Ali sports century

[butterfly1964]

I'm scratching my head over why or how exactly Abe Simon was granted a rematch with Louis.

Simon was KO'd in 13 rounds by Louis in March 1941. Then in October 1941 Simon was KO'd by black heavyweight Lem Franklin in 5 rounds being floored in 4 different rounds. Franklin's win over Simon "strengthened his claims for a chance at Joe Louis's crown" according to the New York Times.

"FRANKLIN HALTS SIMON IN FIFTH; Finishes New York Giant in Eight Rounds Less Than It Took Louis to Turn Trick

CLEVELAND, Oct. 20 (AP) -- Lem Franklin, 201, of Cleveland, scored a fifth-round technical knockout over 255-pound Abe Simon of New York in their scheduled ten-round match at the Arena tonight, to strengthen his claims for a chance at Joe Louis's crown.

Now Franklin was no journeyman. Going into the Simon fight, Franklin had 23 KO's in 27 wins and the Simon win was his 18th KO in his last 19 fights. The decisive Simon KO elevated Franklin's ranking to #2 in the world behind the #1 rated Billy Conn who had already been KO'd by Louis in June of that year. Should getting KO'd in a gallant effort in a title justifiably make Conn the #1 contender? Incidentally, Simon was rated #5 at the end of 1941 after getting KO'd by Franklin.

The Simon KO capped of an excellent run by by Franklin who went 18-0 with 17 KO's during which time from 1940-41 he defeated among others Willie Reddish, Eddie Blunt, Jimmy Bivins, Curtis Sheppard, Tony Musto and as previously mentioned Abe Simon with all wins coming by KO. During this same time frame, Louis granted title fights to Al McCoy who was coming off two losses, Arturo Godoy who was coming off a loss and was 2-2 in his last 4 fights, and Musto who had just lost Walker, Blunt, Burman and Godoy in his last 6 fights. Simply put, none of those fighters were more deserving of a title shot than Franklin

So Lem Franklin was rated higher than Simon. Lem Franklin convincingly knocked Simon out 5 rounds. Lem Franklin was on an impressive winning streak. Joe Louis had already knocked Simon out.

WHY DID ABE SIMON GET A SECOND TITLE FIGHT WITH JOE LOUIS INSTEAD OF LEM FRANKLIN?

Very good points, Sabbath. Did you look at my newest Who's # 1 thread?

[Yogi]

Smasher;

Sorry for the delay in responding, but with me being on a stretch of working 10-12 hours a day & 7 days a week, I just haven't had the time to post much as of late.

I'll try to respond to a few points while I have the time, though, so...Umm?

No, odds are black heavyweights didn't get the same opportunities that the white heavyweights had (financial/gate attraction being one of them), but I still fail to see a black heavyweight from that time that was most deserving of a title shot...There were probably some black heavyweights that were better than some of Louis' more 'optional' defenses against white heavyweights, but I don't think these leading black heavyweights were neccessarily better than the more deserving white challengers of Louis' reign, or were in a definate position to challenge Louis...It's certainly doesn't look anything close to the cases of a Peter Jackson, a Sam Langofrd, or a Harry Wills, who were all THE most deserving challenger to the heavyweight title at their respective times.

Yes, Louis failed to impress against Walcott the first time, but unlike Ali when he was given a controversial decision against Norton in their third fight, Louis immmediately sought a rematch with Walcott (Louis was "disgusted" with his performance and wanted to set things straight) and granted him one a short time later.

And yep...I did say Elmer Ray didn't have any wins against fellow contenders during that streak, save the Walcott fight which he may or may not have gotten the best of things. Lee Savold is a quality name to have on your resume if you were a contender in that era, but he was in and out of the ratings at that time, and had been out of them for a couple/few years when he fought & lost to Ray...It's worth noting also that the Ray/Savold fight happened over a month and a half AFTER Louis had already signed to defend against the number one contender, Tami Mauriello (a fight that took place only three weeks after Ray/Savold). That Savold win for Ray would have had NO bearing on him getting a title shot over Mauriello, as is the case with Ray's "win" over Walcott (took place months after the Louis/Mauriello fight).

