Agree with you on most accounts here. Those could be posted, and it would be fine to post them for an overall picture. It seems though, they are hard to find for some reason or other. Kind of weird it's hard to lay your hands on their accounts of the fight. It could be like McGrain said, and they saw which way the wind was blowing and didn't want to get run over.
Most of the writers who picked Louis were from NY, which was very much a pro Louis part of the country. Most of the other writers from the other states had Walcott winning. It was the NY contingent that seemed to vote for Louis, which is frankly not all that surprising. So were the people who voted for Pac from the Philippines?
Everyone has some trouble with movers. Godoy wasn't a slick mover though. Godoy was a mauler, a spoiler who came forward in a crouch and held and mauled. Certainly Louis was a fighter who tended to be at his best when he could have both his feet firmly planted, so opponents that moved around a lot could render him less effective, at least for a while. He could still box and land his jabs against the movers but it wasn't best for him to shine against. Pastor gave him some trouble the first time, for example. Max Schmeling was the only guy to really beat him when he was near his prime though, and no one would call Max a slick mover. Walcott could have some success with his style, yes. But it's very unlikely that he could survive 15 rounds with a prime Louis, nevermind actually win.
This is a fair well balanced post. Don't really disagree with too much, maybe only in our percentages of Walcott surviving, but that's neither here nor there at this point. Pastor was another example, and a good one to point out. Godoy used movement to disrupt joe, it just wasn't slick evasive movement. More crowding and crouching movement as you said.
The New York Times claimed that Louis landed more punches than Walcott. Now obviously we don't have full footage of the fight, but if Louis did out land Walcott, and he was the aggressor throughout, then that is going to leave Walcott pretty dependent on his defense to win the decision. Based upon this chain of reasoning, I would have to conclude that scoring the fight in favor of Louis, was probably within the discretion of the officiators. A third of the writers scoring the fight for Louis is a minority, but still what you would call a significant minority. I think that the truth is a bit more complex than some people try to make out today.
NY was pro Louis, so it's not surprising most of the only votes in Louis favor came from NY writers. We can play this game all day, other sources claim that Walcott convincingly beat Louis and made him look foolish. Other claimed it was the worst decision in recent memory. So like you say, if it's true that Walcott made Louis look silly and convincingly won, so if that's true, and Walcott KD Louis twice, and wasn't himself, that would leave Louis needing a KO to win. Shall I quote the pro Walcott writers and say what they said, and then attach the If true, this is going to make it very hard for Louis to win? We can play that game, but we clearly know where the ammo lies. Not sure why you continue to take the disingenuous approach. Most admit Walcott probably won, and by a decent margin. You always came back with... well... 1/3 of the writers say Joe Louis won, so if true, Joe Louis won.... Jesus. Why on God's green earth do you think the 1/3 view words count as much as the 2/3's view, and try and weigh them the same? They aren't the same, they are the clear and decisive minority. The majority felt Louis was made to look foolish and amateurish, but the 1/3 of mostly all NY writers must trump them... surely....
Why do you think that the New York parers were pro Louis? It is plausible, but it can't simply be asserted without evidence. When you get a controversial decision, you can always find somebody who overstates the case. Be wary of cherry picking. Not necessarily. Scoring during that period favored aggression heavily. If Louis was the man forcing the fight, and he was landing more punches, then even if he looked bad doing it, that would have given him an argument under the conventions of the day. I don't think that, but the question that we are surely asking, is whether it was a robbery, or a controversial decision? I wouldn't personally call a 2/1 majority in favor of the loser a robbery. If it was a 10/1 margin in favor of the loser, maybe then you use the term robbery! You sometimes see people write "Walcott won, as if that had been the official decision! I am afraid that you need much better evidence than this, if you want to treat it as a win for Walcott in all but name!
Personally I do. I think that the fighters who gave a prime Louis trouble, had very different styles from Walcott, and engaged him a lot more. If Walcott couldn't beat this version of Louis in two attempts, then he is very lucky that he never faced a prime version!
I also find it quite annoying that detractors of the era try to turn it into a loss for both fighters. The same people who insist that it was a loss for Louis in all but name, are very quick to pour pales of manure over Walcott's head, because it took him multiple attempts to win the title. If he beat Louis in all but name, then he won the title on his first attempt in all but name. At some point you have to pick a side and stick with it!
