I posted this in Record Queries, but I figured with all the knowledge in the "Boxers of the Past" forum, someone could unearth the answer to this. Here is what I originally posted in Record Queries plus a response from Ric and my response to him:
evndrbsn wrote:On Cyber Boxing Zone, it says the following in Joe Louis' record:
1942-1945 Louis joined the Army and toured with the armed forces giving exhibitions 1944
3 Nov Johnny Denson Detroit, MI Exh KO2
6 Nov Charley Crump Baltimore, MD Exh 3
9 Nov Dee Amos Hartford, CT Exh 3
13 Nov Jimmy Bell Washington, DC Exh 3 14 Nov Johnny Davis Buffalo, NY KO 1(0:56)
(Title at risk as per NY Commission Ruling; 6 oz gloves)
15 Nov Dee Amos Elizabeth, NJ Exh 3
17 Nov Dee Amos Camden, NJ Exh 3
24 Nov Dan Merritt Chicago, IL Exh 3
CBZ lists the final career record as 69-3-0, 55 KOs as opposed to the generally accepted 68-3-0, 54 KOs. Just wondering if anyone else knows more about this and whether or not it should be included in his professional record. Also, if it should be included in his record, wouldn't this bring his total defenses to 26 if his title was on the line?
Thanks to anyone who can clear this up.
Ric wrote:Was this another example of "local ordinance enforcement" in Buffalo? Earlier, in the 1920s, Buffalo did not allow for exhibitions; bouts had to go to a decision. Thus, the Jimmy Darcy vs. Jack Dempsey bout technically was a title bout: http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/J ... immy_Darcy
Maybe that local Buffalo law was still in effect in the '40s.
evndrbsn wrote:
Perhaps this is something worth looking into further. How would we research this particular bout to find out whether or not it was technically official (ie Dempsey-Darcy)? If this was official, it would make Louis' victory the second quickest in heavyweight title fight history (excluding the WBO).
..actually nat fleischer always said that a heavyweight champion's fights...even if they were listed as exhibitions and for two, three , four or whatever rounds...always had the title at stake, as a heavyweight cannot come in over the weight, or fight over the poundage weight opponents as the lighter weight champions could....because for heavyweights there is no maximum weight. perhaps the n.y. commission was just following this logic. in view of this, then, it is something of a paradox that the ring record book lists louis title defenses as only the ones that were "officially" listed as such.
added to the confusion....the new york boxing commission considered jersey joe walcott such a poor challenger that it wanted the fight to be called an exhibition...and for ten rounds. fleischer jumped in again, with the same reasoning...every time a heavyweight goes into the ring his title is on the line....and the commssion back tracked (fleischer as hugely powerful then)....and of course we all know the result.
i am not agreeing or disagreeing with fleischer, the new york commision, the record books or bill clinton's statement that blow jobs were not sexual intercourse....just giving some of the history here.
Decagon wrote:Maybe you should write a book with that guy who claims that Rocky Marciano was 50-0 or more.
Haha, wasn't that funny? Oh wait, it wasn't. Unlike Rocky50Project or whatever his name is, I am not claiming anything. I did, however, give a source for my suspicion that Louis might have had an extra "official" fight.
I am only looking for info that will either support or negate this extra fight. Simple as that. I'm not looking for juvenile, snide remarks.
Any information that can be contributed is much appreciated.
evndrbsn wrote:Haha, wasn't that funny? Oh wait, it wasn't. Unlike Rocky50Project or whatever his name is, I am not claiming anything. I did, however, give a source for my suspicion that Louis might have had an extra "official" fight.
I am only looking for info that will either support or negate this extra fight. Simple as that. I'm not looking for juvenile, snide remarks.
Any information that can be contributed is much appreciated.
Technically, Rocky50Project didn't claim anything, either. He specifically said that Rocky might have had a 50th pro bout.
Anyways, the Cyber Boxing Zone has had that up for almost 10 years. Most of us read that in the 1990s, and have long since given up interest in it. That bout is why some people say that Louis had 25 defenses and others say he had 27 defenses. Nat Fleischer always counted it as one of his official defenses, as well as the Charles loss. To me, Louis has had 25 successful defenses of his title.
Didn't Rocky50Project say he had proof that he couldn't release until the book came out? Thats far from what I'm saying. I have been familiar with CBZ since the mid 90s also, but I never really took a close look at Louis' record. I was looking for some bout reports and I noticed the record discrepancy and I figured I'd find the one that was different.
I think this is just as notable as Jack Dempsey's official fight against Jimmy Darcy. Doyou not count that as a Dempsey win?
