Joe Louis' scorecards vs the best boxers he fought.

I've never said Louis wasn't outboxed. MY point is its irrelevant. In every rematch Louis proved he could adapt to get the win. Whether he had a difficult time means nothing, getting the win means everything. As pointed out by other posters, we could do this exercise with every fighter in history. It means nothing.

 

Lou Nova was a good boxer.

 

Problem is, this isn't a situation where a fighter still won, despite losing rounds of a fight. This is a situation where a fighter should've lost one fight and was losing the second fight before the KO. That's a far different situation than other named in this thread. You acted like the first fight had no relevance and only the rematch counted, which by the way, is what started this conversation. I couldn't disagree more with that notion. That said, it can never be a low showing to lose or being losing to a Jersey Joe Walcott.

 

It is actually surprising how unsuccessful the best boxers he fought were on the scorecards, given that he did not have substantial physical advantages, or a high punch output style.

Pastor was handily outpointed.

Conn was leading by a whisker.

Walcott fought a past prime Louis, and he still got out landed, and lost a decision.

The only boxers that really handled him at the game, in any sort of meaningful scenario, were Max Schmeling and Lee Ramage.

 

Joe Louis didn't have substantial physical advantages over Billy Conn? It's surprising that Billy Conn wasn't doing better against him on the scorecards after 12 rounds of boxing? Am I reading this right?

 

Louis proved the be Jersey Joe's superior. The first fight was closely contested and apparently could have gone either way. The rematch was a decisive victory for Louis that left no doubt.

The only men who proved to be his superior were Charles and Rocky who beat a very past prime version.

He'll the version of Louis that splattered Jersey was past prime.

 

Although Conn was a lot lighter than Louis, he was the same height, and giving up a couple of inches in reach. This meant that Louis did not have a substantial advantage in terms of range.

It is surprising that Conn lasted twelve rounds for sure, but perhaps it is also surprising that conn didn’t open up a bigger lead, given that Louis’s fight plan was misfiring.

 

Ummm you and I both know Louis should've lost the first fight. This notion that he out landed Walcott is dubious at best. Please give the supporting information he "out landed" Walcott. The reality is, he was Knockdown twice and never had Walcott or even hurt for that matter. Stop saying Louis was past his prime, when he was the same age as Walcott. It works both ways, you can't have your cake and eat it to. This is the factual reality of both fights. Walcott had the votes of the press... the closest person to the fight.. the ref.. and the crowd. Joe even felt he lost the fight as seen by his reaction post fight. Walcott KD Joe twice and never was himself KD. Under the current 10-8 for a KD.. Walcott would've cruised to victory.

In the second fight he picked up right where he left off fight no. 1 thoroughly outboxing Joe and making him look foolish. He was so confident in both fights that he was winning he would showboat throughout both fights. He was up on the scorecards at the time of the stoppage. He essentially outboxed Joe for 25 rounds before the KO. I'd hardly call that Joe outboxing Walcott... in fact it was the exact opposite.

 

Incorrect, and decidedly so. It couldn't have gone either way in reality. The press.. the ref.. the crowd all felt Walcott won. That's decidedly in favor of Walcott... not this notion of... Oh it could've gone either way. Nope. What's worse.. under our current system of 10-8 rounds... Walcott would've won going away with relative ease. Again, if Louis was past his prime... than so was the Walcott that thoroughly outboxed joe the first time.

 

34% of the sports writers at ringside did not score Walcott as the winner of his first bout with Louis.

 

Age is only a number. Walcott obviously had more in his tank than Louis during their first bout. Louis koed Walcott in fight two which erases the scorecards. A clean ko which fight two was underlines which fighter was superior.

 

No I wouldn't ,I would say he was a good boxer who was on a par with Louis for size.

 

Louis was never the same fighter after the War.Walcott was nearer his prime than Louis, many would say he was bang in the middle of it.