Printable View
Joe Louis was stopped by Max Schmeling June 1936 and never fought again for 18 months. Whereas Joe fought 7 times immediately after the defeat and a year later fought and won the title. The pair met for the return 2 years later but why did Joe get the title shot a head of Max?
Can you add more information, please....Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
What information do you want specifically more?Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaCan you add more information, please....Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Loser gets a title shot a year later, winner gets a title shot 2 years later.
Title shot vs,. who? I'm not aware of the particular details on the chronology of the events of the Schmeling/Louis issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterWhat information do you want specifically more?Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaCan you add more information, please....Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Loser gets a title shot a year later, winner gets a title shot 2 years later.
Jim Braddock was heavyweight champion and Joe got to fight him first.Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaTitle shot vs,. who? I'm not aware of the particular details on the chronology of the events of the Schmeling/Louis issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterWhat information do you want specifically more?Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaCan you add more information, please....Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Loser gets a title shot a year later, winner gets a title shot 2 years later.
ok,ok... I guess it depends on who was the crowd fav? Sometimes, and this is the way it was done before rankings and alphabet's ratings tampering, fights get made because fans want to see a certain fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterJim Braddock was heavyweight champion and Joe got to fight him first.Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaTitle shot vs,. who? I'm not aware of the particular details on the chronology of the events of the Schmeling/Louis issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterWhat information do you want specifically more?Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaCan you add more information, please....Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Loser gets a title shot a year later, winner gets a title shot 2 years later.
;D
I noticed that Braddock won the title in June 1935 against Baer and did not defend it for 2 years until he faced Louis which is ridiculous!
Politics of the day. Blame Hitler;D
In addition they never had the same ranking system they have today and the NBA was the world title.
After Braddock beat Baer he never fought for two years until Louis. Did I mention pre world war politics;D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Braddock was after top Dollar. Louis' team offered the best terms, (in)famously part of the deal was a 10% cut of Louis' fights over the following decade.
It was the 1930s, the champ called all the shots. No one would of taken a Schmeling Vs someone other than Braddock as a fight for the vacant title. Braddock knew the value of the title and although he lucked out in the length reign Louis would have, he and his team must of figured Louis could better everyone for the following few years, and with the USA returning to economic growth, that was going to be worth a cent or two.
That type of deal seems criminal in these days....Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Braddock was after top Dollar. Louis' team offered the best terms, (in)famously part of the deal was a 10% cut of Louis' fights over the following decade.
It was the 1930s, the champ called all the shots. No one would of taken a Schmeling Vs someone other than Braddock as a fight for the vacant title. Braddock knew the value of the title and although he lucked out in the length reign Louis would have, he and his team must of figured Louis could better everyone for the following few years, and with the USA returning economic growth, that was going to be worth a cent or two.
;D
I knew about the 10% cut which is a conflict of interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaThat type of deal seems criminal in these days....Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Braddock was after top Dollar. Louis' team offered the best terms, (in)famously part of the deal was a 10% cut of Louis' fights over the following decade.
It was the 1930s, the champ called all the shots. No one would of taken a Schmeling Vs someone other than Braddock as a fight for the vacant title. Braddock knew the value of the title and although he lucked out in the length reign Louis would have, he and his team must of figured Louis could better everyone for the following few years, and with the USA returning economic growth, that was going to be worth a cent or two.
;D
Dempsey did the same with the title fighting very little once he had the title. Fans would never stand for that.
It makes Vitali look active.
I'm not sure but maybe Joe was more marketable?
That would be my guess mate.
Given the political circumstances of the time MASTER I think it would have been very difficult, risky and somewhat undesirable to stage a title fight against Max Schmelling...
Yes, blame Hitler!!
Max fought about 4 times after not fighting for 18 months from beating Joe, twice in Germany and twice in NewYork so it could not be because of Hitler, I think.
Joe Louis was 75 years old when he fought Rocky Marciano did you know
Yeah but fighting for the HW title is different. I have this picture that the American powers would be hesitant to allow one of their own to fight Schmelling for the HW title in case they lost to Max and that would give the German propaganda machine a significant boost and promote the idea of their supremacy further.
Against Joe Louis they rightfully assumed their chances were very good.
I dunno if that's how it was but it kind of seems plausible to me. Braddock was a bum champion, I would not send him in to get massacred by Schmelling and lose the title to Nazi Europe if I was an American of influence here.
I don't care how old he was, he got his ass whooped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark TKO
I was high on Joe Louis a couple of years ago. Learned about the 10% thing then -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Wbs73lRVHE
Worth a look.
I think tyson would have ripped louis a new one.
Lennox lewis would have dogged him out like foreman did to frazier..
Louis was good during his primitive era where lot of fighters were bums but he wouldnt hang even in the 90s..
Ike ibeabuchi would have fucked em up. Im not sure louis beats razor ruddock.
37 years old mate. that is not so old, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark TKO
James J Braddock was born in my town, Union City, New Jersye, on Jeanette street. I used to walk down that street asking people which house was his, and noone ever knew. The park in North Bergen up the road is called James J Braddock Park and there is a nice statue of him there. I used to run around the lake in the middle of the park, its a good half-mile once around. YOu can see the top of the Empire State Bldg from across the Hudson River as you run around the lake.
Very inspiring, you must have seen his film?Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Eddie Murphy said he was over 100. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust37 years old mate. that is not so old, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark TKO