How the nation's sportswriters saw Louis-Walcott [1947]

But that would indicate he still had power?

Did I miss something?

 

You're right, that was hyperbolic.

He beat a good deal more quality opponents than most, Ali is ahead, but otherwise probably not any other heavyweight.

His jab seemed to stay with him much more than his other assets.

 

He had nearly 70 fights, and it's the ones he had trouble in people talk about and that really skews people perceptions.

The ones where he had trouble get brought up way more than the ones he blasted out his opponent.

 

In his last 10 fights Louis scored 3 stoppages ,one was a ko over a badly used up Lee Savold ,.another was a tko over Andy Walker who was stopped 10 times in 44 fights,the other was a tko over Freddie Beshore on cuts. Beshore had lost 4 of his last 5 fights and won 1 of his last 6. Louis was taken the distance twice by Brion and Agramonte,I don't believe either would have gone more than 8 rounds with the pre war Louis. You can bust someones face up with a left jab particularly if their defence isn't that special. Doing so does not indicate real power.

 

Joe Louis is overrated? first I've heard of it.

 

Walcott likely won the fight. It's really that simple, and most people thought he won. We haven't seen the fight, so it's hard to say, but the evidence certainly supports Walcott winning more than Louis. What Louis says after the fight is of little consequence. If I had a penny for all the times fighters have said they didn't think they lost a fight most did, I'd be rich. Louis not saying he felt he lost means very little to me. His immediate reaction after the fight is what is significant. He didn't like his performance the first time out against Godoy. He didn't like the Conn performance. I'm sure he didn't like his Charles performance either, but he wasn't trying to leave the ring either and acting like he lost. He didn't go over to them and say sorry for the verdict. Point being, the notion that Louis thought he won because he made the fight is silly. He knocked him down 2 times, and was never knocked down himself. If you put someone on the canvas twice in one fight, that generally doesn't sound like a running performance to me. It sounds more like an outboxing performance, than a lack of making a fight.

 

I think rather than losing the power itself, it's more a product at being worse at landing the big shots.

 

What about the newspaper sportswriters who had Louis winning ? What did they say ?
Or are they a myth ?

 

I can't say whether Louis deserved to lose the title that night or not.
Let's assume he did, for argument's sake.
It possibly makes the rematch KO more impressive.

 

Louis was shot and had pretty clearly documented brain damage by the time he fought Walcott, and still knocked him out in the rematch. Louis shouldn't even have been medically cleared to fight.

 

To me he also looks extremely stiff from 1948 onward, as compared to the easy fluidity of his prime. I strongly suspect this is at least in part due to brain damage caused by cerebral hemorrhaging at some point.

 

I thought it was entirely uncontroversial that Walcott probably won the first fight, not in the sense of being unanimous but at least being a strong and not very energetically contested consensus.

 

This is it. The guy was well faded anyway post war, a shadow of what he'd been. It's no big deal at all if he lost to Walcott. His career or reputation doesn't hinge on it like some try to make out.

 

Do you think that'd effect power as well?