Some people had Walcott winning by a big margin, but these are outliers, though not necessarily invalid. The bottom line is that the majority of people on both sides, had one round between them. This in my eyes makes it a fight that can reasonably be argued either way. I am not trying suggest that both fighters have an equally strong case, i am just saying that neither has an overwhelming case! Let's say that Canello beats Jacobs by decision, but the sports writers favor Jacobs by a 70/30 margin, albeit most of them have them about a round apart. Will the issue still be rumbling on years later?
Nonsense, still talking nonsense. Let's just cut to the brass taxes and forget all the nonsense and disingenuousness. I don't care what you think qualifies as an overwhelming case, who has the stronger case? Yes, if the scorecards were 70/30, with some judges having is WIDE for Jacobs, and Canelo won, their absolutely be controversy for many years. If you think not, you're fooling yourself. Their controversy over his fights with GGG, Trout and Lara, and those weren't 70/30 with some cards as wide as 10 rounds. If those were that bad, we'd be hearing ever more about them than we already do.
Just to touch on Louis' black challengers.John Henry Lewis had a problem with one eye but had fought with that for a couple of years and fought successfully,he had won his last 15 fights,8 of them by stoppage and only 9 months previously had ko'd Elmer Ray whom you mention as a possible Louis challenger. I've no idea who deserved the verdict in the first Louis v Walcott fight.It seems two thirds of the press voted for Walcott and a third for Louis,the fact remains those whose vote counted opted for the Champion two to one.The probability is Walcott was entitled to the nod. However Louis commendably gave Walcott a rematch, and no votes were needed for that fight ! Elmer Ray beat one ranked heavyweight ,Walcott by split dec in1947.Walcott had previously ko'd him, and in 1947Walcott beat him on points. Louis then fought the winner of that fight ,Walcott twice ,gaining a controversial decision and then a knockout victory. Ray subsequently beat Charles by split dec in1947 I think I am right in saying Charles was not ranked at the time but Charles then ko'd him in the rematch in1948. Louis was inactive from 42-46 his first fight in his return was against Billy Conn who had given his such a close run in their first match. Had Louis bypassed Walcott who had just beaten Ray or fought Ray instead of Conn I think there would have been a big uproar from the press asking why? Ray has a long line of wins on his sheet ,but close inspection reveals them to be journeymen for the most part. He could justifiably have been one of Louis' challengers but , looking at his record he has no special claim to be .
Also back in those days I believe that they scored for aggressiveness much more than they do now or in modern boxing. I prefer that I think that's important to be aggressive. The champion showed up and made the fight. I can't say who won or not. It was a controversial fight. Joe Louis did what a great Champion is supposed to do in that situation. Even though he was older and could have take another route he gave Walcott a rematch. He knocked him out. One thing's for sure Joe Louis was not and is not was overrated. He was one of the very greatest
Interesting thread to read. Rounds scored for Louis. In fact, the official scorers gave most rounds to Louis in these two fights. The scores in the second fight were Louis 5-2, 4-5, and 3-6, but adding in the 11th as a win for Louis if Walcott beat the count, Louis would have been even on the cards and ahead on rounds won and probably points. Louis had relative trouble with movers--but almost everyone does, so what does this mean really. Godoy--is described as a mover, but looks to me like a strong mauler who prefers fighting out of a crouch and pushing inside. Hardly a mover. Godoy's relative success does raise the issue of how Louis would have done with come forward crouch or bob and weave types like Marciano (even if Louis were younger), Frazier or Dempsey. Certainly food for speculation. As for my scoring of this one, I just haven't seen enough film. Clearly Walcott lost because he gave away the last couple of rounds. I think it legit to ask if a fighter deserves to get a championship decision if he simply tries to run out the clock in the last few rounds while refusing to engage. In those days, this mattered. Ray--interesting point that Walcott might be the only man rated at heavyweight that Ray defeated. Charles was rated at light-heavy. Savold probably not rated at the time they fought. Louis brain damaged?--I don't know what the proof is, but Louis looks well coordinated in these two fights. He just seems to be getting older and slower. Interesting how tall and large he looks. He always seems so much bigger after the war.
