Joe Louis vs. Jersey Joe Walcott I: Was it a robbery or just a close fight?

This thread inspired me to go through my notes and keep a list of those fights that met my criteria, taking ages

Although I could have sworn I believed a lot of rosenblooms losses to be controversial but I couldn't find the reports backing up my earlier belief :think

 

In the footage we have, Walcott was making Louis miss, making him ineffective and scoring the much cleaner punches throughout. Ofcourse in these days KDs didn't give 10-8 rounds and we have no idea how the rest of the fight was

McGrain may talk about ringside cards but McGrain what were the ringside cards for Delahoya -Mosley 2 and do you agree that was a fair decision? I'd guess most on here wouldn't but from memory (I could be wrong) Mosley was about 50-50 on ringside media cards. So the ringside cards don't always carry so much weight in the controversy of a fight, the Pacquaio-Bradley cards are extreme and partly down to the popularity of Pacquaio and lack of charisma of Bradley, Pacman deserved that in my view none the less but most ringsiders don't keep a round by round score card they just have unobjective 'feelings'.

Let's also bear in mind unobjective scoring issues of fans who don't necessarily score round by round, such as: Popularity and Ineffective Aggression. Popular aggressive boxers are favoured by crowds and negative unpopular. Despite being the unpopular negative boxer the decision was booed by what seemed like the whole crowd, it was considered outrageous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFc7WIKuZvQ

Watch this commentary of Louis and Walcott below because it's very telling. Walcott 'my manager and trainers told me you're at least won 10 rounds, just box and stay out of trouble. Louis 'you have to take the title away from the challenger and Walcott ran'.

Walcott 'when they gave him the decision, the champ came over to me which I consider a real priveledge and a high honour for him to be so honest about the outcome, he grabbed me by both hand and said I'm sorry Joe, which meant to me then that he was acknowledging the decision'

All the evidence points to Walcott deserving the verdict.

 

To be honest if you can't see a fight yourself I'd question the awarding of victory to another man.

It relies too much on 2nd hand accounts of the fight.


The de la Hoya v Mosley situation is different because you can watch every second of the fight and judge yourself.

 

Lets just remember the two knockdowns where in 1 round. There are 14 other out there. Based on footage available and writeups is it beyond reason that Louis won 8 of those rounds? Of course it isn't.

Yeah Walcott seems to have made Louis miss at times but at others he's taking punches. When he made Louis miss was he making him pay every round? I can't say. For every 2 reports of Walcott winning there's 1 of Louis winning.

Stripping Louis of this title defence based on a 2-1 majority of a fight we cannot see is a bit strange to me.


I used to do it at one point i think but now i feel that if i can't see a fight i can't award a victory other than the official decision (as said i just consider it a draw).

 

All the evidence we have does point to Walcott deserving the verdict though, bar the judges scorecards. I've not simply based that evidence on the brief highlights (which you'd expect to favour the puncher and not the boxer), but also on the appeal of the decision, the boo'ing, the reports I've read (not many) and importantly I feel Walcott and Louis's conversation of who won. Even if Walcott didn't deserve the decision, the fact his whole team were convinced he just needed to survive the last few rounds shows it is very likely he was winning at a canter, if you're impartial.

I haven't delved too much into fight reports, they mainly outline what we know, Louis was dumped twice, the decision was boo'ed and protested, Louis looked average/past it (or was it Walcott looking good?). Significantly reports show they tried to have the decision overturned. Did this type of depth of feeling and outrage come about during other close Louis fights like Godoy and Farr? I haven't read anything about that.

There maybe other evidence I've outlooked granted. If you have other scorecards and fight reports from the fight I'd be interested to see them to show a balance.

The KDs were in rounds 1 and 4. The fact more reports give the fight to a somewhat negative Walcott is telling. The press tend to side with the popular champion over an unfashionable spoiler.

It's not about Louis being robbed of a decision in my view it's more of Walcott being robbed of a rightful verdict because he was the unpopular journeyman. Louis won the rematch fair and square so it doesn't detract from his legacy too much. Either way that's an issue, Louis fans do lose impartiality when talking about the decision, I'm not referring to yourself here.

I think you've gone with other decisions solely based on write ups?

 

Wasn't there two kds in one round? It's a while since I read up on this fight.

I used to do that and go with whoever the majority of reports favour but I didnt feel comfortable so now I consider a controversial fight as a draw unless I've seen it myself.

So I have the series as 1-0-1 to Louis. I consider the 4th Walcott-Charles fight a draw also. There are no fights currently that I've considered a victory other than he official winner unless I've seen it myself.

 

I think your fan bias towards Louis is taking away your objectivity, you simply want Louis to win this. You've even claimed the footage shows Walcott not to get the better of it, which is blatantly untrue to anyone with eyes

You can type 2000 word essays but you're losing your credibility regardless of your conviction

 

If you want to talk about 'ludicrous comments', I'll do the same. You claiming Louis didn't get the worse of the action in the footage, either shows issues with your eye sight or your honesty. It's most likely a huge bias on your part as you're a huge Louis fan. Louis clearly got the worse of the action (and no I don't base everything on that footage anyway but you claiming he got the better of the action)

Also: 'Over the years I’ve come to suspect—just to suspect—that the decision was a good one.' Based on what exactly? Maybe:

The majority of cards having it to Walcott even though he was by far the less popular man?

The booing?

The inquest into the decision and attempt to overturn it?

The fact Louis supposedly apologised to Walcott for the decision?

The fact Louis got clearly got the worse of the action in the small amount of available footage

Or the fact Louis looks cool knocking out Schmelling?

'It was a close fight' is the typical excuse for a biased fanboy when their hero loses a competitive decision and doesn't want to over analyse the decision isn't it?

And then come out with these outbursts making you sound like a 4yo

Despite blabbering for how many words you don't really want to be objective on this, you want to scew things in Louis's perspective and negate any points that don't favour your huge bias and it loses any credibility you have on the topic

 

Jersey Joe was robbed...It was criminal

 

O.K

Most ringsiders thought that Walcott deserved the decision, but there was a significant element that thought the opposite.

The New York times said that Louis out landed Walcott, which combined with the fact that he was the aggressor, was always going to give him an argument in that era.

The most we can say for Walcott is that the balance of probability, is that he deserved the decision.

Inconclusive.