Bringing up modern scoring with 10-8 rounds is irrelevant. The fight was judged on the scoring rules of the time. Enough people thought Louis won to make it at worst a controversial call that could have gone either way. Two of the three judges gave it to Louis. Arthur Daley and James Dawson of the New York Times both scored it for Louis. The Associated Press poll had it 20-14, a small edge for Walcott which hardly suggests robbery. Much was also made of the fact that Walcott was in full retreat in the championship rounds which hurt him, especially in that era where the feeling was that a challenger had to take the title, not merely pinch it. Bill Corum said "with victory hanging there before him as easy to grasp as a golden toy balloon, Jersey Joe turned his back and ran away."
You referencing the judges is funny, umm yeah, we all know the judges voted for Louis. You then repeating the obvious fact that it wasn't judged on modern scoring, is another, umm okayyy? I'm not saying it was. what I saying, and what is factual, is that under modern scoring Walcott wins. Simple. Nothing more, nothing less. Take what you want from that, but it's none the less a fact. I'm not talking about something subjective like aggression or defense or anything of the like.. we're talking KD's which are clear and decisive. Therefore, it's a lot more applicable to any scenario dealing with hypotheticals, and it's a better scoring system. Plain and simple. Say what you wil, but under such a scenario, Walcott wins. Again, another disingenuous comment about Walcott running the last rounds. Why was the running? Maybe it was because he was utterly controlling the fight and literally clowning Joe he was so confident. That is why he was, what you call "running in the championship rounds". It wasn't because he was hurt or in any danger what so ever, to say nothing of him (via highlights), still landing blows when you say he's running. The reality is this, Walcott was doing whatever you're calling it because he was Marshalling the damn fight. He knocked him down 2 damn times. He was out boxing him all over the ring (even using your quotes). So damn right, why not be more cautious to secure something you think is in the bag? Please. Stop being disingenuous like you're making a point. Futher, your counts of the press are wrong. From my recollection. Walcott had more. Regardless, Walcott likely should've got the decision, to say otherwise, is either being obtuse or disingenuous imo. Even seen loydal Louis fans concede he likely should've won. Which imo is accurate. Are you actually saying you believe Louis likely won? What is your position?
But this fight you cannot see. With Pea v Hoya you can say which rounds you think Pea outright deserved and why that means you don't agree with the result. With Louis v Walcott, at beat you can say everyone bar one man scored it 8-7 either way. You don't even know if all of those in favour of Walcott scored the same 8 rounds for him. You don't know which rounds you think Walcott deserved to win (aside from the kd) you don't know which rounds are to be considered swing rounds. Classing a fight you have never seen, a fight that was by consensus an 8-7 fight, a fight that has no round for round breakdown, classing a fight like that as a loss for the winner defies all logic. I'm not going to debate how a fight would be scored if the scoring policy was different to the rule set they fought under. For example Johnson v Hart was fought under one scoring criteria: agression. Under the 4 prongs of scoring, is it likely Johnson would have gotten the verdict? Yes. But does it make a difference when the sole arbiter had said "I will give th fight to the man who pressed the action hardest" no, it does not. I reckon we agree on most subjects, but the awarding of fights that we can't see is one subject I will not agree with you on I'm afraid.
I can't get over how you can argue dogmatically about a fight you have not seen in it's entirety. Louis thought he had won,and he said so in print and on national TV. He tried to leave the ring because he was annoyed it was such a stinker of a fight, with him making all the running. The press were split on the fight ,Walcott got the majority vote but it was by no means an emphatic one. The crowd rooted for the underdog who had done much better than had been expected.
Making a big deal about Walcott winning under modern rules is completely pointless. The bout was fought in 1947, under 1947 rules, specifically New York rules which didn't give extra credit for knockdowns. You may as well say Walcott would have won a three rounder in headgear and big gloves. Running in the final rounds was pretty damn important since it's ultimately what cost Walcott the decision. And it was mostly running. All of those who thought Louis won (and I named three prominent sportswriters of the time who gave it to Louis) pointed this out. Two judges gave Louis the last three rounds and the other gave him two of the last three. Walcott was ahead on the cards after 12 rounds. If he and his corner thought he was far enough ahead that he could give away the final rounds, then that's the risk they took and it backfired. Everyone else had it close. Even the judge who voted for Walcott only gave him 7 of the 15 rounds. Oscar thought he had it in the bag against Tito as well. Like Angelo Dundee said, you always close the show in the final rounds of a big fight, don't assume the judges are of the same opinion as you. Yes Walcott had more of the press. Not vastly more, but a small majority. That tells me the press were split. Enough called it for Louis to not make it a robbery. If you want to say Walcott edged a close one then fine, but cries of robbery are wide of the mark.
