Jimmy Young vs Jersey Joe Walcott

look up the quote Mcvey, he said he knew he won the fight. Yes, that is a blatant lie. He would've known nothing of the sort, in fact, judging by the majority, it was likely he lost. So no, I accept to preposition where he says he knew he won the fight.

I see you dodge the question entirely. Did Joe Louis ever say stuff publicly he might not have felt himself, but did so because he was told to or trained to? Simple question. Don't get me wrong, I understand why you avoided it, because you know what it would therefore imply, and hurt your theory of Joe said it.. it must be true!!!

 

Now you are interpreting my actions?

Tell you what ,give me one quote which is primary sourced , in which Joe Louis says he tried to leave the ring before the decision was announced because he knew he had lost the fight.

Are you even aware of the sheer conceit and arrogance of your premise?


ps You forgot to use the word disingenuous in your last post , are you getting tired?

 

Answering a question with another question. Interesting, but transparent and childish when it comes to debating. I'll await your answer to my question before I even think about responding to a question of yours. Let me guess, now you'll go, oh now your wanting me to act how you want.. now I'll say nothing and become further obstinate on the matter. Sometimes you're easy to predict McVey. I'll await the answer to my question, and we'll see how much you believe your premise of.. Joe said it.. it must be true!!!

 

How would you describe "conclusively outboxing" someone [your phrase] and not being given the decision, if not a robbery? If you don't think Walcott was robbed then what are you even arguing about? That he should have won a narrow decision? Because if it wasn't a robbery then the winner deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Walcott did fail in most of his biggest fights. His title record is 2-6. His record against top 10 opponents is something like 13-12 which is hardly awe inspiring. If you want to give him the first Louis fight then he also lost the fourth Charles fight (the opinion of many ringsiders) so his title record doesn't change. I'm not as hot on Walcott as some others are. He was a decent fighter with some good wins but came along at the right time. He was hot and cold throughout his career, and it didn't take a great fighter to beat him.

Sure, he fought an excellent fight against a clearly faded Joe Louis and could have eked out a win had he not given away the last few rounds. He still ended that series with the referee holding him up to stop him falling flat on his face. He won the title with a Hail Mary shot against Charles, who had already beaten him twice and Charles probably should have won the fourth bout too. He had a great effort against Marciano first time around but still ended up 0-2 in that series as well. Do you consider all that disingenuous?

My an alogy was fine. You're applying the current system of scoring to a fight that took place 68 years ago under a different scoring system. You keep talking about knockdowns. Under the New York rules of the time, a fighter received no additional credit for a knockdown. If you want to cling to Walcott potentially winning under a method of scoring that wasn't even in use at the time then fine, but it has no relevance to this fight or the outcome.

Both systems have their flaws. The new system can give too much weight to a knockdown. Fighter A can dominate a round and then lose it (or at best draw it) on the strength of a flash knockdown. Pac essentially squeaked a draw in the second Marquez bout based on three first round knockdowns and then losing a majority of the next 11 rounds.

 

I said Louis said he believed he won the fight. I have his autobiography and a tv programme as a source for that.What do you have? Your ESP interpretation of his actions?
Sorry it's ludicrous. I'm going to leave this now because your stance is just absurd.

 

Predictable just as I said.

I knew you wouldn't answer, and why you wouldn't answer. It amuses me.

 

Yeah , you know what people are going to say and why before they even open their mouths.What a clever fellow you are!:hi:

 

Thanks for proving my point. I accept your concession on the question.

 

That's the problem with simplifying to such terms, as if to present it in such a way that seems like the it was 50/50 split on cards submitted. It was not, from my recollection, it was 23-14 in favor of Walcott. The Ref voted for Walcott. We can hear the audible noise of the audience and how some clearly felt (Couldn't even make out a cheer really). We know more of the audience felt Walcott won, because an investigation was opened into the matter. That hardly paints it the spilt of the viewing audience you're trying to pigeon hole it into. Neither I, nor the above accept such a notion. The correct notion is, Walcott likely deserved the decision in a competitive fight. Simple.

Think about it, he literally KD the Champion two times, and not once was he ever KD, or even hurt from that matter. Reading the reports it certainly paints no picture like Walcott was at any point hurt or in danger. In fact, the majority paint a picture of Walcott outboxing Joe Louis for the majority of the fight. Even the press reports submitted in favor of Louis getting the nod, downright say Walcott was controlling the fight and outboxing Louis. The were critical of Walcott not continuing to work the last 3 rounds like he did prior. Think about it, THAT is the reason those who even voted for Louis did so. Not because he wobbled or hurt Walcott in the rounds in question. Not that he outboxed Walcott those last three rounds. Nothing of the sort. The simply felt Louis, while not landing much of any significance, was pressing the fight and Walcott was coasting. That is why they voted for Louis. Wow, I'm floored with how dominating that is.

Tell me, which would you rather, KD the champion and Marshal the majority of the fight

Or get outboxed for the majority of the fight but having moments, get KD, but keep working and pressing at the end while the other guy is coasting.


I'll take option A everyday of the week and twice on Sunday, and so would you. Did Walcott coasting hurt him in the end, sure, but that doesn't take away the fact that he was RIGHTFULLY coasting and ahead. Not as ahead as he thought, clearly, but never the less ahead. Yet, you wanna label the fight like a 50/50 affair. That is was not.