Hindsight may tell us that Wood**** wasn't much, but at the time Mauriello beat him he was one of the leading contenders, as was Lee Oma when Mauriello had taken two out of three the year previous to challenging Louis...

Mauriello had recent wins against ranked contenders at the time he faced Louis, which enabled him to keep his very high ranking that he had over the last few years, whereas Elmer Ray had zilch, nadda...NONE.

Ray...Pfft. He may have been good, or possibly(?) even very good with his aggressive, bob-and-weave, and hard hitting style, but I fail to see why he SHOULD have been given a title shot at the time over a higher ranked, Mauriello, or even later on...Walcott was the best of the post war black heavyweights, and had proven so by defeating the other leading black heavyweights of the day. Walcott recieved the #1 contender spot and was most deserving of his title shot, thus Louis defended against him twice.

[Yogi]

WHY DID ABE SIMON GET A SECOND TITLE FIGHT WITH JOE LOUIS INSTEAD OF LEM FRANKLIN?

Probably because both fighters were a part of the army and had agreed to donate their purses to the Army Fund. If that fight was anyhting like Louis' rematch with Baer, odds are the army asked the fighters in advance in they were willing to give up their purses for the fight...

Besides, Lem Franklin had already been knocked out by Bob Pastor in a title eliminator of sorts, even before Louis had signed for the charitable defense/rematch against Simon (two days before, actually). There were talks that the winner of Pastor/Franklin would go on to face Louis, and judging by the fact that there were some brief talks of another Louis/Pastor fight in 1942, I've gathered that to be the truth...Had Franklin defeated Pastor, and had the circumstances of the world been different, I could see him being in a title fight with Louis during that year.

But I will say that, even though he might not have been as good as Bivens or Ray, Franklin seems to have been in the best position for a possible title shot when considering the timeline and everything else. Doesn't mean I think he SHOULD'VE gotten one, though, just because he may have been better than a Jack Roper or somebody like that who also got a title shot.

[Yogi]

By the way, Smasher;

Our old buddy there, Mike Tyson, should be utterly ashamed of himself for not once fighting against a white heavyweight during any of his title defenses.

[SABBATH]

The Ali-Norton Louis-Walcott comparison once again is apples to oranges. Walcott was unquestionably the #1 contender, having beaten most of the other top heavyweights of his era. He remained #1 after the first Louis fight likely as a combination of his strong showing against Louis and his pre-title fight resume.

Walcott had a stronger showing against Louis than Norton did against Ali, dropping Louis twice and actually getting more points than Walcott on the card of judge Frank Forbes, who in error wrote on the back of his card that Louis was the winner. The error cost Walcott the heavyweight championship. Walcott afterwards filed a protest with the State Athletic Commission who denied the reversal of the decision Walcott sought and a rematch was granted instead.

The New York Times:

Dec 9, 1947 The State Athletic Commission yesterday rejected the request of Jersey Joe Walcott for a reversal of the decision which enabled Joe Louis to, retain his world heavyweight title in last Friday night's controversial bout in Madison Square Garden.


Although his loss to Ali was disputed, Norton didn't have a comparable resume as Walcott did to justify being the #1 contender after Ali-Norton III and forcing an immediate rematch.

George Foreman had blown Norton out two years earlier and in 1976 Foreman had just convincingly beaten Joe Frazier for the second time and had a KO win over Ron Lyle in back to back fights. Add to the fact that George was the ex-champion and I would say Foreman was far more deserving of #1 contender status and a fight with Ali than Norton.

Norton's resume in fact is quite shallow from 1974-76, with a washed up Jerry Quarry his best win.

Had Norton and company been fighting in the Joe Louis era, Norton likely would have had to fight and defeat (probably more than once) the other top black heavyweights dotting the top ten landscape from 74-76 like Ron Lyle, George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Earnie Shavers, and Larry Holmes to earn his #1 status as Walcott had to.

Suddenly I don't envision Norton being the #1 ranked heavyweight.

The New York Times:

"Ali Scoffs at Rematch, Urging Norton to Beat Foreman First; Ali: No Rematch Unless Norton Beats Foreman

Sep 30, 1976 Calling George Foreman the "rightful contender" for his world heavyweight title, Muhammad Ali rejected a demand by Ken Norton yesterday for an immediate rematch."

