“...was the first African-American to fight for the world championship against Schmeling-—a situation brought on by the need to win a symbolic victory against Hitler and the Nazis....”
This sentence in poorly worded and factually inaccurate. His two fights against Schmeling were non-title fights. Schmeling was an ex-champion at the time. Jack Johnson had been an unpopular champion yet he was still recognized as the champion.
I saw an idiotic documentary about Louis that stated “he was not free” based upon his being denied home ownership in a New Jersey suburb he wanted to live in. Isn’t it amazing that in America a man can make millions, have mistresses of all races, travel all over the country, be cheered by all races, and still not be “free” according to political correctness.
Schmeling is still the only man who can claim to have beaten Joe Louis in his prime. Marciano and others beat an over-the-hill Louis.
Oops...That Johnson statement should be in a different paragraph as he was champ many years earlier. Braddock was champion at the time Louis fought Schmeling.
I understand your point, but I don't agree. Wealth provides one type of liberty, but certainly not the only type. There were "wealthy" blacks in the postbellum south who couldn't walk down a street without being called "boy" and who were constantly in fear of lynching. The fact is that Louis's America was not entirely free, or equal. He did a lot to change that. And yes, Johnson was a champion, but partly because he had been a champion, there was an unwritten agreement never to allow a black to compete for the title again . . . until Louis.
This is actually the statement that’s inaccurate. The rematch was in fact a championship fight. Louis was the champ at this time. And if I remember right, he was champ exactly one year to the day of the Schmeling fight.