 

You act like these are only my words. The words outboxing Louis was used in the same reports you used to show people voted for Louis. The literally saw Joe was getting outboxed in the fight and was clearly winning. What does that say, if not that Walcott should've won? Do you think because he misjudged how much he was ahead, takes away from the fact the he outboxed Joe Louis that night? That's ludicrous to even attempt to say that.

Think about it, even IN giving away the last 3 rounds as you call it, and misjudging the lead, the majority of the press... the ref... audience (audible, investigation) STILL gave Walcott win. What does that tell you? The only logical conclusion one could come to is that Walcott was comfortably ahead to give away the last 3 rounds and still get the majority vote. There can be no other logical deduction. So you tell me, does that not sound like somebody convincing outboxed the other, but paid the price for coasting at the end? That sounds both factual and logical. Do you disagree?

Further, it's not like Louis dominated and hurt Walcott those last three rounds. He did nothing of the sort, and it wasn't ever alluded to that he was in any kind of trouble or Louis rocked him. He simply got penalized for coasting... Wow, stop the presses, how convincing for Louis getting the nod. Please, you understand the implications here, and it's certainly not that Louis outboxed Walcott.

Also, you should try watching some of Walcott vs. Charles 2, that was a very competitive fight. Walcott hurt Charles on a number of occasions. The idea that Charles dominated fights 1 and 2 and Waclott got one lucky punch victory, is yes, not being truthful with context. IF anything, Walcott had the only clear decisive, no ambiguity result of the entire series. That wasn't a lucky shot, it was a set up, crushing blow that won him the HW championship of the world.

You say 2-6, but if we actually say at least Walcott likely deserved the victory against Louis. That would be 3-6. Not great, but in actuality, pretty damn good considering his championship losses were to Charles, Louis and Marciano. So yes, even at 2-6, losing to those fighters is no low showing. Especially considering how well he did in 2 of those fights despite losing.

I'm confused, you talk about hot and cold etc etc. Are you unaware of Walcott's early career and his lack of training and support in the industry? Surely your not, yet you describe him as hot and cold. In reality, when he became a full time fighter with good leadership and resources... he was much more hot than cold. Are you disagreeing with that statement?

 

IT IS WHAT IT IS. While hackneyed, it's applicable here.

Walcott lost! It's in the books. The books also contain, but only known to the truly knowledgeable fans,like those who have squared off on both sides in this thread.

I think Walcott deserved the nod, but it surely doesn't belong in the pantheon of boxing's most aggregious miscarriages of justice . Knowledgeable, real fans know and see the beauty of what Jersey Joe did that night, regardless of how they feel about the decision. Real fans also understand the grit and champion heart of the ageing lion Louis in persevering and prevailing in the rematch.
Without the outcome we lose some of the richness of Jersey Joe's inspirational tale. It's a screen worthy tale of overcoming poverty and repeated disappointment with his never say die attitude on his way to becoming a Champion!

 

All this you know from never having seen the full fight.

Tell me, can you give me the real lowdown on the Johnson v Hart fight?
The Jeffries Choynski one ?The Jeffries Ruhlin draw?
What a priceless asset you are to this Forum, I'm sure posters have a myriad of questions for you .
What did Greb look like in the ring?
How skilled was Sullivan etc?
When you come down from Mount Sinai ,you must reveal all these answers to us mere mortals who do not possess your unique gift.:bowdown



"The next four rounds I kept pressing him with jabs,and body digs,he just kept backpedalling,"

" I thought I had him in the 9th ,I jabbed him into position for a right cross that landed just alittle bit too high.As he fell up against the ropes .I poured lefts and rights to his body and his head ,but he took them all and fought back.When the bell rang ending the round I knew my chance for a knockout was over."
"For the rest of the night ,Walcott got on a bicycle-like a black Bob Pastor.He was determined to stay the fifteen rounds,and he just fought it spurts."
"When the fight was over I just wanted to get out of the ring.
I was so disgusted with myself and the way I had fought that I started climbing out before the decision was announced,but my corner pulled me back .I didn't care about the decision.I knew I won ,since Walcott didn't come to me.

After all I was the champion and he had to take the crown from me"
"The judges scored it like this :
Monroe 9-6 :Louis
Forbes;8-6 1 even: Louis
Goldstein 7-6 2 even:Walcott"
Joe Louis.

 

So do you believe the decision was a robbery or do you not? You've categorically denied calling it a robbery so what was it in your opinion? The vast majority of the scorecards, including those that voted for Walcott, had it close, no more than a round or two swing. Talk of Walcott comprehensively out-boxing Louis is nonsense. It was a close fight that a lot of ringsiders thought Walcott EDGED. The one judge who voted for Walcott gave him seven rounds. The United Press who also had him winning gave him seven rounds. Hence why you can find a number of prominent sportswriters who called it for Louis.

The first and second Charles bouts were not that controversial. It's something of a mystery how Walcott even got a third shot. He won the third with a Nunn-Kalambay esque Hail Mary shot he was unable to replicate in the other 50-odd rounds they boxed. You've still not addressed the fourth Charles fight. If you want to give him the first Louis bout based on ringside opinions then you should also take away the fourth Charles bout which a majority gave to Charles. It leaves his title record unchanged. He did well but nevertheless came up short in most of his title fights. His only two wins were against a fading light-heavy. What's that if not failing?

Yes I've heard the Walcott backstory. Every loss was because he was starving or didn't have a manager or something. Was he still hungry when he lost to Rex Layne, Johnny Allen and Joey Maxim?