Foreman then went and blew his chance at a title fight when he lost to Jimmy Young 6 months after Ali-Norton III and retired. With Foreman gone, it now was Young and Norton who met to decide who was the #1 contender. After Norton won (debatable decision IMO) he appropriately established himself as the #1 contender, and the wheels were in fact in motion for Ali-Norton IV.

Again, according to The New York Times:

Nov 6, 1977 "If Muhammad Ali's public declaration in the ring before the fight means what it said, Ken Norton won a fourth shot at the heavyweight champion by winning a razor-close, split decision over Jimmy Young tonight."

Jan 6, 1978, "Muhammad Ali has formally filed an agreement with the World Boxing Council to Fight Ken Norton, thereby avoiding being stripped of the heavyweight championship."

January 8, 1978 "In a flourish of apparent conformity, Muhammad Ali has complied with the World Boxing Council edict that he defend the world heavyweight title against Ken Norton.

[Yogi]

Sabbath;

Walcott probably had the better quantity on his resume before facing Louis, which helped him climb the rankings as a proven & plenty capable heavyweight...But Norton had that win over Ali from a few years earlier (and a strong performance in losing a very close rematch), which already showed that Norton could compete with and defeat the very best heavyweights of his time.

Yes, Norton lost to Foreman two/three years earlier, but a loss to Foreman looks better than a loss to one, Johnny Allen, who Walcott lost to less than three years before challenging Louis.

I also can't say for sure that Walcott's performance against Louis the first time around, was any better than Norton's performance in the third Ali fight...Don't have the full fight to judge in with accuracy (only about 15-20 minutes worth), and I've 'heard' that the full fight is no longer available in it's entirely, or all that close to it's entirely...Walcott did score a couple of legitimate knockdowns of Louis though (as well as him getting the better of things from what I've actually seen), so if you, yourself are confident in saying Walcott performed slightly better than did Norton, then hey, I won't argue otherwise, although I 'think' the difference would be quite minimal (both Walcott, based on the available info, and Norton should have won those fights, and by a clear enough margin).

And yes, before losing to Young, Foreman was the former champion, was again the mandatory challenger to Ali's title, and by all rights deserved his shot at Ali again. There's certainly an argument there for Foreman being ducked by Ali, but that one is for those who are fans of the big dope, which, I'm afraid, I am not.

Norton was already the number one contender before facing Young, and had been for some time (post Young/Foreman...Foreman had the position up 'til that point). And that #1 position was unanimous, whether you ask the WBC, the WBA, or The Ring...

"Bobick was undefeated with a 38-0 record and beat Larry Holmes in the 1972 Olympic Trials; Norton rated No. 1 contender by WBC and WBA."

Incidentally, right after the Bobick fight the Washington Post published a story which once again showed Ali's refusal to meet Norton again ("No Norton Bout, Champ Says" reads the heading).

That's just not right, especially when one considers that Norton had just defeated Ali according to most opinions, as well as being the mandatory number one contender according to all sources and had been for some time...What ticks me off more than anything, is that Ali was allowed to fight for so long without making a mandatory defense against either Norton or Foreman. Ali's last defense against a mandatory was versus Frazier in the Thrilla...That was October of 1975. The organizations seemed to have allowed Ali very special treatment in making his own matches at his own convinience, and it wasn't over until two years after making his last mandatory, when the WBC finally came forward and pressured Ali. Just the fact that the WBC felt the need to threaten Ali shows that Ali's lack of *something* must've been a serious problem.

I also don't put any relevance into Ali signing something before the Spinks fight, especially when he already had a fight set up, and had already plenty of opportunities to defend againt the much deserving, Ken Norton, who had already defeated Ali in a title fight according to most who have seen or saw the fight. Ali also didn't express much interest in facing Norton after the Spinks fight either, as evidence by his public begging for the rematch with Spinks (hypocrite he is...Foreman related comment, as you know), which was a plea that came only a couple of days after Norton had agreed to take a $200,000 payday againt Spinks for either a May or June title fight. Ali could've sat back, let Norton take care of Spinks for a title he should've been awarded in 1976, and then meet the new champion in the fall of that year, which would have fit perfectly into the schedule Ali made for himself at that time. But nope...Ali went out of his way and did/said everything possible to ensure the Norton/Spinks fight didn't happen. Even after defeating Spinks in the rematch, Ali didn't express much interest in defending against the most deserving challngers or even a single deserving challnger...Mike Rossman?