Most champs from Ali to present would have bounced Braddock out of there sooner. Braddock has not fought in a while and managed to floor Louis in one round and win another. If you want the hard facts, organized I might add, you should check out my thread on how Louis did vs the best boxers he faced....Schmeling, Conn, Charles, and Walcott. He lost far more rounds than he won. Spin machines can't change these facts. [url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/joe-louis-scorecards-vs-the-best-boxers-he-fought.551508/[/url] In his time, most historians didn't view Louis as great as he is now. I'm convinced Louis hero actions out of the ring, and night vs Schmeling when he was captain American combined with flashy Ko's over the bum of the month's type made his stats skyrocket. After all hero's are never underrated, are they? Walcott won the first fight. And he was well in the lead in the 2nd fight until he got cute and caught.
Part of the problem here is, you're coming from a position that is seemingly forgetting about the key facts of the opposite position as if they don't exist. It's weird. You'll cite somebody saying a "cherry picked" comment of somebody in the minority, and say what if that's true; then when I say a quote from the side in the majority, and say what if, you come back with, be careful not to cherry pick? To me it's weird to take a position that forget about key obvious facts the point to a different position, and then continually say that it could've been the right decision. When to me, the evidence seems to point to walcott likely winning. You'll even say, if walcott couldn't beat Joe Louis 2 times past his prime, what will he do in it. When, um, he did likely beat Joe Louis the very first time he fought him. Anyways. Like here, you keep saying that Joe Louis pressed the fight and thus aggression was a decent factor back then. Umm yeah, but why would we picture a fight where Walcott is running around the ring? That doesn't seem logical. Isn't it more logical that Walcott wasn't running with Joe Louis chasing, when he KD Joe Louis down 2 times? In the footage we do see, he's engaging and there going toe to toe is clips. Yet I'm supposed to imagine this scene of Joe Louis chasing down this fighter who's intent on running and not engaging, and thus YES, no wonder Joe Louis got the decision.. aggression. Why would I picture that, when the picture I seem to come up with is Walcott using movement to frustrate Joe's timing and engaging throughout the fight. Walcott did his thing and moved at times, but that didn't stop him from earning decisions it would seem, so I'm just not seeing this thing where Louis got all this credit for seemingly getting his ears boxed off for large portions of the fight, but he must've been super aggressive!! I guess. You see, so this is kinda the issue we run into cause I just not sure why you think your vision is the most believable when it seems to be the least believable quite clearly to me. Who said anything about it being a Robbery? I didn't. I simply have come from a position that Walcott likely won that fight, and maybe even, by a decent margin, but at the least did enough to win. You seem to be coming from a position that the 1/3 is more important, and Louis likely did enough to win. I guess, I just don't see how you think that is likely. Anything is possible, but with what we have in front of us, I think the better position is Walcott likely won that fight.
To be fair, 1/3 is a significant minority. I find myself in the minority sometimes when it comes to how I score fights, and I really wouldn't question or doubt myself if my verdict happened to align with "only" 1/3. So ... for a fight I haven't seen, I wouldn't make a judgement against the 1/3 and side with the 2/3. So, I tend to give Walcott credit for a "WIN" by default, simply because (well, Jersey Joe could do with one less "L" on his record, anyway) ...... but at the same time I can't say Louis deserved to LOSE the fight either. I give them both the benefit of the doubt here. Seems fair.
I agree that 1/3 is a decent minority, but it isn't weighted more than the 2/3 majority, which is the point really. I have no issue with somebody bringing up the 1/3, as long as they understand the stronger evidence lay on the other side of the argument. When you look at the overall picture, the highlights we see, the 2 KD's with none in return, Joe's and crowds reactions, the round by round by writers which give the appearance of a clear Walcott win... all that seems to support the notion that Walcott likely won, more than, maybe the verdict was correct for Joe Louis. That's all I'm saying. I find it weird to be arguing from a position that the verdict was likely the correct one with everything we know. If you can see a fight, and use your own criteria, then sure I'd feel somewhat comfortable going against the 2/3's. However, when you can't see a fight, that makes it even more important to rely on the people who did see it. Which again illustrates the point that 2/3's should naturally count for more. Just like the other points mentioned above, in a fight you haven't seen, when added to the 2/3's seem decently solid to come up with the phrase "Walcott likely won that fight" more so than "The verdict was likely the correct one".
