Jimmy Young vs Jersey Joe Walcott

Did you run away already instead of answering the question at hand? Yet you still show your face here as if you didn't run away with your tail tucked between your legs. We all know why you didn't answer and ran, you trying to post again, doesn't change that fact.

What's worse, you just illustrated exactly what I stated to be true. Louis said he KNEW he won, just as I said he did. Guess what, he couldn't have known he won, in fact, most people thought he lost. His actions after the fight weren't actions of somebody who KNEW they won. Are common sense and logic foreign concepts to you? The ONLY way you would be so confident of winning is to turn in a master class performance where you had no doubt of the outcome. Under such pretenses, do you leave the ring before the verdict is read? Of course not, never seen that before in my life. Yet your theory is, Louis KNEW he won, yet still decided to leave the ring before the verdict was read. Yeah buddy, sure, that makes total sense.

Now run along McVey, just as you've been doing for most of this thread.

 

I'm confused about something here, I don't know how you could respond with what you did, when he didn't even really cover anything I said. Did you just decide to repeat what you said earlier without eve reading my post? I need to figure out your stance on a few things here...

Think about this logical and with common sense. If the MAJORITY still felt Walcott won the fight even while giving away the last 3 rounds for coasting. What does that tell us? He was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, prior to "coasting" outboxing Joe Louis. Do you disagree with such a premise? If you do, then please explain why you disagree with said premise. How can the press, the ref, seemingly majority of the crowd at the arena and at home (investigation) still pick Walcott as the winning even while giving away the last 3 rounds? How can than not tell you, that clearly, even giving away those last 3 rounds, he was still far enough ahead to get the nod by the above. I mean really, is deductive reasoning not something you're capable of? You seem like a relatively versed guy in boxing, with a head on his shoulders, is none of that making sense to you?

The only way Louis could get the nod was because Walcott was ahead and decided he could coast. Does that sound like a man who was beaten or lacked confidence in his performance. Even if he misjudged how much he could coast, the simple fact the he COULD coast illustrates the very clear and obvious point... He was outboxing Joe Louis. Period. There can be no other logical deduction to be made. If you have one, please post it. What's worse, he didn't even rock Walcott or hurt him in anyway during these coasting rounds. There is nothing in the fight reports talking about Louis is dominating... he's hurt Walcott... he has him in trouble... There is nothing like that. They only illustrate that he was pressing the fight and Walcott was on his bike. WOW, what a convincing show by Louis to get the nod. Please. Call a spade a spade. He was outboxed for the majority of the fight, and needed Walcott coasting to even make it a close fight, and even then, the majority still thought Walcott won. Is that not factual?

You can label it a hail mary blown, but again, that's being disingenuous. Charles even comments on the blow, and that Walcott had set it up earlier in the fight. That is not a hail mary blow, that's a decisive professional blow that wins you the HW championship of the world.

I love how you skate over the question.. I'll ask it again. After Walcott became dedicated and had proper support.. was he more hot than cold? Clearly, very much more hot than cold, but let's see if you can bring yourself to say that.

I love how you bring up Johnny Allen, while neglecting to mention he beat Allen. You bring up Joey, but fail to mention he bested Joey more times than he lost. Good stuff.

When you have wins over:
Harold Johnson
Jimmy Bivens
Joey Maxim
Ezzard Charles
Elmer Ray
C. Sheppard

Then when you add in:
Joe Louis (it's very likely he won one of those fights)
Rocky (didn't win any, but acquitted himself well)

I'd hardly call that the resume of an okay fighter, and certainly not a fighter who failed in big fights. Quite the opposite actually.

You continue to talk about Charles - Walcott 4, did you even bother to watch the highlights or read the reports? Walcott hurt Charles a number of times in the fight. He himself got hurt once, but he did most of the hurting. Even in the highlights, it by no means looks like Charles was dominating. In stark contrasts, the Louis vs. Walcott 1 highlights see Walcott certainly getting the better of the action we see. Again, you label the Charles vs. Walcott 1 and 2 as if they were breezes for Charles, they were tough competitive fights from what I've read and saw from the highlights. Charles deserved the wins, but he by no means cruised to victory. They were tough fights with Charles getting hurt multiple times.

Now please give me the courtesy to answer the questions above as I have done so.

 

I've never run away in my life. I don't call Joe Louis a bold faced liar to boost my non -existant point You keep repeating you've never seen a boxer leave the ring before the verdict has been read I've already given you one example.

Maybe you should watch more fights. COMPLETE ONES IF POSSIBLE..


I've no idea if Louis deserved the verdict against Walcott and neither have you because:
YOU HAVENT SEEN THE ENTIRE FIGHT
One more thing NUMB NUTS
I aint your f*cking Buddy!

 

So not only do you lack common sense and logic, you don't know how to properly comprehend the English language. There's a stark contrast between calling someone a bold face liar, and saying someone bold faced lied. Do you think those things are one in the same, seemingly you do with your response, but they are worlds apart. One can commit a bold face lie, but not be a liar in general. True or false?

Your example was atrocious, much like the logic you've exhibited in this thread. Dempsey left the right thinking he'd won, and the ref stopped the fight. This just illustrates how desperate, and in this case re****ed, for even citing that as an example. How about you show me a boxer knowing he'd won, after thoroughly outboxing his foe (again, the only way you'd KNOW you won), and then leaving the ring before it was read. Surely you can find such a fight, and surely, surely one for the HW championship of the world.

