Joe Louis vs. Jersey Joe Walcott I

New York Times and Ring were both int he minority that scored it for Louis.

11-1-1 is the widest score i've ever seen, even of the highlights. Not to say you're wrong.

The widest score at ringside was 9-6; most cards were 8-7ish. Two thirds from ringside scored for Walcott, if you exclude the judges.

 

I generally try to avoid getting drawn into this argument these days, but here's what I have.

I like to start by comparing it to ringsiders for Pac-Bradley I. This is a result so seemingly without explanation that of the one-hundred and twenty-five media sources I have seen produce a scorecard we have one-hundred and twenty-one scoring in favor of Pacquiao, three scoring in favor of Bradley, and one scoring the fight a draw. That is a ratio of around about 1:30 against those seeing the fight any other way than a win for Pacquiao. Not all of these were ringside but about 100 were and the ratio remains about the same.

The Pittsburgh Press conducted a ringside poll of writers at the venue the night Louis decisioned Walcott and whilst the majority, twenty-four, had Jersey Joe the winner, some sixteen had it for Louis. This is a ratio of 2:3 against. One media source reports a Bradley win for every thirty polled. Two media sources report a Louis win for every five polled. The point is not that Pacquiao was robbed and so Walcott was not, the point is that Thomas Hauser, Brian Kenny and the other forlorn souls who did not see a win for Pacquiao can be dismissed as statistical anomalies—they either made mistakes or sat in a corner of the stadium that would always give birth to such a strange score. In the case of Louis, he is backed by sixteen boxing men who know the fight game. If we include the judges amongst those polled, the difference between those who see it for Louis and those who see it for Walcott starts to look more negligible (25-18, or a difference of seven).

The widest media scorecard I have been able to source for Louis-Walcott was the AP card which had it 9-5-1 for Walcott. I was unable to source more than one ringside card that had Walcott winning any more than eight rounds. Those who stood in judgment over Louis in a surprisingly rabid press that following week typically did so based on a scorecard provided for them by a ringside reporter that had Walcott winning only six, seven or eight rounds. This is exactly what almost every single ringsider has Louis scoring. So even those who had Walcott winning had him winning pretty close.

The New York Times described Louis as having been “out-thought” and “generally made to look foolish,” but the newspaper also scored the fight for the champion because he had “made all the fighting, did most of the leading and, his two knockdowns notwithstanding, landed a greater number of blows.” Nat Flesicher, scoring for The Ring, also saw it for Louis.

Louis, unquestionably the puncher in the fight, landed more punches according to the Times. Whilst the newspaper men ringside tended to believe that Walcott had won, there were many who felt that the exact opposite was the case, including the men who mattered. Referee Ruby Goldstein scored it 7-6-2 for Walcott, judge Marty Monroe had it 9-6 to Louis and judge Frank Forbes had it 8-6-1 for the champion.

More, nobody now labelling this a clear robbery has even seen the fight. But even if we had the entire fight, all we would have is a modern eye trying to interpret a fight set in 1940s with their respect for the title, their heightened appreciation of aggression and accented disdain for the retreat. That needs to be remembered - retreating fighters had a tougher time on 1940s scorecards, and everyone knew that was the case. The notion that you had to "take the title from the champion", meaningless today, was birthed in this era.

Louis was the aggressor, the puncher, the champion, and according to at least one reputable source the busier man. More than that, there were no ringside scorecards that mimicked the degree of outrage expressed by the press.

I got no problem with an opinion that Walcott on balance deserved the nod, but the idea that this was a daylight robbery...yeah, that proof doesn't exist. Why then the controversy?

It is a fact that the crowd booed Louis from the ring. This has lent credence to what has become a truth by repetition. Perhaps, like Louis himself, they were disgusted with the champion’s performance (disgust, according to Joe, that caused him to attempt to leave the ring before the verdict was even read). More likely, they had seen Louis bamboozled by an opponent that had seemed one step ahead of him at all times. But fights are not and were not scored upon aesthetics. If Louis was out-landing Walcott and enough of those punches carried enough vim to impress two of the three judges, Joe’s job was done.

Finally, the fight continued to garner attention in the press because the method for scoring boxing itself was on trial. Whilst Walcott had been awarded points for his two knockdowns in rounds one and four on the supplementary system, they had in reality only gained him two rounds on the cards and whilst judge Forbes actually awarded Louis more rounds he awarded Walcott more points. When there seemed even a hint of a chance that the decision could be overturned on a technicality (it was claimed that Forbes should have reversed his decision based upon general impressions, permitted in a case where a judge awards more points but fewer rounds to a given fighter) the controversy continued to burn.

 

Well aside from speculating as to why Louis was booed, i've just produced facts surrounding the fight.

It's not unheard of to find a thread where such things are unwelcome, but it does happen.