Heck, even though this is something that I don't believe in, there are some opinions out there that state Ali threw the first fight with Spinks.

Ali didn't want any part of Norton after their third meeting, and I think the available evidence suggests exactly that.


But getting back to Louis and only because you dragged me into it, there was one statement made very early in the discussion by you, Smasher, that I'm still having a tremendous amount of trouble with...

"Louis did not have to fight the best available contenders because Joe didn't grant title fight opportunities to the top black heavyweights of his era. That is a fact."

Besides your mention of a few blacks being better than a couple of Louis' lesser title opponents who were white, which was a given and goes without saying, I've yet to see you expand on your supposedly "fact"ual statements there...

Pre-War, what black heavyweights would you say were better or more accomplished than the likes of Tommy Farr, Max Schmeling, Bob Pastor, Lou Nova, Billy Conn, etc...Lem Franklin?

Post-War, if Jersey Joe Walcott wasn't the best contender, and also the best black contender, then who the hell was?

i.e. I think you're wrong to say those things for the most part (Bivins the exception, but Louis had very little to do with Bivins not recieving a shot...WW II was to blame for that, and it had nothing to do with "Joe didn't grant title fight opportunities"), and also to run those statements off as being "fact", when they're anything but factual.

[wmute]

I would like to thank Yogi and SABBATH for the info, but...

what's the point of the argument?

[butterfly1964]

Sabbath;

Walcott probably had the better quantity on his resume before facing Louis, which helped him climb the rankings as a proven & plenty capable heavyweight...But Norton had that win over Ali from a few years earlier (and a strong performance in losing a very close rematch), which already showed that Norton could compete with and defeat the very best heavyweights of his time.

Yes, Norton lost to Foreman two/three years earlier, but a loss to Foreman looks better than a loss to one, Johnny Allen, who Walcott lost to less than three years before challenging Louis.

I also can't say for sure that Walcott's performance against Louis the first time around, was any better than Norton's performance in the third Ali fight...Don't have the full fight to judge in with accuracy (only about 15-20 minutes worth), and I've 'heard' that the full fight is no longer available in it's entirely, or all that close to it's entirely...Walcott did score a couple of legitimate knockdowns of Louis though (as well as him getting the better of things from what I've actually seen), so if you, yourself are confident in saying Walcott performed slightly better than did Norton, then hey, I won't argue otherwise, although I 'think' the difference would be quite minimal (both Walcott, based on the available info, and Norton should have won those fights, and by a clear enough margin).

And yes, before losing to Young, Foreman was the former champion, was again the mandatory challenger to Ali's title, and by all rights deserved his shot at Ali again. There's certainly an argument there for Foreman being ducked by Ali, but that one is for those who are fans of the big dope, which, I'm afraid, I am not.

Norton was already the number one contender before facing Young, and had been for some time (post Young/Foreman...Foreman had the position up 'til that point). And that #1 position was unanimous, whether you ask the WBC, the WBA, or The Ring...

"Bobick was undefeated with a 38-0 record and beat Larry Holmes in the 1972 Olympic Trials; Norton rated No. 1 contender by WBC and WBA."

Incidentally, right after the Bobick fight the Washington Post published a story which once again showed Ali's refusal to meet Norton again ("No Norton Bout, Champ Says" reads the heading).

That's just not right, especially when one considers that Norton had just defeated Ali according to most opinions, as well as being the mandatory number one contender according to all sources and had been for some time...What ticks me off more than anything, is that Ali was allowed to fight for so long without making a mandatory defense against either Norton or Foreman. Ali's last defense against a mandatory was versus Frazier in the Thrilla...That was October of 1975. The organizations seemed to have allowed Ali very special treatment in making his own matches at his own convinience, and it wasn't over until two years after making his last mandatory, when the WBC finally came forward and pressured Ali. Just the fact that the WBC felt the need to threaten Ali shows that Ali's lack of *something* must've been a serious problem.

