Jersey Joe Walcott - An Alternative View.

How did you score the first fight between Walcott and Louis?

 

There is a lot of film, but not the full fight. Walcott looks better in the film that is available.

Walcott floored Louis twice. 2/3 of the press ringside who scored it had it for Walcott. Walcott's corner was visibly upset after the decision was announced. The Madison Square Garden Crowd, who was a pro Louis crowed booed the decision loudly. Louis himself had he body language of the loser.

Louis wasn't going to lose on points. Prior to the fight, Walcott's camp had his ref, ( Donovan ) who I think was partial to Louis removed. The replacement ref gave it to Walcott however the other two judges voted for Louis.

[url]https://www.thefightcity.com/joe-louis-vs-jersey-joe-walcott-i/[/url]


Video

This content is protected

 

But you can't disagree with the people who watched the fight themselves and scored it for Louis, surely.

 

Walcott did a De La Hoya and ran the last few rounds, which ultimately cost him the fight.

 

I was reading this thinking you were another psycho, then I cracked up when I reread the thread title.

 

Marciano beat him very unequivocally both times, so there is no need to imagine him winning.

On the other hand, it is not far fetched to imagine him winning the first Louis fight!

That would not have been an exceptionally controversial decision.

Some would have complained, but most would have accepted it.

 

Close thread.

 

This is not a lot, 18 minutes from 45 minutes of action is less than a half. Some of rounds shown here are available in less than minute.

Walcott did nothing in last rounds, he just run away from Louis and that's probably why he lost the fight. It was a fairly close fight and KDs were scored differently then. I can't tell who was better based on such a limited footage, but KDs aren't everything. Otherwise Wladimir should have lost to Povetkin.

 

Walcott won the majority of the rounds. While there is only 18 minutes, it's the best minutes. Non action parts of a fight swing the scoring for neither fighter.

The ending tells us everything. Did you hear the loud boos? Did you see what Louis looked like, and how upset Walcott's corner was?

Wlad floored Povetkin a few times and landed far more punches. I'm not getting that comparison at all.

This content is protected

 

That's alot for me to take in but I'll say this from what I saw of the first Louis fight it looks to me like JJW was stone cold robbed.

 

I think some of the posts in this thread are ludicrous.

Nothing would change in how some of you rate him? Are you kidding?

If, instead of four losses to Louis and Marciano, Jersey Joe Walcott HAD DEFEATED BOTH JOE LOUIS AND ROCKY MARCIANO IN WORLD TITLE FIGHTS ... 'everything' would change.

How far do Marciano and Charles and Schmeling fall all-time with NO wins over Joe Louis? Not do they fall, how FAR do they fall?

But if Walcott had beaten both, that wouldn't have changed anything? Nonsense.

Had Jersey Joe Walcott taken the title from Joe Louis (arguably the greatest heavyweight ever, or no worse than number two), and had he beaten Rocky Marciano, there would have been an enormous shift in heavyweight history and the ripples go for decades.

In this scenario, Joe Louis becomes the first man to regain the title. Walcott becomes the second to regain the title (when he starches Charles).

By the time Floyd Patterson regains the title to become the third man, are we even counting that as an accomplishment? (Who was actually the third man to become a two-time world heavyweight champ? Witherspoon with seperate alphabet belts? Holyfield? Who brings that up when talking about them?)

Without becoming the first man to regain the title, how does that impact Patterson and how he's viewed? Quite a bit, I believe.

If, instead of FOUR losses to Louis and Marciano, Walcott had WINS OVER JOE LOUIS AND ROCKY MARCIANO in world title fights, to go along with his two wins (one by KO) over Ezzard Charles and his wins over Harold Johnson,Elmer Ray, Joey Maxim and "prime' Jimmy Bivins ... to go along with being the OLDEST man to win a world title (a designation he held for 42 years until Big George came along) as well as the second man to regain the World Heavyweight title ... Walcott is a top 10 all-time great.

Had he beaten those two, Walcott would probably be rated higher than Evander Holyfield all-time, wherever people have him.

 

How do you know that? Maybe it's the best Walcott minutes? Anything is possible, it's not like they cut only non-action time - some rounds are filmed with less than 40 seconds.

 

On the contrary, I'm quoting those who saw it live and the press who scored it at ringside. They say Walcott big.

 

How do you know the footage not shown aren't Walcott moments too? It's called highlights for a reason, and Walcott had more of them.

I'll rest on the following

1 ) Those saying customers who saw it live say Walcott and booed the decision hard? Have you heard it?
2 ) There Press at Ringside say Walcott 2-1. Louis was a hero, Walcott hardly in that status Did you see the results?
3 ) The surviving film says Walcott was the better. No arguments here.
4 ) Louis knew he lost. Look at how he looked after the final bell rang. He wanted to exit early, he was restrained by handlers

Supposedly Louis said to Walcott you won that one or something close to it.

 

I'm sure almost every submitted scorecard was within a 2 round swing.