Syndicated article that quoted a bunch of writers who thought Walcott was obviously robbed. United Press, How Sports Writers Viewed the Fight, Press and Sun-Bulletin, Dec. 6, 1947 Here’s how some of the nation’s sports writers saw the Joe Louis-Jersey Joe Walcott fight: Shirley Povich, Washington Post—“They staged the great Madison Square Garden holdup at 11:20 o’clock Friday night when they held up the hand of Joe Louis and brazenly proclaimed him ‘still champion of the world.’ “Victim of the boldest robbery in modern heavyweight annals was 33-year-old Jersey Joe Walcott, the 10 to 1 shot, who locked Louis convincingly in 15 rounds and then was frisked of the title by the stunning decision of the judges.” Joe Williams, New York World Telegram—“An unprecedented thing happened in Madison Square Garden last night. Joe Louis actually surrendered the heavyweight championship of the world—but two men representing the State Boxing Commission in the capacity of judges refused to permit him to go through with it.” John Webster, Philadelphia Inquirer—“Battered, bloody Joe Louis retained the world’s heavyweight championship in 15 rounds through the medium of the most unfair decision rendered in our times. Following closely upon the Fox-LaMotta whatwasit, the decision should be enough to kill boxing in New York State.” Al Abrams, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette sports editor: “The heavyweight championship crown Joe Louis had worn proudly for more than 10 years, rocked, tottered and reeled all over Madison Square Garden Friday night, but it was finally righted atop his bloodied and bowed head by one of the rawest decisions ever perpetuated in a championship battle. “Joe was whipped, and whipped soundly, by Jersey Joe Walcott….” Lewis Burton, New York Journal-American: “It was the first tie in the modern history of the prize ring that the heavyweight titleholder had kept his throne through a decision which the vast majority of observers, expert and inexpert alike, considered entirely unjust.” Al Buck, New York Post: “The old champion just hasn’t got it any more and the only reason he still owns the title is that the boxing commission’s scoring rules backfired. He was licked by Jersey Joe Walcott in the Garden last night and he knew it and so did Jersey Joe. Only the judges had Louis ahead on rounds, which was possible [SIC?].” Wilbur Wood, sports editor, N.Y. Sun: “Jersey Joe Walcott did everything possible to wrest the world heavyweight boxing title from Joe Louis…except to win the votes of the two judges….Louis himself thought the title was gone.”
Joe Louis is overrated. Walcott beat him, Charles beat him, Marciano crushed him, even Light Heavy Conn had him in trouble, Journey man Godoy ran him close. His best fight against Baer is clouded by the fact that Baer Broke his hand in the Second round and became target practice after it. He was no doubt an all time great, but he has benefited from rose colored glasses over the years.
Two thirds of the ringside press voted for Walcott, but a third voted for Louis. "A ringside poll of 32 boxing writers had 21 scoring the bout for Walcott, ten scoring it for Louis and one calling it a draw." No one alive has seen the complete fight.I would not presume to give an opinion on a fight I have only seen highlights of.
A third of the reporters voted for Louis.Louis stated in his autobiography that he had no doubts he deserved the decision because he made the fight. He repeated this opinion on live nationwide TV with Walcott sitting next to him. He said he wanted to leave the ring because of his poor performance but he NEVER EVER said he lost that fight.
Just watched Braddock vs Louis, and Braddock was much better than I thought. I can see why Louis said he was one of his toughest fights. Not that it had much to do with the thread other than the fact that a fairly limited fighter in Braddock ,also did well against Joe. Joe proved his greatness by winning of course. Still....... the question marks against Louis is growing for me.
You can make the same arguments about pretty much all fighters. Almost everyone has key wins against opponents who weren't at their best, and more trouble they should against certain fighters. Louis fought a ton of great fighters, and only had one loss, which he avenged, until he was shot to pieces. Even if you wanted to count the Walcott fight as a loss, Louis still avenged it. Imagine if you treated Evander Holyfield as harshly as people treat the earlier champs. Won the title from fat Buster Douglas, defended against Holmes and Foreman in their 40's and stopped neither, despite the fact both had been stopped before, lost the series to Bowe, lost to Light Heavyweight Michael Moorer, lost to Lennox Lewis, and was stopped by a pumped up and past it Middleweight James Toney.
Yes ,you make a strong case.I am a huge Louis fan but," fought a ton of great fighters?" Baer,Schmeling,Conn,Charles,Walcott,Marciano. Lewis and Sharkey I pretty much discount. Six? Certainly more than a lot of champs managed.
Baer broke his hand Schmeling beat him Conn was beating him Walcott got Robbed Charles Beat him Marciano nearly killed him. Yeah, This is what it is.
Ezzard Charles himself after they fought said Louis should retire, and that you could take nothing away from Louis for losing, yet still check the state of his face. This content is protected
Schmeling beat him ,and was destroyed in the return. Conn was beating him, but got cocky ,he wasn't in the rematch. Walcott we haven't seen the complete fight so no comment. Louis ko'd him in the rematch. Louis was past it when Charles got him. Further past it when he fought Rocky.
Louis was doing good in his comeback, until Rocky. You can see he still had accuracy and power by looking a EZ's left eye. I have no idea how he survived with his vision blocked like that, but he still won.
Yeah, Joe Louis was a great fighter. But still struggled with the other greats or lost to them. That cannot be discounted.
I think his power was significantly diminished, a look at his results shows that.Louis damaged Charles eye and marked up Marciano's face with his left jab.