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

So are all 3 of us in agreement that it's perfectly feasible Louis deserved victory?

 

Well I would say we're in agreement that it's PROBABLE Walcott won, while possible that Louis won. That said, there isn't enough in general there to call it a Walcott win and change the official verdict. However, as I stated, I am disappointed a warrior like Walcott wasn't rewarded for such a good performance.. kinda like Whitaker vs. Chavez. It was to be his crowning moment (sans Charles 3) and I believe it was taken away from him. So.. take that for what you will

 

So we do all agree. We cannot dismiss the possibility that Louis deserved the victory.

 

There is a member of this ESB forum who sat live ringside at the fight. He is a huge joe louis fan too. Yet he admitted that he thought Jersey Joe Walcott CLEARLY won the fight.

 

So 'not enough footage' and 'inconclusive' means people saw the footage as 'close'? Disingenuous much? It's not the same thing, the footage itself shows Walcott landing more and better punches and Louis landing little of note. That ofcourse isn't conclusive because we don't have all the footage but it's part of the evidence

Watson clearly did beat Eubank, I grew up a Eubank fan and wanted to see him as the victor, I don't remember calling anyone a fool for saying Watson won. Watson-Eubank 1 was widely considered a robbery at the time. That was rose tinted glasses not wanting to see the truth, a bit like you and Louis-Walcott 1 maybe

You can allude to me being biased but you're the one ignoring evidence that goes against your fighter

Walcott clearly got the better in the footage, I suggest doing an honest punch stats of connects and meaningful punches

 

That´s a good point, we don´t have the full fight, we can´t judge too well the result without the complete footage......

edit- I see that you guys discussed the imcomplete footage thing already:good

 

I think the debate should end with.. It's possible that Louis won, but it's probable that Walcott should've won.

 

That's an opinion he's entitled. Everyone else has second hand information to go buy. Some picked Louis as the winner and more picked Walcott as the winner.

Dismissing the possibility that Louis deserved victory is ridiculous on the evidence at hand. On that basis the victory has to stand.

I'm not even sure if there's an official victory I cannot watch where the majority of disagreements is enough to legitimately consider it not a victory.

 

I enjoyed this discussion but it seems clear that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Walcott probably won and that Joe Louis probably lost. Is it possible to determine that conclusively? No, of course not. But there are more than enough fragments of information and circumstantial evidence available to make it more likely than not that Walcott indeed outboxed Louis and deserved a victory. All of these pieces of evidence can be undermined piece by piece, but cumulatively, the highlight footage, Louis' reaction after the end of the fight, the fans' booing the decision, the outcry and calls for investigation after the fight, several accounts of Louis' own friends thinking that he lost (check out "Toast of the Town" pages 97-99 where Detroit legend and Louis friend, Sunnie Wilson, describes the fight and Joe's actions afterwards (those pages are available via the amazon "look inside" option)), the strong majority of ringside observers' cards, etc. all suggest that he lost. It's possible that Louis won, by it doesn't logically follow that we should therefore assume that the decision was just or that it was a draw.

 

My thoughts exactly

 

Walcott won the 1st fight but the rematch, which Joe was a true Champ to give proved again that Louis was the best finisher ever and the best in rematches ...another thing wish we had that skill level today...great action

 

I haven't seen the fight in it's entirety and have never met anyone who has, therefore I am not in a position to give a definite opinion on it. Louis in his auto biography said he had no doubt he had won because he made the fight, and Walcott did not come to fight , that is his explanation not mine.
Louis said he left the ring quickly because he was disgusted with his showing.

I think only those who have seen the complete fight are in a position to give a verdict on this.

I don't anticipate many responses from them.

 

wow! He was at ringside?
Who is he? Burt?