Joe Gould - boxing's forgotten shyster and swindler?

How do, lads? Having just read Kevin Mitchell's (in my opinion) excellent 'Jacobs Beach' recently - there is a review on the boxing books thread for anyone who's interested - I thought I'd get your views on a man whose name rarely comes up when we talk of boxing's more shady figures, but who certainly warrants a place alongside the more notorious Owney Madden, Frankie Carbo, Frank Costello and the like - Joe Gould.

As I'm sure most will know, the way in which Max Baer was portrayed in the 2005 film 'Cinderella Man' caused a lot of controversy and also raised complaint from Baer's family. 'Madcap Maxie' was painted as a snarling, menacing and sometimes vulgar character which, according to just about anyone who knew him and the majority of contemporary sources, couldn't be further from the truth. But what interests me is how James J. Braddock and his manager Gould were shown in it to be simple, decent men fighting against the bureaucracy of boxing in the hope of rising above the depression of the times to make their dreams come true, as if they defied the 'nice guys finish last' dictum.

Now I have no doubt that Braddock, while not as innocent as many retrospective tales suggest (he was not adverse to nights on the town with Madden and his associates at New York's Cotton Club and the like), was a decent fella at the heart of it all. Can the same be said of Joe Gould, though? I'm not so sure, and some of the revelations in 'Jacobs Beach' leave me wondering why or how a major Hollywood film could give such a distorted version of the truth.

Most will be well-versed in the deal which Gould struck in securing a Heavyweight title defence for his man against Joe Louis in 1937; if Louis won, Gould and Braddock would take ten percent of the gate and promotions for any subsequent title defence made by the 'Brown Bomber', so long as Mike Jacobs was promoting the show (not that this was of any cost to Jacobs, who took this ten percent directly from Louis' wages and wrote it off as expenses). Louis, as eighty percent of ringsiders predicted beforehand (the retired Jack Dempsey, oddly enough, being part of the other twenty percent), did away with Braddock and his title reign was under way - Braddock later claimed that this aforementioned title reign earned him $150,000 over the next decade, courtesy of Gould's negotiating skills.

However, exactly how the supposedly honest and unassuming Gould made this deal isn't so well known,or at least hasn't been as openly documented. John Roxborough, Louis' manager, claimed that in 1937 he was jumped by two hired goons and 'persuaded' to take a ride with them to visit Gould, who sat Roxborough down and demanded a staggering fifty percent of Louis and his earnings, in return for giving Louis a shot at Braddock's crown. To his credit, Roxborough held firm and stated that if Gould wanted to make a deal, Mike Jacobs was the man to talk to.

An angry Gould made his way over the Madison Square Garden and confronted Jacobs but, knowing that 'Uncle Mike' himself was a well-connected man, offered to lower his demands to ten percent. Jacobs, it is alleged, replied with "Joe, you're crazy. There ain't no ten percent to give ya! Didn't Roxy tell you that?" Jacobs was referring to the fact that since 1935, half of Louis' gross earnings had been going straight to his first manager Julian Black, a quarter to Roxborough, with the final quarter being used to pay trainer 'Chappie' Blackburn's wages, as well as a few other miscellaneous uses. Whatever was left over - not much, usually - was kept by Louis. Like Primo Carnera before him, the 'Brown Bomber' ended up owning less than ten percent of himself.

Either way, the aforementioned deal was struck - clearly, then, Gould wasn't all that bothered about screwing Louis over royally behind his back (not that he was alone in that aspect, of course).

Even more striking, to me, is how 'odd' the way in which Braddock got his hands on the title seems. I've always wondered if the 'Cinderella Man' might have had a little 'help' on the way to upsetting the odds against Baer, and while the book provides no concrete evidence of this, it does still offer a little food for thought, all the same. Of all the five 'care taker' Heavyweight champions which separated the reigns of Gene Tunney and Louis, only one of them had the resolve to not, at least publicly, go with the menacing Owney Madden - and that was Baer himself. Braddock and Gould made no effort to hide their affiliation and links with the man simply dubbed 'the killer', and when Madden was released from prison after a nine year stretch for murder back in 1923, who had been there to pick him up at the prison gates? None other than Joe Gould, of course!

