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

McVey.. the key words there are NEXT DAY.. After your handlers.. promoters.. your own common sense on what you should say kick in. The MOST telling reaction was Joe's after the fight.. DIRECTLY after. He looks like a beaten fighter and one that knows he lost. I put more stock in that.. then what he said the next day after gathering himself.

 

As I am not psychic I won't attempt to second guess the verdict, it was close enough not to be a robbery, who ever deserved the decision.

 

I will not attempt to interpret a fighters body language after a fight. In the absence of the complete fight, I will believe Louis and his explanation. How about what he said years later when he had no reason to lie?


No argument about the one below.

This content is protected

Louis and Walcott's reactions to the fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFc7WIKuZvQ

 

here's my full list of "controverial fights" that I haven't seen and so consider a draw.

Basilio D Saxton 1

Burley D Williams 4

Charles D Layne 1

Chocolate D Battalino

Flowers D McTigue
Flowers D Greb 3
Flowers D Walker

Gavilan D Felton
Gavilan D Graham 1
Gavilan D Villemain
Gavilan D Costner
Gavilan D Womber
Gavilan D Saxton

Graham D Pellone

Giardello D Giambra 3

Gibbons D Bartfield

Griffith D M Gonzalez
Griffith D Paret 1

Greb D Loughran 4

Langford D G Smith 1

Marciano D LaStarza 1

LaMotta D Williams

Langford D Flynn 1

Leonard D Callahan
Leonard D Kilbane
Overlin D Soose 1
Overlin D Soose 2

Ray D Charles 1

Robinso D Abrams

Schmelling D Sharkey 2

Slattery D K Levinsky 1

Taylor D Goldstein

Tiger D Calhoun
Tiger D Archer

Tunney D Greb 2

Walcott D Charles 4
Walcott D Maxim 1

Williams D Solzberg

Zapata D Chang

 

I need to go through this list re-evaluating. I begin to feel that an official decision should stand unless I've seen it myself.

NWS decisions are consensus based so that's different but an official fight, maybe if I don't see it, it should stay as it is :think

 

Watch the film, and tell me if you think Louis felt he won before the decision was announced. His body language was clearly that of the loser.

Boxing’s history is full of fighters who get the odd decisions and also claim they won in print. To use a current example, what did Tim Bradley say when he somehow defeated Manny Pacquiao on points?

 

So Louis was a liar to go along with all the other faults you have found in him ?
His management were all gangsters, he was the beneficiary of crooked verdicts, he had a house referee for all his important fights.
And ,he was BLACK!

He was in the next days newspapers saying he was convinced he had won , he said in his autobiography that he deserved the decision, and he reiterated that in the How It Was Documentary, many years later. But you, the expert body- language interpreter can look at a black and white 66 years old film and know better.

I forgot you are the moron who tried to convince us all you could see a yellowish tinge to Tommy Burns skin when he fought Johnson in 1908 though the footage was in grainy black and white and over a century old.

We all pissed ourselves over that one.

Have you any idea how totally ridiculous you are?

 

McVey, as much as I usually disagree with Mendoza.. he's spot on here for looking at Louis behavior and actions and come to the conclusion that he felt he lost. You don't need to be an expert to see that. A 10 year old could look at Louis reaction and tell he wasn't happy or expecting to win. I say again, IF YOU ARE CONVINCED YOU WON, WHY LEAVE THE RING BEFORE THE VERDICT? The answer is YOU WOULDN'T. That is basic common sense that you woudln't do that if you TRULY felt you won. Clearly, he didn't truly feel that way, yet said so afterwards. So you can choose to claim we are calling him a liar.. but in fact.. louis actions are the reason his LATER words are called into question.

 

Didn't Louis himself explain that by saying he was disappointed by his performance but still felt he won enough rounds?

 

He did ,he said it in print several times ,and he said it on film ,whether he was right or wrong we don't know because we have not seen the complete film of the fight. I believe Louis thought he had won.

Seems to me he was known for his candour.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. I've given my reasons. I'm not claiming you are calling him anything, I claim Mendoza is ,because he has a history or derogating Louis at every opportunity.

 

I just feel common sense should prevail here guys.. It matters very little what you say after a controversial fight.. There has been time for people to talk to you.. coach you on what you should say (something louis had from the jump).. and know yourself maybe you should act like you won. However, if it acts like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck. Just because he puts in print he's not a duck.. doesn't change what we all saw. For God's sake the MAJORITY of ringside reporters HAD WALCOTT winning. So, if the REF and the majority of ringside reporters AND the majority of the audience felt Walcott won.. Why does Louis reaction of looking like he lost surprise anybody? Why does that reaction get turned into.. Ohh he REALLY FELT HE WON.. but was just disappointed in his performance. Why when something is logical clear would people take the opposite stance in beyond me. The majority felt Louis lost.. why then is it so surprising that Louis would feel the same way? It shouldn't.. because WE SAW his reaction and it wasn't one of a winner. His actions goes directly against his LATER words. If you TRULY believe you won.. you wouldn't act that way nor leave before a verdict is read.. that is the exact opposite how you would react. For God's sake is being disappointed in your performance so far off from thinking you lost? Isn't pretty much a VERY thin line there. Further, if you're disappointed in your performance how could you TRULY and 100% think you won? You couldn't and shouldn't. If you felt that bad about how you performed that you felt the need to leave the ring.. then in no way could you then say.. Ohhh I 100% and Truly believed I won.. No way no how

 

Agreed, if you saw the highlights to Lamotta - Robinson VI you'd probably think Lamotta was getting his face caved in for the entire fight yet he won the first half of the fight.

Based off the highlights Walcott certainly won, but from what I've read Louis was the constant aggressor, constantly pushing the action and that Walcott faded in the later rounds.

 

I would put it in the Ali-Norton III category. One in which the champion was lucky to come out as the victor,but in which the challenger was n't SO superior in that it could be called a robbery.

Holyfield-Lewis I was indeed a robbery.

 

Declaring Walcott the victor when you havent seen the fight despite people who have seen the fight scoring it for him is ludicrous.