BoxRec

Okay, so Joe Louis became heavyweight champion in 1937 by defeating Jim Braddock, and stayed champion until retiring in 1948, after beating Joe Walcott.

Ezzard Charles went on to win the vacated NBA (which I assume was essentially the main world title body at that time) strap against Walcott in 1949.

However, it seems that although he won the title, he was not universally recognised as world heavyweight champion until he defeated Joe Louis in 1950. Why was this? Joe Louis had retired, so Charles won the title he relinquished. Why did Charles need to beat Louis to become universally acknowledged as champion?

Any insight to this would be appreciated.

AlexY2K4 wrote:Okay, so Joe Louis became heavyweight champion in 1937 by defeating Jim Braddock, and stayed champion until retiring in 1948, after beating Joe Walcott.

Ezzard Charles went on to win the vacated NBA (which I assume was essentially the main world title body at that time) strap against Walcott in 1949.

However, it seems that although he won the title, he was not universally recognised as world heavyweight champion until he defeated Joe Louis in 1950. Why was this? Joe Louis had retired, so Charles won the title he relinquished. Why did Charles need to beat Louis to become universally acknowledged as champion?

Any insight to this would be appreciated.

I am going by memory on this. But only the NBA and its member commissions recognized Charles as champion based on his win over Walcott. The folks in Europe (BBBC and the European Federation) and the NYSAC did not recognize Charles as champion. The Europeans recognized Lee Savold as champion by virtue of his win over Bruce Woodcock - the British champion. Charles gained recognition by the NYSAC after he defeated Freddie Beshore in Buffalo in 1950. Charles gained nearly universal recognition by defeating Louis, although the Europeans continued to recognize Savold as champion until he lost to Louis in June 1951. With that defeat, Savold lost European and British recognition as champion, and those organizations recognized Charles as champion. Then, in July 1951, Walcott knocked out Charles to win the title.

It is incorrect to assume that the NBA was the "main world title body" at that time. Many looked to the NYSAC as the top boxing body, at least when it came to recognition of world champions.

Charles needed to beat Louis because Louis was still considered the top heavyweight.

AlexY2K4 wrote:When was Ezzard Charles first recognised as world champion?

raylawpc wrote:Charles gained nearly universal recognition by defeating Louis

Bingo.

AlexY2K4 wrote:Why did Charles need to beat Louis to become universally acknowledged as champion?

raylawpc wrote:Charles needed to beat Louis because Louis was still considered the top heavyweight.

Correct.

And just to expand on this... To AlexY24, I get the impression that you are collecting information about the late 40s-early 50s era of Heavyweight boxing, but you are looking at it as though it was the modern day Heavyweight game.

Up until that era of boxing, only 1 man had retired as Heavyweight World Champion (and stayed retired) and it was Joe Louis.

Louis title reign felt like a lifetime and the 11-year-champ didn't just retain his title, he used to dominate the challengers... Some of the contenders didn't even make it out of the 1st round against him (Schmeling, Lewis, Roper, Baer, Davis, Mauriello)

Louis looked invincible for years!!! No-one came close to him. His only notable scare was against Billy Conn anda fter a competitive fight, Louis knocked him out.

Louis was consistently great, he fought at an exceptionally high level and not many boxers could stand up to him. The Champ was way ahead of his time and his spellof domination would put the Klitchskos to shame.

Even in 1951, after losing to Charles, Louis got back to winning ways, seven straight victories in seven months... And boxing pundits of the time were comvinced that he had the ability and hunger to regain his title.

Only when Marciano brutally KO'd Louis did Joe give up the game.

You have to bear in mind, in those days there was only 1 champ. And for a very long time it was Louis.
Only when Charles beat Louis did Ezzard finally get the recognition he deserved.

I would also just like to add that sometimes the whole eleven year title reign doesn't really dawn on people.

To put it in context, can you imagine a boxer who has been undisputed Heavyweight champion (no-one else holds a variation of a major world title) since the turn of the millennuim upto present day.

Now, that's a REALLY LONG time!

Crease wrote:I would also just like to add that sometimes the whole eleven year title reign doesn't really dawn on people.

To put it in context, can you imagine a boxer who has been undisputed Heavyweight champion (no-one else holds a variation of a major world title) since the turn of the millennuim upto present day.

Now, that's a REALLY LONG time!

I totally appreciate what you're saying and can understand what a dominant champion Joe Louis was, but I just feel that, despite his long reign, he retired, and therefore forfeits his position as champion. Therefore, I feel it is a bit irrational that people continued to recognise an already retired fighter as champion, no matter how long he was champion.

I definitely respect what you're saying, but this is just my feeling towards the situation. I think if Louis retired, his social standing as "people's champion" really shouldn't have been valid, seeing as he had given it up, he should have had to win it back. Making him a favourite over Charles (if he was) was one fine, but being still recognised unofficially as champion, just seems a bit unfair to Charles, I feel.

Just my outlook, happy to read others.

AlexY2K4 wrote:I just feel that, despite his long reign, he retired, and therefore forfeits his position as champion. Therefore, I feel it is a bit irrational that people continued to recognise an already retired fighter as champion, no matter how long he was champion.

You are entitled to your opinion. Officially Louis gave up his crown as The Champ when he retired. And honestly, it would have been difficult for any boxer (not just Charles) to come out of the great man's shadow.

The public considered Charles a "paper champ" because he never beat the previous champion. And it was felt that he would not have won the NBA Title if Louis chose to continue his reign.

So while legitimately Charles was The Champ, he was not the Number One boxer of the era.
It's not difficult to see where the boxing public were coming from.

AlexY2K4 wrote:I think if Louis retired, his social standing as "people's champion" really shouldn't have been valid, seeing as he had given it up, he should have had to win it back. Making him a favourite over Charles (if he was) was one fine, but being still recognised unofficially as champion, just seems a bit unfair to Charles, I feel.

Well as you know, Charles beat Louis and finally got the credit and praise that he deserved. AAnd even today people rate Ezzard Charles (and his long-time rival Jersey Joe Walcott) in their top 20 Heavyweights of all time.

And maybe in the end, Ezzard would be delighted with that.