Now, why don't you go run along clownshoes, and get back to me when you can actually answer my question instead of tucking tail and running. Deal?

 

Louis said he knew he won the fight,as in he was confident he had done enough to get the decision, that's evident from his replies on TV, and in his biography . You tried to turn a figure of speech around, saying how could he be certain he had won ? Its absolutely nonsensical.I didn't duck your question, it was irrelevant to the argument because you tailored it to suit your silly agenda.


You are very brave on the internet ,I'll give you that.

 

Clearly you don't know how debating works so I'll fill you in. You cite evidence that backs up your claim, I challenge the factual authenticity of said evidence. Now, how does this apply? I'm glad you asked.

You cited Joe Louis comments after the fight, and even years later, and proof he KNEW he won the fight. In fact, you cited it over and over again as proof Joe felt he won the fight. Therefore, what do we look at when deciding if Joe Louis words post fight (even years later) are factual and actually what he truly believed? His actual comments throughout the years correct? So when I rightfully illustrate that Joe Louis (by his own account and others) say that he was often trained what to say and how to say it. Joe Louis along with his representatives all note that sometimes he was told to say something, even if it wasn't exactly how he felt. This is well documented. Thus, there is a long storied history of Louis saying stuff that he didn't exactly believe or agree with. Sometimes it was probably partial believed. Regardless, me citing this fact to illustrate Joe Louis didn't always say how he felt is EXACTLY what you should and would do in a debate. If you're saying Joe Louis said it so it must be true, I need to call into the question said premise and conclusion, which is exactly what I've done and shown. That isn't calling Joe Louis a liar, it's illustrating that he didn't always say in public how he truly felt. Simple.

Now, I'll see if you'll answer the question one more time. Did Joe Louis ever make statements in public that didn't exactly correspond with how he truly felt, but was told trained to do so? Did this ever occur?

No, he said he KNEW he won. That isn't a figure of speech. Do I need to give examples of figures of speech? That isn't one of them. Point being, there is absolutely no way he could've known he won when:

1. He was KD twice and never at any point had Walcott hurt or in danger
2. Was not commanding the fight, it was JJW who commanded the fight.
3. Was getting outboxed for the majority of the fight. How do we know this? Well, even the fight reports giving it Louis, only gave it to him because Walcott coasted the last 3 rounds. If you're getting outboxed for the majority of 12 rounds, and you see your opponent so confident he's far enough ahead to coast, how on God's Green Earth would you go... Yeah, of course, I knew I won.
4. Even Walcott coasting and giving away the last 3 rounds, didn't change the majority of viewers still thinking he won. Which again shows, how the F could Louis KNOW he won?

It's nonsensical to think he knew he won. Yet you're claiming his words as proof, I then call into question his public words, and you go... yeah it has nothing to do with the argument. LOL. WTF. It has everything to do with the argument. That's how debating works, sorry to break it to you non-buddy.

 

Just jog on silly b*llocks.

 

Keep running clownshoes

 

Er, you didn't actually answer any of my questions.

The problem with your argument is the fight was over 15 rounds, not 12. It doesn't take much deductive reasoning to figure out that after 12, the fight was close enough that in losing 2-3 of the championship rounds Walcott could either lose the decision or only just squeak it. That's not comprehensively out-boxing someone. You keep mentioning the "majority" who scored it for Walcott. Why not actually look as the scorecards of that majority: Goldstein 7-6-2, United Press 7-6-2, Independent News Service 8-7. One of the most generous Walcott scorers was the Associated Press (9-5-1) which is hardly a landslide either. You're crying foul based on scorecards where a one round swing would have resulted in a Louis win. Two of those scorecards had him winning less than half the fight. Now, do you think it was a robbery?

If you want to argue that Walcott should have won a close one, then fine. But it wasn't a robbery. You may argue he would have won a wider decision had he not given away the final rounds. Perhaps so. Of course, had he actually fought in those last three rounds rather than retreated, he may also have got himself KO'd or sustained more punishment. He was running for a reason, and not just because he thought he'd won.

At what point did Walcott become "dedicated" and have "proper support"? From 1930-40 he went 26-8-2. From 1944-52 he went 25-10. He was inconsistent at every stage of his career. You forgot to mention that he also had four losses against Ray, Maxim and Charles. Besides Johnny Allen, he also lost to Rex Layne, Abe Simon, Billy Ketchell, Roy Lazer... I could go on. Were they all accidents? Dropped a disputed decision against a clearly diminished Joe Louis. Got KO'd by a clearly diminished Joe Louis. Acquitted himself well in the first Marciano fight (but still lost by KO). Split a series with fading light-heavy Charles. As I said, good fighter who beat some good fighters but also lost to some less than great opposition. What with that and losing six of his eight title fights, I'd say the phrase hot and cold fits him pretty well.

It was a Hail Mary shot. Did Walcott KO Charles in their other three fights or even come close? Nope. Did he ever knock anyone else as good as Charles smack cold with one punch? Nope. It's the very definition of a freak shot.

Walcott-Charles IV. Did you read any reports? I'm sure you aren't daft enough to try and judge a fight based on 15 minutes of highlights. Go read some reports and tell me a majority didn't give it to Charles. If you're going to award Walcott a win over Louis based on a ringside majority, then he goes 1-3 against Charles based on a ringside majority. You can't have it both ways. I never labelled the first and second fights a breeze for Charles. He won them and deservedly so. 13 out of 13 ringsiders polled gave the second one to Charles...