Baer had certainly come under pressure to sign with Madden a number of times. I imagine that a Heavyweight title scene without Baer in it would be much more appealing to Madden, given that, with Baer out the way, he'd have total control over the title picture (when Baer took the title from Carnera, the career of Louis' was only just in its infancy). I have read elsewhere that after surrendering his title to Braddock in a dubiously low-key performance, Baer is meant to have said to his successor, "I hope you enjoy the title more than I did" - could this be an admission that Baer, under intense pressure from Madden and his associates, had been instructed to throw the fight, or that 'Madcap Maxie' was, if anything, relieved to have lost the crown as it meant Madden and the like would back off?

It's an interesting thought, to me at least, though I should also add that 'Jacobs Beach' argues that what Baer actually said is "I hope you value the title more than I did." Regardless, it still seems odd to me that a fighter of Baer's quality could give up the belt so casually, against a man who was controlled by two people who desperately wanted him out of the way. Clearly, Baer wasn't all that impressed with Braddock the fighter - when asked how long the man from New Jersey would hold the title, Baer simply answered, "until he fights somebody else." Could Baer have really lost legitimately to man who he felt sure was destined to fall short as soon as a new challenge presented itself?

Of course, it's Hollywood's job to make a film as appealing as it can be to everyone - and when it's a film based on an the exploits of one of life's underdogs, the temptation to paint one side as good and another as evil is understandable. But the idea of Braddock and, more to the point, Joe Gould being some kind of beacon of light in a dark and shady business just doesn't sit all that well with me. When we talk of mobsters, bent managers and illegitimate enforcers back in the old days of boxing, the likes of Madden, Carbo, Palermo etc all roll off the tongue without hesitation - and yet I've never really seen Gould put in that same company. Why not? While Braddock's story, if you airbrush two or three elements out of it, sums up all that can be great about boxing, I'd say that the actions of Gould, and the way they've been seemingly swept under the carpet over time, represents much of what is, or has been, bad about it.

Sorry for rambling on, everyone! Must find a way of getting my point across quicker...Anyway, if anyone has a particular take on this or wants to contribute, fire away.

Cheers, chaps.

Interesting read Chris and has convinced me I do need to get round to reading Jacob's Beach. My own take is there is probably some truth to what you say, the reality is whilst obviously his colour was a factor you only need to look at a guy like Burley to see how far a point blank refusal to deal with the mob got you back in those times and in Braddock you are dealing with a guy a good deal less gifted than Charley ever was.

The Baer Braddock fight is one I have always had my doubts about because whilst Max was mercurial at best he had talent and the idea that even on his best night Braddock could whup him is a stretch. Whether this means the fight was not on the level remains to be seen. Have to only look at Buster Douglas to see how all the politics and shady deals can make a guy almost happy to surrender the greatest prize in the sport, is possible Max was of this mindset but is food for thought. As always though a good read mate.

I've read Jacobs Beach too, Chris. I must confess that I was a little frustrated by it. I do think that Kevin Mitchell is a very good journalist but whilst there are some parts of the book that are excellent, I don' think he really gets to the heart of the story. I was left feeling like he had been hampered by the publisher's word limit.

Anyway, back on point. I often think that Braddock's "Cinderella Man" title glosses over some of the darker sides to his and Gould's story and they have a case to answer in the exploitation of Louis. Saying that, threats or no threats, Louis was grossly mismanaged and really should have had better men looking out for his interests.

Your suggestion about Baer almost handing the title to Braddock is an interesting one and gives food for thought. However, given Baer's tendency to clown during fights and also to take breathers, it's hard to say with any real conviction that he wasn't just beaten by an inspired performance from Braddock.

Nice article, Chris.

This little period in heavyweight history has always fascinated me. I suspect that Jacobs had quite a large hand, though, in the negotiation of terms when Braddock met Louis. Certainly, Jacobs had been the one to pull the strings in the setting up of the fight and leapfrogging Schmeling, who was the rightful contender.

