but that's the fun of the classic, we don't KNOW that at all. i thought this thread would be a landslide of support for louis but there have been reasoned arguments on both sides. gotta love this forum:bbb
I don't think we can interpret the outcome of the fight as being anything other than equivocal. If you are going to give the fight to Walcott retrospectivley, then you have to determine on what basis it would have been scored in his favour under the conventions of the day. The New York Times said that Louis landed more punches. This combined with the fact that he forced the fight while Walcott tried to steer clear of him, was always going to give him a strong argument in an era when forcing the fight was seen as important. Also, if Louis was landing more punches then we could hardly characterise his agression as being inefective. So at the end of the day, the argument for awarding the fight to Walcott would be based largley on defence and ring generalship, in an era when these were less highly valued in terms of scoring. Perhaps cleaner punches and the knockdowns would be enough to sneak it for him, but it is hardly an overwhelming argument.
if i showed you highlights of chavez vs taylor 1, showing you most of the rounds but focusing only on the cleanest, hardest punches and how the fighters looked at the end of the fight you would think it was a chavez whitewash and not a brilliant display in combination punching from taylor. highlights, summaries and how fighters looked at the end only tell part of the story and without full footage we cannot judge ourselves who won the fight. if we're going by respected reports from the day, walcott edged it in the opinion of most as mcgrain noted. but today, we simply don't have the footage to make our own conclusions
til the day i die i'll believe mike tyson saw greb-walker from d'amato's private collection. in that same collection may reside walcott-louis 1