Why do most people give Charles the nod over Walcott..

I think Walcott faced a better Louis the first time around, but not a massive lot better than the one Charles beat. Louis was sharper for Walcott 2 and Jersey Joe got knocked out.

Louis was seriously over-the-hill from 1947 onwards. Everyone could see it.

 

Louis looked fantastic knocking out Mauriello and Conn in 1946. Louis was clearly still very lethal in 1947-48. Still fantastic handspeed and combination punching. Louis aged dramatically from 1948 to 1950.


Louis may have knocked Walcott out, but Walcott was ahead on all 3 scorecards, and was giving louis a boxing lesson. He also knocked Louis down.


Charles fought nowhere near the version. Louis of 1947 knocks charles out

 

Yes, and then he took 15 months off from championship action before fighting Walcott, and looked pretty awful.

Louis said so himself that the Mauriello fight was the last time he felt anything like his old self.

Of course, he was still a dangerous puncher and finisher.

You acknowledge that only because it suits your agenda (to make Walcott seem better than he was).
But you completely disregard the obvious case that Louis aged dramatically between the Mauriello and Walcott fights.

He got KTFO.

Maybe Louis of 1947 KOs Charles. Maybe not. It doesn't matter. I rate Charles and Walcott about equal.
Both of them fought a clearly over-the-hill version of Louis.

 

By the same token I could also say

1. He was definately robbed in his first attempt and he KO'd Ez Charles decisively - with one of the greatest one punch knockouts in heavyweight history

2. Walcott played with Louis and knocked him on his ass twice and was doing so while operating at about 70% of what he could probably do - in effect he won the title from Louis then lost it to him and then regained it by KOing Ez Charles so not only did he become the oldest to win the title at the time he also became the first man to regain it. The version of Louis that Ez beat was nowhere near even the version that Walcott faced and Ez didn't come close to knocking Louis down and it looked to me like had ez stopped for too long Louis might well of badly hurt him with his shots - plus Ez's face was mess afterwards whereas Walcott looked relatively untouched

3. Walcott may have been beat by Marciano but Walcott was doing an absolute number on him - and looked to me like anything other than practically the greatest knockout punch ever thrown wouldn't have been enough to beat him on that night - Walcott was a master in there - whereas yes Charles put up a great fight but also took one of the most hellacious beatings anyone has took in such a valiant stand

4. Walcott was the only man to beat Ez Charles back-to-back also

but I do find it difficult to split those to - I always think of them like siamese twins in terms of being so close to each other in terms of there ability

 

Yeah, like I said, there are reasons to rank Charles above Walcott and reasons to rank Walcott above Charles. :good

I tend to consider them about equal too. :good

 

Interesting admittance from you on Louis as you have for years, tried to use the defeat of this same Louis as a legitimate victory for Marciano and a reference point to how he would have done against large, talented fighters ... I guess the hand speed, power and combination punching was back again for his bout with Rocky in 51 ... one thing is for sure and that is Louis, Charles and Walcott all had better days before they fought Rocky ....

AS far as Ez and Walcott head to head it 's a tough call ... gotta love Joe for pulling out that amazing KO but Charles seemed to have the better overall heavyweight career despite being a blown up light heavy and seemed an edge better H2H in the footage I've seen ...

 

Louis was still a good dangerous fighter in 1950. Size, Powerful left jab, ring savvy, very good boxing skills, and had some power left. But he was nowhere near the puncher he was in 1947 anymore. I regard the 47 Louis as a great fighter, I don't regard the 1950 Louis as a great fighter, just a solid contender.

 

I don't think he looked awful at all. he had no trouble letting his hands go, his speed, combinations, and power were still there. It's just Walcott made him look bad. I don't think there are any signs Louis aged physically from Mauriello to Walcott I.

 

Well, he even looked bad or he didn't. You seem to think he did actually, "Walcott made him look bad". Maybe that's true too, but I think Louis's deteriorated condition made Walcott look better than he was.
Would Walcott make a prime Louis look bad ? I think not, or at least not for long - he'd probably get KO'd inside of 5 or 6 rounds.

I agree with Louis's own estimation of the Mauriello fight and what came after :

"The fight was good. The last time I really felt like my old self. I had complete control,energy,power. I wonder sometimes if that wasn't my last great fight".

Almost every report or contemporary commentary on Louis's fights with Walcott offers the opinion that he was clearly over-the-hill or washed-up as a fighter. That includes the rematch, where Walcott ended up KTFO.

 

Louis did not look fantastic in the Conn rematch. He looked slow and rusty. Conn however lost more during the war and looked worse ... against Mauriello , Louis was caught flush and almost flattened before rebounding and taking Tami out ... dramatic yes but fantastic, hardly ... the post WW2 Louis was never the same fighter to start as the pre-war and each year, as predicted, he continued to deteriorate...

 

That's reasonable. However, a good . solid, 1951 version is not a true gage for measuring how Rocky would have done against big , very good, young guys ...

 

No it isn't, but at the same time I think a case could be made beating on unskilled oafs like Willard, Firpo, Fulton is not a true gage for measuring how Dempsey would have done against big very good young guys. Yes, they were rated highly back in their day...but Firpo and Willard(especially the 37 year old Willard) looked god awful on film. Absolutely no skill. Louis of 1951 showed far better textbook skills and a much better left jab than those 1920s big guys.

 

Maybe, but that knockout in the 8th round was one of the best ive ever seen. Absolutely lethal uppercut-left hook by joe Louis.

 

Why the hell is hegrant bringing up Maricano?

 

From what I can gather round 1 and 4 are the only clear rounds in the first louis-joe fight.

The other rounds are seemingly all competitive with louis landing more clean shots but looking foolish at times with joe making him miss and countering.

Even in a ten point must, 4 points for joe for the two kd rounds leaves a possible 13 points available. Considering louis was bigger and a harder puncher with it being documented he landed more clean punches, a louis win doesn't seen overly impossible at all.

In older rules louis would almost certainly have took a decision based on aggression.

As louis intended he put the debate to bed in the rematch.