The upcoming clash between Joshua and Paul is shaping up to be one of the most shocking moments in recent boxing history—making Joe Louis’s ‘Bum of the Month’ series seem like the legendary Rumble in the Jungle. And this comparison isn't made lightly. Let's dig into what makes this fight so controversial, and why it matters far beyond the ring.
Exactly 85 years ago, boxing’s fearsome heavyweight icon Joe Louis found himself in a surprisingly disappointing performance during a string of mismatches known as his ‘Bum of the Month’ series. During these 13 defenses over just 29 months, Louis faced opponents who ranged from inexperienced amateurs to unpredictable wild men and colorful characters. When Louis arrived in Boston on December 16, 1940, many expected him to dispatch Al McCoy quickly and effortlessly—yet what transpired defied expectations.
The New York Times described how McCoy, a clever veteran from New England, refused to be an easy target. Instead of succumbing with a single punch, he adopted a crouched, darting style that made Louis’s punches seem ineffective and even ludicrous at times. After a messy fifth round, the fight was stopped, and Louis had technically won, but the real victory was for McCoy’s resilience, while Louis’s reputation took a hit. All Louis gained from that night was a boost to his bank account.
Fast forward to this Friday, on the eastern coast of the United States, and we find ourselves faced with a spectacle that makes that Louis fight look tame. Former heavyweight champion and Olympic gold medalist Anthony Joshua is set to face Jake Paul—a social media influencer turned boxer—in Miami. To be blunt, this event dwarfs Louis versus McCoy in significance—and not in a good way. Whatever the outcome, it risks tarnishing Joshua’s legacy and undermining the sport of boxing itself.
Why is that? Because Paul, with only 13 professional bouts under his belt, has fought against minimal competition. He has only gone above the cruiserweight limit once and looked sluggish and unrefined in his last notable fight, where he easily defeated a 58-year-old Mike Tyson in a bizarre exhibition. Meanwhile, Joshua, despite recent struggles and a declining form, still possesses genuine boxing pedigree and a proven track record of 13 world title fights, featuring knockout power and refined skills.
Adding to the controversy, Joshua is expected to enter the ring roughly three stone (around 42 pounds or 19 kilograms) heavier than Paul, raising serious questions about the fairness and safety of such a matchup. It is staggering that any regulating body would sanction a contest between a seasoned professional and an amateurish novice—just for the spectacle and the money.
If Joshua and his promoter Eddie Hearn genuinely intend to avoid the fight being ‘managed’ to ensure an easy win for Paul, the best we can hope for is that no harm comes to the underdog. But in reality, all the warning signs point to the opposite: risking severe injury in pursuit of a financial jackpot.
Both Joshua and Netflix, which is promoting the event, should be aware of the broader issues at play here. Boxing involves a social contract: fighters and fans accept inherent risks, including the danger of brain injuries and long-term health consequences. Recent research underscores the risks of subconcussive impacts—the tiny blows to the head that accumulate over time—highlighting how vital discipline and societal benefits of boxing are, especially in underserved communities.
This fight, by contrast, tears that social contract into countless pieces and spits on its principles. It’s not just a mismatch; it’s a reckless gamble disguised as entertainment.
Some argue that Paul is bringing fresh attention to boxing and should be appreciated for his unconventional approach. However, history repeatedly reminds us that there is little truly new in the sport’s evolution. For instance, Tony Galento, a loudmouth and larger-than-life character of the 1930s, fought bizarrely — he once fought a bear and a kangaroo to promote his bouts, boasting he’d 'murder the bum' before a fight. Louis himself faced fighters like Galento, who was a 5’8”, 16-stone bartender, known for his rough-and-tumble antics. Louis recalled that Galento was so rough that he probably had a drink with every customer.
Louis’s own fights reflected a mix of chaos and grit—such as his clashes with Arturo Godoy, who once kissed Louis after a narrow win, or Lou Nova, who claimed to have a “cosmic punch” thanks to yoga, a bizarre claim at the time. Louis dismissed such mystical stories, focusing instead on giving his opponents his best—and often succeeding.
Now, we’re faced with a modern version of this spectacle—an event driven primarily by financial motives, with around £70 million at stake for each fighter. Netflix anticipates breaking streaming records with millions tuning in, not necessarily for the sport or the fighters’ legacies, but for the spectacle itself.
The harsh reality is this: Jake Paul would stand no chance against any of Louis’s ‘Bum of the Month’ opponents in a real fight, and he should not be in the ring with a true professional like Joshua. This isn’t about celebrating boxing’s evolution; it’s about risking its integrity for entertainment.
Louis famously didn’t care about being labeled as a ‘bums’ or the criticisms he received. He pointed out that, like Alexander the Great’s cry when no more worlds were left to conquer, he fought to make money and live his life. Yet he insisted those opponents were far from worthless.
So here's the question—if Louis’s opponents, often colorful characters and less-than-elite fighters, deserved respect, why should today’s “big names” accept mismatches that endanger their reputation and physical health? And is boxing’s unspoken social contract—accepting dangers in pursuit of greatness—being broken by fights like Joshua vs. Paul?
We want to hear your thoughts. Do you agree that this fight is a dangerous precedent, or do you see it as just modern boxing’s latest spectacle? Share your opinion, and let’s discuss whether the sport we love is on the verge of losing its soul.
