Ali, who had made negative comments about Louis before. As far as I'm concerned, after all the talking Ali did he was open game for anyone to talk a little smack to, especially a former great champion like Louis.Comment
-
You're missing my point. I'm not discussing Joe's personality. I'm discussing HIS IMAGE THAT WAS PORTRAYED TO THE PUBLIC. A black heavyweight champion womanizing with whites, cheating on his wives (which he had kids with) drinking heavily and using drugs would have been destroyed by white America as it did Jack Johnson. This side to Joe was kept guarded and secret from the public for very good reason.Originally posted by Kid Achilles
Funny how the white Tony Galento talked smack to Louis and Louis never returned the talk. Hmmmmm....Comment
-
speaking of which...Originally posted by smasher
Originally posted by Tony GalentoOriginally posted by Tony Galento
Comment
-
SuzieQ49.....We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I can kind of see your point about those young fighters being "green"; but also remember Cassius Clay had only 19 fight when he whupped Sonny Liston, so, ultimately, it's a matter of perspective. Same case with age and Walcott. You say he got better with age and was in his prime at 34. I say NO MAN is in HIS PRIME at 34, just as I think there's NO WAY Schmeling was IN HIS PRIME at 32. Neither fighter was shot; but neither fighter's reflexes were what they would have been in their mid to late 20's, which is what I define as prime...one's physical peak.
I will agree that Walcott could conceivably been a better fighter at 34 than Norton was; but I believe it is also conceivable that the reason Norton lost to Shavers and Cooney had as much to do with his style as it did his age. Norton always froze against punchers...example, look at the Foreman fight. Norton was not 34 when George clocked him in round 2.
This really just boils down to two different perspectives. The fighters on Holmes roster you question could have been a little more seasoned for their own good; but, likewise, the fighters you listed on Louis' resume could have stood a little less seasoning to my take. Perspective.
Louis does belong above Holmes IMO; but Holmes deserves more respect than you appear to give him.Comment
-
You say he got better with age and was in his prime at 34. I say NO MAN is in HIS PRIME at 34, just as I think there's NO WAY Schmeling was IN HIS PRIME at 32. Neither fighter was shot; but neither fighter's reflexes were what they would have been in their mid to late 20's, which is what I define as prime...one's physical peak.
you don't understand. a fighters "prime" is when he is at his BEST as a fighter, NOT HIS PHYSICAL PEAK. its when he is at his best as a FIGHTER.
bernard hopkins did not reach his prime until mid 30s
lennox lewis prime was early-mid 30s
archie moore did not reach his prime till 30s
look at walcotts record when he was in his 20s, are u telling me walcott was in his prime when he was losing all those fights YET HE WAS OUT OF HIS PRIME WHEN HE WAS BEATING GREAT FIGHTERS?
This really just boils down to two different perspectives. The fighters on Holmes roster you question could have been a little more seasoned for their own good; but, likewise, the fighters you listed on Louis' resume could have stood a little less seasoning to my take. Perspective.
so what your trying to tell me is that joe louis did not beat a prime walcott?
does anyone else agree with this?Comment
-
Smasher, you need to shut the **** up because your posts are insulting to Louis. Annyone who says that Louis was not a good guy(Or anything similar to that) is an ignorant hater.
Joe Louis is the greatest
Comment
Comment