Why was Joe Louis so horrible?

No one could defeat Marciano at that age and it shows how good Walcott was he was a late bloomer though. The only two fighters I give any chance to against a prime Marciano at 40 odd would be Lewis and Foreman, and when I say a chance that is what I mean, Rocky would be favourite.

 

...

 

A New York Times writer by the name of James P. Dawson, had Louis winning, 8-7.

In the Ring Magazine February 1948 Issue, Nat Fleischer wrote:

HANDWRITING on WALL for CHAMPION JOE LOUIS

Joe's Sour Experience in Disappointing Fight With Walcott Stressed the Fact That the Bomber Was Near the End of His Glory ​

By NAT FLEISCHER

The handwriting is on the wall for Joe Louis. The , Brown Bomber is as convinced as is the general public. that his days as world heavyweight king are numbered. After ten years' reign as champion, it took an older man than himself, Joe Walcott of Camden, New Jersey, to convince the monarch that he had better retire if he hopes to ·remain undefeated. As a result of the split verdict victory that Louis gained over Jersey Joe in Madison Square Garden on the night of December 5, one of the greatest controversies in the wake of a heavyweight title bout since the second Tunney-Demp*sey fight is on.



The Bomber retained his crown by virtue of the votes of two judges, Marty Monroe, who gave Louis nine rounds to six for Walcott, and Frank Forbes, who voted eight rounds for the champion, six for the challenger and one even. Referee Ruby Goldstein, who did a splendid job in handling the big fellows, tabbed Walcott the winner seven to six, and two even.



The Camden veteran lost so far as the majority of the officials were concerned. But in the eyes of more than two thirds of the press rows and fans who attended the fight, Walcott should have received the verdict.



The booing and hissing following the announcement of the winner, the thousands of telegrams and telephone calls that flooded the Boxing Commission, the Garden, the Governor's mansion at Albany, and the box office, testified to the belief that the richest prize in pugilism belongs to bald-headed Jersey Joe.


I AM one of those in the minority. My score card showed Louis the winner by a margin of 8 to 6 rounds and one even, though my point score had Walcott ahead. Thus I side with Forbes and Monroe. Had the bout taken place in any state where the point system rules, I would have declared Walcott the winner. But since the New York rules call for a decision to be rendered on a round-by-round basis except where the rounds are even, Louis gained the victory.



In New York, the rules read: "At the end of the contest, the boxer winning the greatest number of rounds shall be declared the winner. Should it develop that both contestants have an equal number of rounds won, the 'decision may be given to the one who has the greater number of points. Should the points also be even, the officials may award the decision to the contestant who is in the better physical 'condi*tion at the end of the bout.



"It shall be discretionary with ring officials to award the de*cision to the boxer who has a lesser number of rounds than his opponent only in cases where in the judgment of the ring officials said contestant has inflicted the greater amount of damage and has proven his definite superiority over the opponent during the contest and has finished in a better physical condition. The total points of such a winner shall be more than those of his opponent."



It was on the last section of the boxing rules that Joe Webster, Walcott's manager, based his claim that Forbes erred in awarding the verdict to Louis since his point score tallied twelve for Walcott and nine for Louis. But Webster's claim was tossed out by the commission.



,In Forbes' judgment there was no reason for him to use his dis*cretion and award Walcott the fight on points because, as Forbes said, the rounds given to Louis, based on the fact that he carried the fight to his challenger and landed the greater number of blows, were sufficient to earn the verdict.

 

This thread is very poor.

The man defended his title 25 times against ranked opponents.

Seriously, do you know anything about the sport?

Also, claiming to be a historian doesn't make you one, especially since you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Thanks for that

 

good stuff

 

Thanks, Henry.

Good info--two thirds of the press thought Walcott won, but Louis had the support of a strong minority. New York State's odd scoring system based on rounds rather than points seems to have really aided Louis in this bout.