..fleschier was inconsistent in as lot of ways....never moreso than in this joe louis title defense area. 25 defenses is the only one that makes sense to me. those exhibtions were just that....exhibitions. no decision was given....no judges....so they were not actual fights. fleischer thought if the "opponent" scored a knockout he would become champ....but as all the other rules that apply to a professional fight weren't in play, i don't see how that would make it legit.
he also would not recognize charles as world champion....because of his nutty support of the british boxing board..(that's a story in itself)...and as louis retired with the title he said louis was making a comeback as the champion. ...so the charles fight was a defense.
the nitty and the gritty...joe louis made 25 defenses of his title. period.
This has nothing to do with Nat Fleisher's 'if a champion is knocked out in an exhibition match the title should change hands', it has to do with state regulation. Some commissions only allowed 'real fights,' and what was planned as an exhibition had to be turned into a official bout or there would be no bout at all. That happened to Jack Dempsey and that was the case with Louis too. So it should be in his official record. In fact it is now.
wouter wrote:This has nothing to do with Nat Fleisher's 'if a champion is knocked out in an exhibition match the title should change hands', it has to do with state regulation. Some commissions only allowed 'real fights,' and what was planned as an exhibition had to be turned into a official bout or there would be no bout at all. That happened to Jack Dempsey and that was the case with Louis too. So it should be in his official record. In fact it is now.
Thanks for the quick work! Only question I have is was it a 0:56 knockout like on CBZ or a 0:53 KO as it is now listed on BoxRec? At 53 seconds, that would now be the record for the fastest KO in (legitimate) heavyweight title history, correct?
..the buzzbomb has it right, as he states that my post is correct. fleischer was following the new york commission because he considered it "official" even though it was in conflict with his own decree.
as i said...nat could be inconsistent.
plus...as a retired champion louis had many so-called "exhibitions" that aren't listed in his record. he was fighting some guys that charles fought and knocking them out faster . no one was fooled by the exhibition label...it was obvious that louis was setting himself up to come out of retirement and fight charles....and building up interest in it.
i am not agreeing or disagreeing with fleischer, the new york commision, the record books or bill clinton's statement that blow jobs were not sexual intercourse....just giving some of the history here.
wouter..if it was strictly the new york commission that insisted on a fight not to be considerd an exhibition, then nat fleischer would not have stepped in and insisted the walcott fight was changed from the commission's plan to make it an exhibition.
Louis had an exhibiton tour run November 3 thru November 17 which he met five opponents. Three were stated as being nothing but exhibition-style as Louis went three rounds, three times with his sparring partner Dee Amos. Louis then scored two quick knockouts over Johnny Denson in Detroit and then Johnny Davis in Buffalo.
Prior to the Davis bout, head of New York boxing commissions, General John J. Phelan made the ruling that all bouts within the limits of New York State must be waged in regulation style, with a referee, judges and a decision to be given at the end of any bouts. Phelan stated that a decision had to be given if Davis lasted the four rounds. Louis and Davis were required to wear regulation six-ounce gloves and not the 12-ounce sparring gloves usually used in sparring matches and judges were assigned just as they would have been to any other regulation bout in New York.
Like someone stated, Nat Fleischer had nothing to do with the bout. Louis must have been somewhat ill toward the ruling as he stated to newspaper writers that he would "finish Davis in a hurry," which was the only time up to that point, and probably even after, that Louis ever made any quick predictions of knockout against an opponent.
Being that the ruling was made by the New York Commission, then anyone calling it anything other than a legitimate bout would be incorrect...although it was intended to be an exhibition at the start of the tour run, Louis-Davis was not an exhibition! The Ring, March 1945 issue has a big write-up about the fight for anyone interested!
..dammit.. ..is boxbuzz the only one around here who can make sense out of a complicated discussion. my post was not so much about this specific fight as about fleischer's statements about heavyweights and exhibitions. again..if it was all the new york commission GENERAL rule in this matter, then why was it fleischer who caused the n.y. commission to reverse it self regarding the first walcott fight? i'm writing more here about fleischer's inconsistencies in general about exhib. vs. legit defenses. (i'd invite you all over sometime to read my yellowed copies of correspondance between fleischer and myself, but i',m afraid my doberman would attack most of you.)
to go back in history a bit....fleischer's own ring record book always listed jim jeffries 1903 exchange with jack munroe as an exhibition....but also claimed that if munroe...who knocked jeffries down in this one..had knocked him out then munroe would have...or should have...been declared the heavyweight champion....which by one kind of reasoning would have made it a defense..which i think is an inconsistency.