Godoy did crouch. But it was a defensive crouch. In the first fight he gave Louis a bit of trouble and I believe Godoy went the distance. To win the title though you must take chances. In fight 2 when he came up out of that crouch to punch that's when he got iced. Joe did take sometimes a rematch to adjust he wasn't as good as perhaps Ali was in making adjustments on the fly. Joe Louis was a smart boxer. Make no mistake he had a high ring IQ. Charlie Goldman one said that a fighter could make a move against Joe Louis and say round two? that move may work he may score and get away with it. If that guy try that same move in round 7 for example Joe would stretch him.
Godoy was a mauling croucher not any kind of a mover,in their first fight he puzzled Louis, but in their second encounter Louis had found the answer, he uppercut the bejazus out of Godoy and left him a bloody mess.
Guys if you crowd somebody it's based on movement. You are constantly moving forward, either straight or using angles to get in close to your foe and avoid being at the end of his punches. You don't only consider it movement when a guy is backing away and moving away. Part of being a swarmer and spoiler is based on your movement and disrupting the accuracy and timing of your foe. Whether it's forwards or backwards.
Just for a little perspective on the scores submitted and how the clearly seem to indicate one fighter deserved the win over another. Even though some find it hard to accept it, it seems true none the less. Below are some of what I found, and the immediate scores below are for the winner being picked by 2 rounds or more. Have a look. I’m sure Janitor will come back with, AGRESSION!!!! 8-5-2 8-6-1 12-2-1 10-4-1 9-6 8-6-1 8-6-1 8-6-1 8-6-1 7-4-4 8-6-1 9-4-2 11-3-1 8-5-2 11-4 11-4 10-5 11-3-1 9-5-1 10-4-1 8-4-3 8-3-4 11-4 8-4-3 9-3-3 9-3-3 12-2-1 8-5-2 8-5-2 Louis 8-6-1 (Chicago) 8-5-2 (NY) 9-6 (NJ) 8-5-2 (Boston) 9-6 (NY) 8-6-1 (NY) 9-6 (NY) 8-5-2 Winner by decisive margin (4 rounds or greater) Winner by 10 Rounds – Walcott (2) Louis (0) Winner by 9 Rounds – Walcott (0) Louis (0) Winner by 8 Rounds – Walcott (2) Louis (0) Winner by 7 Rounds – Walcott (3) Louis (0) Winner by 6 Rounds – Walcott (4) Louis (0) Winner by 5 Rounds – Walcott (3) Louis (0) Winner by 4 Rounds - Walcott (3) Louis (0) Total = Walcott 17, Louis 0 Winner by 2 or 3 rounds (Close but marginally clear) Note, I didn’t include scores of 7-5-3 as an example (Both had them and they were included in 1 round difference results). While there is two rounds difference, if the even rounds went the other way, you could have a different winner. I don’t call that marginally decisive. However, I did include scores of 8-6-1, because while it’s also 2 rounds difference, if the draw was given to the person down, they’d still lose, and if given the other way, it’s 9-6. So I included those and here are the results Winner by Three Rounds – Walcott (6) Louis (6) Winner by Two Rounds – Walcott (6) Louis (2) Totals = Walcott (12) Louis (8) One round difference between them: Walcott (16) Louis (12) Those who picked a winner but didn’t add a score: Walcott (14) Louis (2) So what does this all mean, well, the total number who actually posted scores were 67 (83 total votes) Out of the 67 writers who submitted scores 37 of them had the winner by 2 rounds or more. With 29 of those being for Walcott Out of the 67 writers who submitted scores 28 of them had the winner by 1 round. So this refutes the view that most had it one round each way. In fact, Walcott had 29 scores himself alone that had him winning by more than 2 rounds, compared to the combined totals of 1 round difference being 28. All of the above seems to further indicate how clearly and distinctly most of the people who saw the fight felt Walcott clearly won. Even with him giving away the last two rounds (thinking he was well ahead, which he clearly was), even then he still won by wide margins on many cards. Which I’ll ask the question again, how badly was Walcott outboxing Louis prior to the last 2 rounds to still be chosen the winner, and clearly so, while giving away 2 rounds? Pretty clearly I’d imagine.
I get this ,but Godoy did not go side to side or take a step back,no lateral movement he just came forward.I don't consider that as being a mover in the accepted sense of the word, since it is one dimensional. No criticism of you intended.Godoy nearly touched the canvas with his gloves a couple of times against Louis and Joe was non plussed by him ,for the first fight anyway.
