Good god almighty!! But you know what, 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 And Louis was so disgusted by his performance that he attempted to leave the ring as soon as the fight ended. Just to show how terrible this robbery really was!!
Nope Louis was disgusted by his performance, but in his own mind had no doubt he won the fight ,and this can be found in his autobiography .He reiterated this on national TV in the TV program The Way It Was ,with Jersey Joe sitting next to him,you like many others , have put the wrong interpretation on his actions. See for yourself! [url]Joe Louis vs. Jersey Joe Walcott I & II [SPECIAL] The way it was w Don Dunphy - YouTube[/url] Good God Almighty!lol
I think if over 30% don't see a fight as a win for one fighter, then it is hardly a robbery, a contentious decision, maybe an incorrect one, bur a robbery...don't think so.
Hi Matt Are you treating 30% as the line in the sand or just ball parking the writers who saw it Joe’s way as 30% +? It was an exact 32% in favour of Joe so it could be seen as close to a robbery if we’re only talking a 2% margin beyond the threshold. Otherwise what do you think would be the min. requirement to lift a fight out of robbery territory, maybe 25% or possibly lower? Just clarifying. Thanks.
As to robberies, the two that peeved me the most were Ali v Norton III and Leonard Hearns II. Norton was a good guy, even realistically accepting that fight II could’ve gone either way. IMO, he was clearly robbed in the rubber due to Ali’s aura and fanfare. He then had to suffer being side stepped as a mandatory challenger and the indignity of later being known as a paper Champ. He defends against no less a challenger than Larry freaking Holmes, loses a razor thin decision and then goes on to be known as the only HW Champ to have never won a World Title Fight. Well he did actually win one, against Ali. Leonard had a lot go right right in his career in terms of good fortune while Tommy, less careful in his timing and opponent selection, had some ups and downs. By the time of Fight II, Ray thought Tommy was an easy mark. Wrong. Hearns dumps Ray twice and deserved of clear decision win IMO. The draw was for Ray, not Tommy. Sad part was, Tommy was chuffed enough just to have seen out the fight, particularly his surviving under heavy duress at certain points. Not finishing fight I must’ve been a real stigma for Tommy and he seemed sufficiently buoyed to have “redeemed”‘ himself in respect of that perceived failure. He did a lot more than, he kicked Ray’s a** and was really shafted by the judges. In boxing, the observation of the rich getting richer and the poor getting the picture is often applicable also.
Ballparking as you said, just over 34% did not give the nod to Walcott. Hadn't thought of the line in the sand before but your figure of 25% seems reasonable, maybe 20%.
Jeff Fenech vs Azumah Nelson I : Fenech won this fight, and won it decisively and they called it a draw. Fenech was never the same after this robbery. GH
Another GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY. How about this! "And the winner and still champion did not smile or raise his arms in triumph, but instead made his way to Walcott, shook his hand, and said, “I’m sorry, Joe.” [url]https://www.thefightcity.com/joe-louis-vs-jersey-joe-walcott-i/[/url] But yes, indeed, i did read somewhere that Joe Louis said it was a lie, (will try to find the quote) and uttered just about the classiest comment possible after the fight :“I know Ruby,”, “He calls ’em like he sees ’em.”
Louis was sorry it had been such a poor fight,in his own mind at least there was no doubt he had retained his title.He said so in print, and on national TV. that's pretty conclusive by any reasonable standards.
In order of significance? Johnson's robbery against Hart has to be up there. Without it, Hart and Burns probably never become heavyweight champions.
