How the nation's sportswriters saw Louis-Walcott [1947]

It's also worth pointing out Louis had an injured, though not broken, right hand from the 5th round.

 

Exacty. It means nothing really. He was faded post war, AND he was coming off a 15 month lay-off since the Tami Mauriello fight.
Whereas Walcott had fought 4 ten-rounders in those 15 months.
As mentioned elsewhere, Walcott was a very well-preserved fighter at that age (some say he was PRIME even), whereas Louis was more typically "old".
The fact that Louis knocked him out in the rematch illustrates his superiority clearly.

 

Tough to say for sure, I'm neither a neurologist nor a boxing expert, but to the extent that it affects coordination and by extension punching technique, it seems to me highly plausible, yes, bordering on inevitable. Whether the effect would be pronounced or mild I could only guess, and not very well.

 

There are people who also think Pac beat May, but I'm not all that interested in why they thought that.

 

We've all seen that fight in its entirety. So not a great comparison. None of us need to consider anyone else's opinion on fights we've seen, really.

My question was actually prompted by the title of the article/thread "how the nation's sportswriters saw ...... "
I would have thought they'd at least be some token representative from the dissenters who reckoned Louis won, if they existed (people often claim "one third" of the ringside reporters had it for Louis) .... you know, if we're going to say "the nation's sportswriters", at least some representation from the 1/3 minoity viewpoint.
Maybe they were all non-Americans ??

 

He's certainly superior career wise, and legacy wise, but vs. matchups can be funny like that. I could name many fighters who are superior overall to another, but that didn't stop them from losing to a fighter lesser than them because of styles. If the sparring session is to be believed, and a minor extrapolation made, that was a prime Louis, and Walcott was handling him fine. Depending on who you believe, he was removed from camp because he was make Louis look silly. In the first fight, while hard to accept for some, it's pretty darn likely he should've won. Look at the round by round scoring posted by the few that did do round by round. It wasn't the least bit close. It was a boxing lesson by most accounts. Even when he KO'd him in the rematch and apparently showed "clear" superiority, he was still be clearly outboxed and was KD again. It seems, one of the only reason he caught Walcott was when he was showboating around the ring. His fault for taking Louis lightly and not keeping his guard up. But he was clearly very confident that he had his number.... he mentioned the sparring prior to their first fight, the first fight certainly didn't give him any question marks on who he thought was better, and the second fight continued much the same.... So he got overconfident and caught. All that just doesn't strike me that Walcott was a good matchup for Louis, no matter when they would've met.

 

I see why you took it that way, but that isn't the way I meant it. What I mean is, whether I've seen a fight or not, if the vast majority sportswriters think one person won, from the highlights I see that Walcott KD Louis 2 times and know he was never knocked down himself, I see Louis reaction and the crowds reaction after the fight. I really don't need to see who thought Louis won and why. I'd be like watching a HL of a MMA fight, and you see one guy knocking the other guy down multiple times and landing big blows, while clearly confident of his superiority and prancing around the ring. You dont' see the whole fight on sportscenter, but in the HL you do see, you don't see the other guy doing all that much to counteract the overall general perception of the HL's you saw and the outrage you're now hearing about. So if somebody said, hey, do you want to see what the people said who actually thought fighter x won?... I certainly might take a pass, unless I attached some possible comedic value to seeing what they had to say. Besides that, I would have no need to see what they said, because I would already inherently believe them to be wrong.

 

I don't care about sparring. Louis's version was that Walcott quit because he couldn't take it ... but again, just another story. Who cares.

I think Louis proved his superiority, yes, clearly.
The general consensus is that Louis was clearlly past his prime and not getting better and that Walcott was as about as good as he'd ever been (or would ever be). Look at their trajectories.
And Louis KO'd him in the rematch.
You can talk about Walcott being overconfident .... well, Louis was clearly overconfident and underprepared the first time, wasn't he ? Coming off a 15 month lay-off and regarded Walcott as a second-rater.
Of course, it wasn't the first nor the last time Walcott would be KO'd.

Let's be realistic, a 1938 -1942 Louis would KO any version of Walcott that ever existed, all day and every day.

 

Well, in any case, I don't actually have to know what any of them thought.
Beyond seeing the highlights and knowing the bare facts that X amount thought Walcott won, and only Y amount thought Walcott won.
But since mrkoolkevin posted the article that quoted the opinions of the Walcott contingent, it appears to me to make absolute sense to consider what the Louis lot said .... if any of this is of any consequence at all.
I mean, I'm not trying to figure out how I'd score it. I'm not looking to make a judgement (though I accept Walcott as probable winner as a default position). It's all trivia, the kind of stuff that is "of interest" to us. Or not.

 

One could realistically say that, and that very well could be true in a prime for prime matchup. That said, Louis even in his prime, had an issue with movers. Godoy as an example as well as with Conn. Slick movers coming in and out and using movement is always something that appeared to bother Joe some. He had no issue with big strong tough guys or even technical guys.... but slick movers... he'd always struggle with because of his own movement. Do you disagree that Walcott would always give him more problems from a style point of view than other styles?