Was Louis-Walcott I a robbery?

The decision was poor, if considered on a round-fr-round basis.

The unlikely emerging Walcott needed to 'rip' the title away rather than deserve it.

When the time came to put the foot on the gas in the last couple of rounds he shot himself there by deciding to cruise.

Walcott was only ever going to win that fight if he made it back & white...he didn't.

 

That fight was only supposed to be an exhibition fight, right? But because of a New York rule that said any fight with a champion that was to go over six had to be a title fight?

I loved Walcott's style. Very telling I think the way Louis walked into his right hand, especially when we fantasy match him with Ali: Walcott squared!

 

You're correct about the rule, but in many ways Walcott was more difficult to read than Ali.

 

Here are some snippets about the fight from contemporary newspapers:

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

 

Yea it was a decision where Louis got the benifit of being Champion but I think it was clear that Walcott won

 

Louis had a special relationship with ref's and people working in Madison Square Garden courtesy of his manager.


Walcott likely won the fight in rounds 9-6, and scored two knockdowns. The decision was one of the worst in heavyweight history. Although Walcott lost the decision, he won the crowd. The crowd gave Wlacott a standing ovation, and Louis a thunderous chord of boos.

 

Is there any recorded general consensus of ringside writers scorecards?

I have never seen the whole fight and have only read what you guys have ...

From what I have seen the fights do prove Louis had a better chin than many think as Walcott not only dropped him three times but tagged him amny time through out both fights and Joe came firing back ... as a matter of fact, right before Joe Louis KO's Walcott in the rematch Walcott rocks him with a monster shot ...

Walcott could really swat but he was a poor finisher ...

 

The bottom line?

Walcott outboxed Louis landing cleaner punches and showing better ring generalship.

Louis landed more punches and pressed the fight.

I think that it is possible to score the fight for Louis fairly under the conventions of the period but this should not be taken as an unqualified endorsment of the verdict on my part.

The SD reflects the closness of the fight.

 

The story goes, Walcott dropped Louis a few times in sparring sessions prior to the fight, and said he was easy to hit. Walcott's camp also protested the initial referee Donavan, and had him replaced by another guy.

I agree with you. Walcott is a poor finisher. Part of this was Walcott’s style. The other part is Walcott’s pure power was a tad over rated. Much of Walcott's power was based on timing and well placed shots.

For those who have not seen the re-match, Walcott was also in the lead by a few rounds before the KO. For some reason Walcott decided to get cute and trade with Louis, then got caught.

 

Tell that to Ezzard Charles.

 

Walcott landed a perfect hook on Charles. I doubt Charles saw it coming. Charles, who was knocked down 30 times in his career went down and out.

In boxing, the punch that can hurt you most is the one you do not see coming. In addition, a clean hook to the jaw is one of the hardest shots to take.

Walcott nailed Charles with a double whammy.

 

Tell that to Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Harold Johnson, Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins. Im sure they will disagree with you. all SIX of those hall of famers hit the deck hard after tasting walcotts power.

 

Ezzard Charles at the time had over 70 professional fights never been down for the 10 count. he was knocked out cold! marciano hit charles with shot after shot and charles didnt go down the way he did like vs walcott!

 

I could argue that this knockout is the epitomy of the perfect finish as administered by Bob Fitzsimmons or Sam Langford.