In beating Louis, Schmeling became top contender for Braddock's title, and Madison Square Garden's Jimmy Johnstone had a contract for Braddock to defend against Schmeling for June, 1937. Jacobs, perhaps sensitive to the political situation in Europe, feared that, in the almost inevitable event that Schmeling would depose Braddock, the Germans would shut up shop and forever push Louis out of the picture. He therefore set about trying to leapfrog Schmeling and have Braddock fight Louis instead. Within a couple of months of the Schmeling loss, Louis was put in with another ex champ in Jack Sharkey, in an effort to up his stock. Louis duly obliged by knocking out Sharkey in short order. Jacobs, meanwhile, set about testing the strength of Madison Square Garden's contractual rights on Braddock by setting him up with a couple of two rounders, in one night, at the Hippodrome. Braddock was scheduled to meet a fighter called Eddie Kotwisca, who was a former New Jersey amateur heavyweight champion, and another named Eddie Cook, a heavyweight from Havana. Jacobs was pushing the envelope on two fronts, since, in the first instance, Braddock was under contract to Johnstone , and in the second instance, under New York state law exhibitions were illegal at the time. Braddock's record suggests that these two bouts never took place but Jacobs, presumably, found out what he needed to know about the strength of Johnstone's hand since he did secure a Braddock v Louis fight by offering Braddock a hefty sum and ( with Gould's involvement, of course, ), the percentage of Louis' future earnings. The New York State Athletic Commision prohibited Braddock from defending against Louis, and Jimmy Johnstone applied for a court injunction to prevent the fight, but it was turned down.

Very shady dealings indeed and unearthing all of the elements to provide a clear picture would, I should imagine, be akin to negotiating a labyrinth.

Thanks for commenting, Jeff and Superfly. Good stuff as always. Jeff, you might want to take in to account Superfly's slightly less glowing review before reading 'Jacobs Beach', on second thoughts!

Like many, I'd have been less inclined to think that there may be something slightly fishy about the Baer-Braddock fight had it not been such a tepid affair. Had Braddock produced a blinding performance or had to come through a real war to emerge victorious (ala Douglas-Tyson, Clay-Liston etc) then it wouldn't seem so amiss - but as many have pointed out, the fight itself was instantly forgettable, and the result seemingly owes as much to Baer fighting with disinterest as it does to Braddock's own brilliance. I suppose, from the outset, that's a harsh way to look at Braddock's achievement, though. Tepid or not, winning a title is winning a title, at the end of the day.

I don't doubt - better still, I know - that Gould's actions for that era were hardly anything new, but while youngsters today are still being readily told of the misdemeanours of Madden, Carbo and the like, Gould - amongst one or two others - is neglected, save for 'Cinderella Man', which was a wildy innaccurate version of things, to put it mildly.

Still, thanks to both of your for your comments, good stuff as ever.

Thanks for your input too, Windy. Greatly appreciated as I know you're very clued up on the Heavyweights and the subsequent behind the scenes dealings involving them during the times of the Depression.

Oddly enough, it is with regards to the potential (perhaps rightful) Schmeling-Braddock bout in 1937 that Gould emerges with any sort of credit in the book on a personal level. Apparently, Braddock and Gould were offered a guarantee of $500,000 and an American referee for a defence against Schmeling in Germany - Gould personally told Mr Goebbels himself that until Hitler granted German Jews the same rights to property and citizenship as he did to everyone else, he wouldn't even entertain the idea of such a fight.

Whether this was out of a genuine disgust at the Nazi regime or simply due to seeing the opportunity for a shady deal with Louis' people further down the line is a matter of contention though, of course. Maybe you can shed some light Windy, as I'm genuinely unsure - would Jacobs have had any say in being able to stop a defence of the title in Schmeling's back yard, rather than in New York? If not, Gould may just have played a noble role, by hook or crook, in guaranteeing that the Germans never had the chance to freeze Louis out.

Thanks, Chris.

I have no idea whatsoever as to whether Jacobs' influence would have extended to his being able to veto a fight on German soil. Gut feeling would be that it wouldn't, but I doubt we could ever plumb the depths of his ingenuity in getting his own way.

The entire scenario is rich with intrigue, plot and sub plot, isn't it? The mere fact that that Schmeling's manager was Jewish is a delightful irony.

Fascinating subject, and a fascinating thread. Let's hope it will yield more insights and valuable snippets of info.

I didn't intend to put anyone off reading the book, chris.

I'm certainly glad I read it as the subject matter is fascinating but I'm not sure that Mitchell spends enough time in the book looking at any particular subject in detail. I think I got more insight into Mike Jacobs from Budd Schullberg's piece in "Ringside" and I would have liked to see similar detail on each of the main protaginists discussed by Mitchell. I'm maybe being picky though.

Thanks for the heads up, Superfly. Haven't read Schulberg's 'Ringside' piece so can't judge, but will definitely be checking it out to see how it compares.

I know that there is a rather wider coverage of fights and trainers nowadays ands its storable in books, hard drives, discs etc etc. But will this catchweight crap and the general states of Manny's opponents be forgotten in a copuple decades time? Like the 10 million Lewis was paid in a buyout clause by Tyson to step aside?