I'm not concerned with Fleischer, or Walcott...I am only speaking about the Davis bout, which is what I thought the topic was about!
But going by what Fleischer claimed...then Kentucky Rosebud should have been the World Featherweight champion when he knocked out George Dixon in an exhibition in 1894, though that was not the case and I have never read where Fleischer has even talked about that bout, but was it that Fleischer only had that view with heavyweights.. What Fleischer, or anyone else's thinks has no bearing at all when a commission has made a ruling.
Fleischer was a spectator with a personal magazine to state what he thinks was write, or wrong...a lot of times he was right, but a lot of times he was wrong and when someone tries to change rulings that have been made by commissions just because he, or she does not agree with and it upsets he, or she, well that just add's unnessary confusion to a subject that should be closed.
Like the supposed early loss in the career of Julio Cesar Chavez. There are people still who will claim that Chavez has a loss and they will list it in they're persoanl record of Chavez, but it's wrong and always will be wrong as the commission made the change of that bout from L DQ to W KO. Was it an incorrect ruling...probably, but the commission is the law in such matters...even if they are wrong in our eyes!
barry wrote:I'm not concerned with Fleischer, or Walcott...I am only speaking about the Davis bout, which is what I thought the topic was about!
But going by what Fleischer claimed...then Kentucky Rosebud should have been the World Featherweight champion when he knocked out George Dixon in an exhibition in 1894, though that was not the case and I have never read where Fleischer has even talked about that bout, but was it that Fleischer only had that view with heavyweights.. What Fleischer, or anyone else's thinks has no bearing at all when a commission has made a ruling.
Fleischer was a spectator with a personal magazine to state what he thinks was write, or wrong...a lot of times he was right, but a lot of times he was wrong and when someone tries to change rulings that have been made by commissions just because he, or she does not agree with and it upsets he, or she, well that just add's unnessary confusion to a subject that should be closed.
Like the supposed early loss in the career of Julio Cesar Chavez. There are people still who will claim that Chavez has a loss and they will list it in they're persoanl record of Chavez, but it's wrong and always will be wrong as the commission made the change of that bout from L DQ to W KO. Was it an incorrect ruling...probably, but the commission is the law in such matters...even if they are wrong in our eyes!
...i once saw a film in which a cape buffalo was driven crazy by being attacked by a swarm of gnats. now i know how he felt.
i am not saying fleischer was right....i am just writing what he said.
as far as a private citizen and all that, some of you have no idea how powerful he and his magazine were. at one time the newspapers used ring magazine's ratings as the ones to go by, and when we read about archie moore, ezzard charles, gus lesnevich...whoever...as being the number one or any number rated fighter it is flesicher and the magazine's ratings that are quoted.
plus...he had a huge..HUGE....influence on the new york boxing commision. there are times when they disagreed, so please don't bother to dig into whatever data you can find to bring them up ass i am aware of them.
An exhibition is an exhibition though... many fighters are in a totally different frame of mind during an exhibition to what they are in a real fight... you may as well start arguing that sparring sessions be taken seriously...... Ali got beaten most often by his sparring partners but it would be a totally different thing in the ring during a real fight....
Jaclem wrote:...i once saw a film in which a cape buffalo was driven crazy by being attacked by a swarm of gnats. now i know how he felt.
i am not saying fleischer was right....i am just writing what he said.
as far as a private citizen and all that, some of you have no idea how powerful he and his magazine were. at one time the newspapers used ring magazine's ratings as the ones to go by, and when we read about archie moore, ezzard charles, gus lesnevich...whoever...as being the number one or any number rated fighter it is flesicher and the magazine's ratings that are quoted.
plus...he had a huge..HUGE....influence on the new york boxing commision. there are times when they disagreed, so please don't bother to dig into whatever data you can find to bring them up ass i am aware of them.
Fleischer has been one of the most powerful people ever in boxing. Ring magazine made him him God-Like to some and a pain in the ass to others! One thing for sure, it certainly gave him a very, very large audience of which people still today think his word, pertaining to boxing, is gospel.
By the way, Kentucky Rosebud was around 118 when he fought Dixon and he never fought above 130, which was what his weight was close to when he fought around 1916 at close to 60 years old, but during his prime he rarely fought above 120...he has never been close to a middleweight, so some of us are sure that he wasn't a middleweight that night and there is no difference between that bout, or a heavyweight...hence the reason I mentioned it!
Only question I have is was it a 0:56 knockout like on CBZ or a 0:53 KO as it is now listed on BoxRec? At 53 seconds, that would now be the record for the fastest KO in (legitimate) heavyweight title history, correct?
8) 
8) ...