Joe Louis v Jersey Joe Walcott 1

I have and do wonder about it. I've said, perhaps as many as 30 times on this forum that Walcott may have been jobbed.

This is not what you want though. You want me to throw the decision out and make Walcott the winner, and you've been repeating yourself to try to achieve this end for almost twenty years now.

Which I've already covered, and you've ignored. What is the point? Not only will you be repeating yourself precisely in six months time, you can't even address what is posted to you on this go-around.

Bleachers just don't decide fights. As I've told you 15-20 times before.

Addressed by John Thomas and others elsewhere in this thread, unheeded by you.

Louis hated this performance. What do you expect his body language to be?

Is this a real question? I've already told you what I need, are you high? I've told you perhaps 15 times before and I've told you in this thread, literally in the post you are quoting:

"So do the judges scores. 22-13 then are the generally held scores from ringside allowing newspapermen reported by Boxrec and the judges. This is nowhere near robbery territory. It just isn't, however desperately you want it to be. Pacquiao-Bradly I is a robbery we have on film and the split there is much closer to 90/10. There are more than a dozen professionals at ringside who scored it for Joe Louis, champion (or draw)."

Pitiful, and fantasy. I'm an adult male and I don't have heroes, and if I did it wouldn't prevent me from courting reality. It's awful the way you throw around accusations when you are speaking to someone who disagrees with you to try to explain their disagreeing with you.

And here we are again. Now we have accusations of bias being addressed to the newspaper men who don't find in agreement with you. It's so weird.

This is where i begin to lose my temper with you. It's like you can't read except where you want to attack the position. I've already directly addressed this point in this thread, the thread you are in now:

"There were about ten guys at ringside who had Walcott a clear winner and 3 or 4 who had Louis a clear winner."

And you ask me, "Is this an accident?" the implication being that I am being dishonest when I've already directly addressed the point in the simplest possible English language. So it's not just multiple accusations of bias and dishonesty on my part by you, all of which are baseless, but also accusations of my deliberately omitting aspects of the fight which I've directly addressed in posts.

Can you see there is a problem in that i'm quoting myself, twice, from the last page - from the last page in this thread - to address points you are claiming I haven't addressed. Can you see and understand why that is a problem?

I don't have the round by round punchstats.

What?

I literally tell you in the post you are quoting. Wtf are you doing?

I didn't claim to believe them and was very, very careful on that exact point. I told you what the sources were for that information (which you were somehow unable to absorb despite it being posted in plain English), have double-sourced it, consider it of interest, and shared it here.


Even for you, this is an absolutely atrocious post. I don't appreciate it and don't appreciate the awful waste of my time on your part, your inability to read what I've written, your inability to process it when you do, to the point where you ask me direct questions about direct points I've made in the actual post you are quoting.

If you chose to quote an eleven year old post of mine just so you can copy and past the same Boxrec entry you've been copying and pasting since 2010, I expect, at the very least, close reading on your part in your replies.

 

Yes, i'm sure you are disappointed with this new information because it does not support your position. There are no "puch stats" or Louis-Walcott. They don't exist anywhere. What i'm telling you is that in their coverage of the fight the NY Times and RING magazine both saw Louis land more punches. On this forum, that is of interest to most people.

I know that because I posted it here before, and people were interested. You read it.

Well I certainly acknowledge more of your points than you do mine; I quote reply to many of your individual points. If I didn't answer every single thing you said, perhaps this is why: I've answered them 6, 10 times before. It's all the same. Nothing goes in, and only the same comes out, so why bother? Nevertheless, a brief look back at the posts we've exchanged irrefutably demonstrates that I answered more of your points than you did mine. If you want more attention, provide more attention.

There is no point in discussing this with you i'm afraid. Unless i can provide an example where the fighter behaves exactly as Louis does at the bell, you will not be able to accept it. But the point is ludicrous. There are dozens of fighters who win fights and are miserable about their performance, it happens all the time, over and over again. A very recent example is Lee McGregor-Vincent Legrand. When Lee was announced the victor, he did not smile, he did celebrate, he applauded the crowd and then ran himself down in the post-fight interview. Like Joe Louis, he was clear that he won the fight.

But because Lee doesn't say "sorry, Vincent", you will not accept this as being relevant. Only a fight where the winner does exactly what Louis does would be of pretend-interest to you and even then I suspect you would find a way to wriggle.

So you want me to find a split decision, where the winning fighter was floored twice, and did not floor his opponent, and the film highlights, and the winning fighter has to be "behind on the rounds shown"?

The difference is that you are talking to someone who takes the time to read and understand your posts, rather than someone who appears to be making it up as you go along.

This is another poster from another thread posting about you since your return:

"Its just blatantly obvious you have an agenda and its the same agenda you had/have against Johnson in that you want to discredit him, largely because of the color of his skin. Its pathetic how you cling to these ideas that arent supported by facts in order to not face the reality of the fact that the men you attempt to tear down were great."

I agree with this. When you discussed your return to the forum with me, you claimed that you had "no wish to retread old ground." Since then, you have posted along racial lines, almost exclusively about heavyweights, specifically that Johnson and Louis are bad and Vitali is good. You have been reported, reported other posters, and been in something like an argument every two days. You've accused me of dishonesty in this thread, called another poster racist, and tried to pick a fight with McVey despite my express instructions to the contrary.

This is exactly as you you used to post - there is absolutely no difference.

What did you mean when you said you "didn't want to retread old ground?"

Think hard about what you want to get out of this forum, and what you want to contribute. You said you wanted to come back and were happy to post here but it is absolutely apparent or should be, that this is not going to last. You've been back weeks and are already posting exactly as you used to and making work for me.

You have to understand, you have two permabans under your belt and numerous temporary bans. There is absolutely no reason for me to spend any more time on this than I already have.