 

Also it seems like some of the prominant sportswriters who scored for Louis did so out of pashion and respect for Joe Louis using there hearts rather than heads. Remember. Stylish flashy boxing back then was no revered the way it is today, walcott's style was not well liked or respected by some of the big sportswriters back then the way it is today....and I think that had something to do with Daley and Fleischers opinion.

 

The Associated Press poll of newspaper writers who attended the first Louis-Walcott fight found that of the 33, twenty of them, or 60%, thought Walcott won.

That's a far cry from Arthur Daley's comment, "This writer thought Charles won and so did every reporter near him." In a second article, Daley wrote that not a single writer on his side of the ring thought Walcott won. Describing the decision as a "felony," Daley could only find 3 rounds for Walcott. After the fight, Walcott's handlers explaining Walcott's passivity by claiming that they told him to "box carefully" and "held him back."

Charles battered Walcott's body thoughout and had Walcott hurt on several occasions. Charles was never hurt. He dominated Walcott. If justice had been served, he would have been the first heavyweight to regain the championship. Charles fans should be pissed!

There was a lot of attention drawn to Zack Clayton's actions, which were heavily biased in favor of Walcott. Charles was being called on all sorts of things. Walcott was fouling and Clayton let it go. Ringsider reported overhearing Clayton encouraging Walcott to work harder. "Come on, Baby," he said. Ray Arcel was especially angry over Clayton's interference.

Back to Louis-Walcott, as the New York Times noted, even those who thought Walcott won had trouble explaining how the fighter running away can lift the heavyweight title. Walcott's handlers blamed themselves for telling Walcott to run away during the latter part of the fight. The admit their strategic error.

The point remains that whether you give Walcott the first Louis fight and Charles the fourth Walcott fight OR go with the official scoring, Walcott's championship record remains the same. And it's not very impressive.

One thing that keeps showing up in all these articles in reference to Walcott is this phrase "ringworn." It doesn't make Louis look good to lose to a journeyman routinely described ub this fashion.... especially given that Louis was younger than Walcott!

 

Walcott matured later as a fighter remember the world had just fought a war for six years, this was peak Walcott who was a very clever skillful fighter at this time.

 

This nonsensical thread should have been closed down for the title of it alone. It's proper place, if anywhere, should have been the General Forum, where UFC know-nothings abound.

 

the thread where louis opposition are discussed, then the newspapers reports of their fights and how louis seemed to struggle against them was quite interesting.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

If Jimmy Young had fought in the mid 40s he wouldnt have atracted flies to sh1t with his style.

 

1, Okay--20 of 33 writers (61%) thought Walcott beat Louis in 1947. According to Ring Magazines poll of ringside writers printed in Ring, August, 1952, issue 24 of 41 ringside writers (59%) thought Charles defeated Walcott. They also added radio announcer Bill Corum and Lester Bromberg as favoring Walcott. The split Louis decision was booed and highly controversial. The unanimous Walcott victory was cheered.

2. "Charles battered Walcott's body thoughout and had Walcott hurt on several occasions. Charles was never hurt. He dominated Walcott."

This is Dan Daniel in the Ring Coverage of this fight, August, 1952 issue, page 43-----"Third, we have the fact that neither man was hurt to any extent, that there wasn't even the semblance of a knockdown. They appeared to have staggered each other on a couple of occasions. But at no time was either ringster in danger."

"Charles never displayed the speed or the sustained attack that he required to gain his objective. Though he possessed youth compared to his opponent, he never took advantage of that great asset. At times he was aluggish. Often he misjudged his distance and the punches landed in the air.
"With a million dollars facing him, a goal for which he should have gone all out to gain he took no chances. When opportunity beckoned, he wasn't there to take advantage of it."

Now, in fairness, Daniel actually voted for Charles, but this description is hardly of "domination'.

3. It seems to me both of these fights were controversial, but the 1947 fight far more so. The reason is pretty clear. Walcott knocked Louis down in two separate rounds. He got no credit for that in the scoring system. Charles never had Walcott off his feet or in severe trouble.