Not once, at any point have I called it a robbery. Please quote where I've called it that. If you can't, than you're arguing a point I'm not even arguing (which is what I figured in the first place). What you think is going on, is quite the opposite. I posted in the thread in direct response to the people trying to portray both fights as Louis dominating. Which couldn't be further from the truth. I was seeing such comments like well Louis is 2-0 against Walcott... Walcott failed in his biggest fights. Those are the disingenuous comments I came into the thread combating. Yet, I haven't seen you say a lick about those, but I do see you incorrectly arguing with me about something I never claimed. The premise of, Walcott failing is his biggest fights, is that a fair assessment? Even if you think Louis could've won the fight, cool, but what is indisputable is that Walcott fought an excellent fight. In the biggest fight on his life, against an all time great hero, he outboxed him for most of the fight. Regardless if you want to say he ran at the end, wasn't aggressive enough... he basically marshaled that fight. That can't really be disputed. What also can't really be disputed is that he outboxed Joe for most of that fight, to say nothing of knocking down the champion 2 times without ever going down himself. Yet to paint that as a poor failing performance by Joe is being blatantly disingenuous. Oscar DID beat Tito, he did have it in the bag, the judges saying otherwise doesn't change that fact. Do you feel Tito won that fight? Just because verdicts are read, doesn't mean they are infallible and beyond reproach. They aren't. Walcott was conclusively outboxing Joe in the first fight and showboating most of the fight doing so. That is how confident he was. ****, look at the second fight, he was ahead again in that fight before the KO. He was continuing his showboating throughout that whole fight, again, controlling the fight and KD the champion. ****, he was showboating when Joe landed the stunning blow that started the combination sequence. Granted, that was his mistake and joe capitalized... but that is how confident he was and how in control he felt. To paint this fights are routs for Joe, and like he had Walcott's number going 2-0 is exactly what I'm combating by posting what I have. Again, incorrect ****ogy on your part. Nobody is talking hypotheticals of heatgear.. or a 3 rounder.. or a wrestling match... We're talking about things that DID happen in the course of a boxing match. We can talk subjective things and hypotheticals till we're blue in the face. KD's in boxing aren't that, they are firm on concrete and can be apart of every single boxing match that ever existed. Guess what, Walcott knocked him down 2 times and not once was he even hurt, let alone knockdown. You want to try and play that off as if it has no meaning, it does, and speaks volumes about who landed the better more convincing blows. Let me ask you this, do you think scoring a round 10-8 for a KD is better than the old system? You can't say it's pointless to say how it would be scored, and you're entitled to that view, but that doesn't change the fact that Walcott would've won. He likely still did win, but using that, I'm not sure how there could be any doubt. Nothing more, nothing less.
Louis is 2-0 and would be 10-0. He was just the better man. Like Rocky, no matter how well Walcott can box in spurts he just wasn't able to beat men of this elite calibre, no shame really, not many could best them.
Again this is being disingenuous and I think you know it. Actions speak louder than words after the fight, after you've been coached on what to say. We all know Louis was adamantly coached throughout his career. Yet you're going to try and portray some post fight comments as facts, that override his actions directly after the fight. If I had a dollar for every fighter than claimed he won after the fight, while initially conceding he was beat I'd be rich. This is a common occurrence, not just in boxing, but in any combat sport, **** in life this happens. Nothing out of the norm, and certainly nothing I'd cite as proof. What a fighter does directly after a fight is much more indicative of his true feelings, than what he says post fight after his handlers have talked to him, or even if they haven't, we still instinctively want to act like we knew all along. The reality is, he tried to leave the ring before the verdict was read. His reasoning, "he knew he won, but he just wasn't happy with his performance". That to me is nearing a bold face lie right there. He certainly wasn't convinced he won the fight. You don't leave the ring if you think you won the fight. Never seen that happen before or since. He clearly, and without question, had to know it was a close fight and he fight lose. To say, he knew he won, is again bordering on a bold face lie. Thus, anything after that, can be called into question..... Could it not? Further, calling all the people booing, just doing because they supported the underdog in not substantiated. What we do know, is you can barely hear a single cheer, you hear nothing but almost unilateral boos all over. To try and pigeonhole them into going for the underdog, is again, disingenuous. The crowd was more pro Louis than Walcott, the public was more pro Louis than Walcott. That is unquestionable. Yet, there was still public outcry after the fight and the crowd was heard booing all over the arena. Clearly, many fans, and not just underdog fans, felt it was a poor verdict.