I also don't put any relevance into Ali signing something before the Spinks fight, especially when he already had a fight set up, and had already plenty of opportunities to defend againt the much deserving, Ken Norton, who had already defeated Ali in a title fight according to most who have seen or saw the fight. Ali also didn't express much interest in facing Norton after the Spinks fight either, as evidence by his public begging for the rematch with Spinks (hypocrite he is...Foreman related comment, as you know), which was a plea that came only a couple of days after Norton had agreed to take a $200,000 payday againt Spinks for either a May or June title fight. Ali could've sat back, let Norton take care of Spinks for a title he should've been awarded in 1976, and then meet the new champion in the fall of that year, which would have fit perfectly into the schedule Ali made for himself at that time. But nope...Ali went out of his way and did/said everything possible to ensure the Norton/Spinks fight didn't happen. Even after defeating Spinks in the rematch, Ali didn't express much interest in defending against the most deserving challngers or even a single deserving challnger...Mike Rossman?

Heck, even though this is something that I don't believe in, there are some opinions out there that state Ali threw the first fight with Spinks.

Ali didn't want any part of Norton after their third meeting, and I think the available evidence suggests exactly that.


But getting back to Louis and only because you dragged me into it, there was one statement made very early in the discussion by you, Smasher, that I'm still having a tremendous amount of trouble with...

"Louis did not have to fight the best available contenders because Joe didn't grant title fight opportunities to the top black heavyweights of his era. That is a fact."

Besides your mention of a few blacks being better than a couple of Louis' lesser title opponents who were white, which was a given and goes without saying, I've yet to see you expand on your supposedly "fact"ual statements there...

Pre-War, what black heavyweights would you say were better or more accomplished than the likes of Tommy Farr, Max Schmeling, Bob Pastor, Lou Nova, Billy Conn, etc...Lem Franklin?

Post-War, if Jersey Joe Walcott wasn't the best contender, and also the best black contender, then who the hell was?

i.e. I think you're wrong to say those things for the most part (Bivins the exception, but Louis had very little to do with Bivins not recieving a shot...WW II was to blame for that, and it had nothing to do with "Joe didn't grant title fight opportunities"), and also to run those statements off as being "fact", when they're anything but factual.

Good points, Yogi, but I wouldn't blame Ali because he was a shot fighter after Manila and shouldn't have been in the ring at that time. Louis However, although past his best, had some good years left in him, since he was not engaged in hard fights like Ali was.

[Yogi]

Good points, Yogi, but I wouldn't blame Ali because he was a shot fighter after Manila and shouldn't have been in the ring at that time. Louis However, although past his best, had some good years left in him, since he was not engaged in hard fights like Ali was.

Whether Ali was shot or not is pretty much irrelevant, Butterfly, because as the world champion he had an obligation to defend against the most worthy challenger and to do so within a set time period (both WBC & WBA have and have had the same rule where the champion must make a mandatory defense at least once every year)...

Yes, Ali WAS to blame for the number one contender(s) not getting a title shot at him for a period of time that well exceeds the time period the organizations allow/allowed.


Wmute, apparently I've been ****** into yet another 'Louis versus Ali' discussion (favourites listed first; our selection in bold type), although this one is at least different than the normal & unprovable mythical matchup discussions that go on.

[butterfly1964]

Whether Ali was shot or not is pretty much irrelevant, Butterfly, because as the world champion he had an obligation to defend against the most worthy challenger and to do so within a set time period (both WBC & WBA have and have had the same rule where the champion must make a mandatory defense at least once every year)...

Yes, Ali WAS to blame for the number one contender(s) not getting a title shot at him for a period of time that well exceeds the time period the organizations allow/allowed.

Yes, I understand that, Yogi. But IMO a figthers greatness should be mostly based on accomplishments in their primes. Some fighters burn out quicker than others. But a fair judgment would be to look at their peak performances and opponents when they were at their peak, or close to it. So...

Primes:

Ali

1964-1967

Louis

1938-1942

or...

When they weren't too green, and weren't too shot.

Ali

1962-1967, 1970-1975

Louis

1935-1942, 1946-1948