Joe Louis' scorecards vs the best boxers he fought.

Or maybe there was a rematch because most felt Walcott was robbed.....

 

Some scored it for Louis, some scored it for Jersey.

In the rematch there is no debate.

 

Why are these the four best boxers that Louis fought?

It seems to me that you could make an equally valid claim for four completely different men!

 

Again why do you keep saying that, the majority scored it for Walcott. The rematch does not change the result of the first fight, what utter rubbish.

 

Louis was lucky?
He decimated Baer.

 

I think Louis could be out boxed for several rounds ,but his equalizer usually redressed the balance at some point.
The problem I see with your examples is that we don't have a level playing field with them.
Louis was far past his best for the Charles and Walcott fights,he hadn't fought for 2 years when he came out of retirement to challenge Charles.
Against Walcott he had been inactive for 15 months whilst Walcott had already fought 3 times that year, against excellent opponents , Maxim x2 and Elmer Ray.
The fact that Walcott and Louis were the same age is also misleading, Louis had 2 extended periods out of the ring and was never the same fighter after the War.
Fighters age at different rates we know this and Louis deteriorated a lot earlier than Walcott.
Looking at Schmeling, yes he may have been presumed to be a little past his prime going into the first Louis fight but he had won his last 3 contests against good if not world beating opposition Hamas,Neusel ,and Uzcudun,these wins demonstrate he remained a world class fighter , plus Max was just 30 years old. Rather different to Louis' situation against Charles and Walcott I think.
Conn , Louis being out boxed by speedy wizz kid Billy Conn was hardly a surprise, but that it Joe so long to catch up with the classy boxing Irishman was unexpected.
Louis dried out for this fight to come in under 200lbs and it clearly affected his performance,having said that,Conn had the boxing ability and speed to make a fool out of most fighters.

Louis's battle plan was always to stalk opponents with a view to catching them with something big and knocking them out at some point.
He didn't enter the ring with the intention of winning a decision,on the other hand many of his opponents did just that , trying to stay out of the way of his big guns and win on points.
In a long career with 25 defences I think we can forgive Louis for having somewhat of an off night here and there, and I don't think it proves anything in particular.

 

Why do I keep saying that some score it for Louis and some scored it for Jersey? I say that because some did score it for Louis and some did score it for Jersey.

Back up your claim about it being the majority please. Show me the poll taken about those who've scored the fight.

Who said the rematch changes the result? Please quote the post so I can ridicule the person responsible.

 

The scores were posted in the sportswriters view of Louis vs. Walcott. In Kev original list, it was 21 for Walcott 10 for Louis. In Senya's additions to the Wiki page, it was 59 to 21. A decisive edge to Walcott. What's more, many judges from all over the country had Walcott winning by significant margins. With scores of 12-2-1, 11-4, 10-4-1 etc etc. Pretty much all the people who voted for Louis were from NY (where he was well liked), and nobody had him more than 9-6, with most voting for him at 8-7. The scores of the people who voted for Walcott were much wider. Go visit that thread and view the scores for yourself. So when you say, some scored it for Louis and some for Walcott, while true, comes across as disingenuous. If somebody had 97 and another 3, yes technically some voted for one and some for another... but it's disingenuous none the less.

 

There are a lot of men who scored the fight for Louis. I wouldn't dream of saying to either of those men "even though I haven't seen this fight, I disagree with you"

 

I think the balance of probability is that Walcott deserved the decision ,and the title,but without the full fight to view we cannot say more than that, imo.

 

According to Louis, Baer hit him with two punches after the bell rang, a left hook and a right hand.
How many rounds would you give Baer?

 

Baer and Marciano arent 2 of Louis's best opponents??? Especially Marciano??????????????

 

I still don’t get the point of this thread.
Whether fighting prime Louis or past prime Louis, Walcott, Charles, Schmeling and Conn were fantastic fighters and were entitled and expected to win rounds against Joe Louis!! Why shouldn’t they?
Louis was that good though, he found a way as always.

 

Okay, but more voted for Walcott and by a clear margin. Some even having him 10 rounds ahead on their card. So if you're not going to tell the minority their wrong, then the clear majority is wrong? There are levels of probability, and the simple fact remains that it's more likely Walcott won than lost. A clear majority felt Walcott won, with many of the reports noting how decisive a victory it should've been, so you'll essentially discard that because you'd rather not disagree with the minority? That's an odd approach to deductive reasoning. I'd personally rather be on the side of probability and logic, then not wanting to disagree with a minority. That's just me I guess.