These are the type of comments I was referring to. He clearly was, in fact, he likely won the first fight. To say he couldn't beat Louis, is again, disingenuous at best.
Young improved after his loss to Shavers early in his career. He drew with Shavers in a rematch that could have went Young's way. He lost questionable decisions to Ali and Norton. He beat Lyle by decision twice. He beat Foreman by decision and even dropped him. Not bad. Walcott went 2-6 (1) in HW World Title fights and he was game in 7 of those fights. He lost a questionable decision to Louis but Louis stopped him in the rematch. He went 2-2 (1) vs. Charles. He gave Marciano hell in their first fight before being stopped, he even dropped him. Marciano stopped Walcott in the rematch, LKOby1. He also had other notable wins. I'd favor Walcott by decision but Young wouldn't be easy.
Let me get this straight Louis is a bold faced liar? You've put YOUR interpretation on this fight and we must all accept it? Other ,differing opinions must naturally be wrong? I find that totally ABSURD! You have an insight into the motives behind Louis' actions, but the rest of us misinterpret them ,even though Louis confirmed in print and on TV why he did what he did. So not only was he a liar , but we are disingenuous fools? Yeah Right! Louis was not coached about what to say after the fight, he reiterated his opinion many ,many times ,in his autobiography and in the TV programme ,"How It Was". You don't leave the ring without the verdict being read if you think you have won the fight ? You've never seen that happen? You've never seen Dempsey v Willard? Here you can see Louis telling his "boldfaced lies". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFc7WIKuZvQ
Bud, I like Louis, he's a hero to many including my grandmother. If you're asking me if his comment IN PRINT.. where he said he KNEW he won but just left the ring because he was upset with his performance. Yes, without ANY ambiguity, the first part is a bold face lie. There is literally no two ways about it. I have no doubt he was upset with his performance. However, as you and others have claimed it was a very close fight. Ringside reporters and the ref felt Walcott won... Louis didn't know that, but it only adds to the multiple variables that all illustrate a very close fight, with more people feeling Walcott won. Yes, there is absolutely no way, after being KD twice and generally being outboxed.. in a verifiable close fight... could he 100% know he won the fight. He claimed he KNEW he won the fight. Yes, that is a bold face lie. He could claim he thought he might win.. or he felt like he did enough. But knew he won, absolutely not, no way no how. That doesn't mean I'm calling him a liar.. that would require systematic lies over the years. That doesn't mean Joe was beyond hiding his true feelings. In fact, his handlers made it a point to hide his true feelings on matters and coached him incessantly. Would you claim that there wasn't a single time he said something publicly because he was told so, but actually didn't feel that way? Would you say that never happened? If you're being honest, you know he has and did. Thus, this would just be par for the course bud, nothing out of the ordinary for Joe Louis or the rest of the world. We all do that. Yet, when he said AFTER the fight IN the LOCKEROOM or years later... oh yeah, oh yeah, no way he was saying something untrue. No way!!! Please, that is what you call logical sound reasoning? I think it's actually the opposite really. He literally, and never denied this, went up to Joe and apologized for the decision. He tried to leave the ring before the verdict was read. I view those actions as vastly more indicative of his feelings on the fight, than his words in the locker room or years later in books and TV shows. Not even close. Why are you bringing up Dempsey leaving the ring thinking he KO Willard? How is that comparable to this situation?
He stated unequivocally why he said I'm sorry to Walcott and he repeated it on national TV. He claimed he knew he deserved to win the fight,that isn't the same as being certain he would get the decision. Do you know,I'll take Louis' explanation over your interpretation. You stated you had never seen a boxer leave the ring thinking he had won ,before the decision was announced, off the top of my head I gave you an example.
No he did not win the fight. He lost a close 8-7 type fight. He had two attempts at beating Louis and failed both times.