Joe Louis v Jersey Joe Walcott 1

I notice that Mendoza's motives have been questioned by some. I think it fair to him and useful to post again his top ten heavyweights which he posted on a separate thread a few days ago:

1--Muhammad Ali
2--Larry Holmes
3--Lennox Lewis
4--Joe Louis
5--George Foreman
6--Wlad Klitschko
7--Jim Jeffries
8--Rocky Marciano
9--Evander Holyfield
10-Vitali Klitschko

While I and perhaps most others might rate Louis higher--I rate him #2 behind Ali--I find this a very justifiable list. Rating Holmes and Lewis above Louis can be easily supported. And the top five undercuts any claim of racism.

 

I'm not 100% on what's available full length and what isn't, so I'll just have to say probably quite a few. As for being lucky, I know it, and in a lot of ways!

 

heres your shot mcvey yo compile the list .. . like he said could be quite a few .. I bet there's a wealth of more boxing knowledge in that smart man's mind

 

Did you see the whole fight on film? If so, can you direct me where to find it?

 

DJ watched it live.

Lucky bugger!

 

Ah shoot! I was hoping he had the film!

 

Weren't we all!!!!!

 

Great to see you back DJ. That brain scan transfer to film sounds like a worthy subject for treatment by the makers of BLACK MIRROR.

Technologically possible or not, no one is getting to my brain. There are other things in there that should never be seen - and I don't want them "leaked" out by accident and going viral on YouTube.

 

I have a high regard for Djanders he is a nice fella and a fine poster.

 

Thank you, you have saved me a lot of typing. I find it bizzare that anybody could come down definitely on either side if only edited and limited film is available of a fight, a fight that the judges went 2-1 for one fighter and reporters by a 2:1 ratio for the other fighter, especially as the reporters sample is significent, A few posters mentioned modern scoring or the must ten system, you have to go by the rules of that contest, might as well apply LPR! BTW I personally judged 100's and 100's of fights over 15 years(amateur) and the least people's opinion I respected were reporters, a lot hadn't a clue how to score a fight. Coaches, boxers and ex-boxers seemed to me to be much better. I will say one thing, there is no way that this fight can be considered a robbery on our evidence. I thought GGG clearly won the second Canelo fight but I also know it was no robbery.

 

I watched the 2ndGGG v Canelo fight in a sports bar in Thailand with two Texans,we all thought GGG deserved the win.

 

Robbery depends on definition does it not? In a fight where one fighter out lands the other , scored two knockdowns are and himself was not floored and the press thinks it is a bad decision and the crowd agrees, its definitely a bad decision at very least. You be hard pressed to find examples all of above being a win in the history or boxing! I agree the GGG vs.Canelo 2 match as well as the first match were bad decisions. Keep in mind he was boxing's house fighter and $$$ man to them which is why I say the official judges of the fights had him as the winner. That cheapens the sport.

 

Can't agree. If 1 out of 3 impartial reporters side with the official winner then I can't call that a robbery without seeing the fight. BTW knockdowns are irrelevant in the scoring system used. They just, in all probability, win a round. it is quite possible that Walcott deserved the nod but I can't be sure. Neither can anybody else that did not see the complete fight.

 

Agreed! And punches thrown and landed does not tell the tale either when going by rounds only. If my memory's correct, Walcott definitely looked to be landing the most shots, though I didn't count them, and he also dropped Joe twice. Scoring by rounds did not look like a robbery. I believe what happened was: Walcott won rounds by wide margins, whereas Joe's won rounds were closer. The overall impression would have been that Walcott won the fight. However, when scoring purely by rounds, there really was no robbery, IMHO.

 

Agreed. I don't agree with the exact order he has them in, and I'd have Dempsey on there for sure, and perhaps some others, but it's still a good list. Those listed were certainly all great Heavyweights! No argument there!