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

It's a duck guys, it's a duck

 

Enough people scored Louis the winner for me to feel uncomfortable calling him the loser.

 

Umm he was also the way more popular fighter between the two, and as you know, people can view fights they way they want it to go. The fact that the less popular fighter got the majority of press votes I thinks speaks volumes about how he truly won. Not just the press people.. the ref.. and the crowd. Let's not just act like it was a 12 vs. 10 vote here.. it was a clear majority in the stadium and the closest person to the action.

 

We essentially have an argument between two people.

Someone who watched the fight live and scored it for Louis (as plenty did) and then someone who didn't watch it saying "you're wrong because lots of other people voted for Walcott"

You know what, this thread has convinced me that Louis should be credited with a victoy over a great until footage can prove he didnt deserve it. Enough people agreed with the official decision and I can't in good conscience tell them they're wrong.

A case in point is valuev v holyfield. Going from ringside observers a massive majority (90%) had valuev winning. I saw the fight myself and scored it for holyfield. An assumption that I would side with the majority is false no matter how large the majority.

I'm not gonna go against the official decision in a fight I have not myself seen. I can't bring myself to do it. That list I posted earlier, **** it. It's the worst form of revisionism.

The fight was undoubtedly debatable but I can't weigh in without seeing it myself. A Walcott victory is shall never be in my eyes.

Case closed.

 

Thanks. McVey either ignores film or hasn’t seen enough of it. He won’t change his mind unless it’s an obvious math or clerical type of error, rather he’ll look for another source that coincides with his interests.

 

Why do you insist upon saying enough people say Louis won.. What the hell does that have to do with anything... when THE MAJORITY saw Walcott winning. Who cares if the number of people that felt Louis won was 1 or 16 or whatever number... The VAST majority.. including the closest person to the fight saw Walcott winning. That is what should take precedence, not a minority or felt the more popular fight won. That makes zero logical sense. I'm not advocating to call it a Walcott win myself.. that MIGHT be going to far.. but I certainly view it as no worse than a draw. I would expect he more popular fighter (a hero) would get the majority of press votes, the fact that he didn't, in my view speaks volumes about how clear the Walcott win must've looked. Walcott imo is very underrated in general, and I can't let what should've been a career defining victory just go by the wayside.. because hey a few people felt louis won.. Nah..

 

It's very relevant because however small that minority is, they have watched the fight and we haven't.

 

Which isn't relevant because more people.. considerably more people felt Walcott won who watched the fight and we haven't.

 

So they are entitled to that disagreement. Without seeing it we cannot disagree with any conviction.

 

What's Big McGrain..... To answer your question.. I think Louis wasn't telling the whole truth Yes, I think there can be no question of that. Think about it... are thinking you lost.. and being disappointed with your performance so far apart? Many times they are mutually inclusive. So let's take his words "I was just disappointed with my performance" Okay... but if you're THAT disappointed with your performance, so much so, that you would leave the ring before it was announced... Is it even possible to TRULY to 100% believe you won? I say that is impossible. If you are that disappointed in your performance, there can be no question, you might think such a poor performance could cost you a loss. So you can call Joe whatever you'd like, I will stop short of calling him a liar, but say he wasn't telling the whole truth. Do you disagree?

Furthermore, I believe Nate and others could've felt Joe did enough, that is possible. However, we must also keep in mind Joe was clearly the more popular fighter, a hero if you will. So, knowing how people can let there bias come into fights.. could explain how a minority still had Joe winning, including Nat. My real issue is, the VAST majority felt the less popular fighter won, that speaks more loudly than a minority still thinking the more popular fighter won. As you know, boxing can be subjective, and thus some people could be truly viewing the fight objectively and still think Louis won. Fine, but that doesn't change the fact that more people though Mr. Walcott won.

 

To add a bit, Louis had the same body language just before the decision was announced in his match with Charles.

 

Surely this is the debate nailed now.

 

My friend, you didn't address the first part of my post.. DO YOU believe Louis was being 100% honest? I think i've shown that is impossible. If you're THAT disappointed with your performance.. so much so that you want to leave the ring.. How could you TRULY believe you won or were a 100% sure of such? The answer is, you couldn't be. So.. do you believe Louis was being 100% honest in his statement.. or do you think it's was possible he thought he might lose?

Ummm No, I wouldn't go that far. Is it possible to score it as a Louis is, sure. Is it PROBABLE to score it as a Louis win, the is answer undoubtedly no. There is a clear distinction between possible and probable. It was probable that Walcott won, on the contrary, it was POSSIBLE Louis won. That is the fair assessment.