That would only lead credence to my argument then. Most view that fight as a Walcott win. If we're being objective here, and even many Louis fans concede, it was likely a decision Walcott should've gotten. Thus, if we're using that as his biggest fight... well I'd say he did just fine
Yup, I think he got tagged went down and the prospect of another 13rds of pain with Rocky made him decide that discretion was the better part of valour.
Well he did but like Jersey he finally picked up a title after many attempts.. the night he beat McCall was legendary. It was a close fight but because I've watched it I can score it myself, unlike the Louis v Jersey fight which i can't score because I haven't seen it.
Sorry bud, doesn't quite work that way. You give credit for Greb and his ND victories if the preponderance of evidence supports he won. So you're not opposed to thinking somebody likely won even if you can't score the fight. Same thing here. Walcott likely should've gotten the nod, and thus, in the biggest fight of his career he did very very well.
Well tbh ND fights are treated differently because you can't ever hold them against a fighter. Well the preponderance of evidence suggests De La Hoya deserved victory against Whitaker and Tito, the majority of observers scored both fights for him. Do you give Hoya full credit for both "victories" If a fighter gets an official decision, I will not overturn it unless I can watch it and even then I will watch it guardedly to see if the official score is reasonable.
What were the counts for ringside press at the Whitaker vs. Hoya fight... I didn't think Hoya clearly won that... but it's been awhile. Difference is I CAN watch those fights. I'm talking about fights you can't watch, which as you illustrate, is the case with Walcott vs. Louis. So why would you bring up fights I can judge for myself? The point is bud, I've seen you give credit for what likely happened in fights you can't watch if the majority of press vote a certain way. Yet with this figth, you refuse you treat it the same. Regardless though, what we can undoubtedly say is, Walcott (in the biggest fight of his life) did pretty darn good and likely should've won. I'd hardly call that wilting in his biggest fights
2 thirds gave Oscar the fight. ND fights have no official decision, we can credit a man for taking a news paper decision if the fight is competitive. I will not over rule a decision that I cannot see. We can undoubtedly say Louis is 2-0 against Walcott and would be 10-0 given 8 more fights.
Incorrect. Walcott is 1-1 against Louis in my view. Again, many of Louis' own supporters concede as much. Which is, Walcott likely deserved to win. Simple. In doing so, he exponentially did better than Bruno, on more than one occasion no less.
In your view? What scorecard can you produce? Everyone bar one man submitted a score of 8-7 for the fight between Walcott and Louis. Given that you have not seen the fight, the decision to rewrite a man's record is absolutely ridiculous. Of course Jersey had a greater career than Bruno. But unlike you I can accept that my favourite HW was not that good. Doesn't change that I followed him or that he got me into boxing, I don't need to award him victories he simply did no achieve himself. If we are to deal in 100% objective facts we have a 2-0 record. We have the vast majority of scorecards being 8-7 in the first and every single scorecard being meaningless in the second. At best you can say the fight was close enough to warrant a rematch, which it did and it was concluded conclusively.
Don't you mean concussively? If victories are being reassigned then it's worth bearing in mind that Walcott's win over Charles in their fourth bout was highly disputed. Most ringsiders called it for Charles. Either way, it still leaves Jersey Joe with a 2-6 record in title fights.
Incorrect, the press, the ref (closest man to action) and the majority of the audience felt Walcott won. I'd say that is MUCH more than "At best you can say", in fact, the best I could say is Walcott is 1-1. That is actually the best. Considering the majority of views at the time back up said statement, it can't be far off. What you said was the best, was in fact, the least you could say. You just can't get around the fact that the majority at the time felt Walcott won. There was so much outcry from the fight, that an investigation was opened because of it. Why? Because again, we can hear the audible noise being very clear on who they felt won. Considering this was Joe Louis, a huge fan favorite and hero to many, and yet many booed the decision. That says a lot, actually more than a lot. ****, Joe Louis himself wanted to leave the ring after the fight, and even said to Walcott "Sorry Joe" after the decision was read. What's worse, you know as well as I do, that under Modern scoring Walcott clearly won. How? Logical sound deduction. As you illustrate, most cards had the fight pretty close. By your account many were 8-7 in favor of Walcott and some for Louis. Regardless of the cards specific scores, let's say it was close. Well under current scoring where you get a 10-8 round for a KD, well then, what other conclusion could you come to than Walcott winning? Yet, when this point is brought up, you refuse to accept that as a reality. That what's so perplexing about it. I'm not saying score the fight that way, but you can't even concede IF it was scored that way, it's even more likely Walcott won. That's odd to me
So let's say in 50 years time scoring criteria rewards aggression over defensive brilliance should we then declare Chavez victim of robbery against Pea? The majority of everyone had it 8-7 one way or another it was a close fight with a swing round. They had a rematch and Louis ****ted him. Since the majority thought Hoya beat Pea, including the ref, the man closest to the action, I've no doubt you feel Hoya deserves that victory.
False ****ogy. I can SEE the fight, I don't need anybody to tell me who won. I'm unclear why you keep making this ****ogy like they are mutual inclusive, when in fact, they are mutual exclusive of one another. We're not talking about changing from aggression, generalship, defense or any of the like that are subjective. Those are the definition of subjective. A KD, is the exact opposite of subjective. It's clear and decisive with no subjectivity involved. That is the difference in what you propose, and what I'm saying. You concede the majority of cards were close... so if those were 10-8 rounds for Walcott... who likely won? roceed dancing around the question: I like you luf, you're one of my favorites on here, but I just can't get over how obtuse (or in the case of the above question elusive) you are about the subject.