Joe Louis' scorecards vs the best boxers he fought.

Why do I need to keep on correcting you on very basic sentences that should be easy to type. THE MAJORITY of the Press felt Walcott won, not just some. The MAJORITY of the crowd felt Walcott won, not just some. The closest person to the action felt that Walcott won. Stop saying some, to try and make your argument sound better. Call it how it is and use the correct term.. majority. When it is said that way, the picture becomes clear, Walcott likely should've gotten the decision.

 

Unsound logic. So us judging his body language is an exercise in futility, but a fighter never ever skews events to suit them in post fight interviews or autobiographies? That never happens right? Personally, I think a more accurate picture of how Louis felt is shown by his body language and demeanor than his carefully managed words after the fight. One is unfiltered, the other was very much filtered. We LITERALLY see Louis with his head down and trying to leave the ring BEFORE the verdict was even read. Does a person confident in him winning try and leave the ring before the verdict is read. Telll me McVey how many times have you seen that. Answer me this... do people generally look how Louis did and try and leave the right if they are confident they won... or do they usually do that when they know they've lost? I think you know the answer to that. It's generally not an indication a fighter was confident in winning. So yeah, I'll go ahead with that very obvious and logical deduction, over a filtered one after the fight. Maybe that's just me.

 

I don't have an argument because I haven't seen the full fight myself so can't say who I think won.

All I know is out if those who did see it, there was healthy debate as to who deserves the decision, to solve this issue they had a rematch which Louis won more emphatically than first time round.

 

3 points does nothing to my math. You were trying to say Louis won less than 50% of the rounds scored and he didnt. He actually won more rounds than his opponents if you throw out the ridiculous inclusion of Charles. As for Walcott Im no better place to judge than you are so I accept the judges cards which were close reflecting the closeness of the fight. If YOU think YOU can turn in a better scorecard do it but dont do it based on less than 1/3 of the fight that youve seen.

And yes, you could say Conn was spent by the time of the second Louis fight, but that would severely hurt your ridiculous thesis considering Louis was older than Conn and had been out of the ring just as long. It would certainly shine a much harsher light on your inclusion of the Charles fight which is purely absurd.

 

Walcott was clearly aging better than Louis and turned in better performances after the war than Louis. He was a much more consistent performer from 1945 on and was fighting better fights against a better class of fighter as well. There no doubt he upped his game and hit his stride while Louis was settling into a slide.

 

Wait, did you poll the crowd? Because Don Dunphy was sitting there with the crowd and said half thought Louis won and half thought Walcott won. Half for Walcott is not a majority.

 

You seeing the fight it totally and completely irrelevant to the discussion. You were referencing what other people said about the fight, which has no bearing on whether you saw it or not. Thus, when referencing what other people said, my point is, you should do it correctly. Which again, uses the term majority not some.

 

My first post said it was apparently closely contested and could have gone either way.

Since I have not seen the fight myself and everything I have read suggests that it was closely contested and could have gone either way, I'm willing to stand by that initial statement.

I said some felt Jersey won and some felt Joe won because I do not know the exact numbers nor exact percentages.

 

We can logical deduce the crowd felt Walcott won because we can audibly hear it very clearly. The loud boos from the crown totally and completely dwarfed any clapping for the verdict. It wasn't even close which was coming in more clear. Further, there was a reason an investigation was opened to look more into the fight. Why would an investigation be opened about a verdict, that according to you, was split half and half. If it was truly a very fight most people went either way on, there would be no investigation opened. The reason there was one, was for the clear majority feeling Walcott won, and yet he didn't get the nod. These are all logical deductions. To take your premise to its logical conclusion doesn't come away nearly as sound and logical. There's a reason things were investigated, there was a reason why the boos dominated the arena that night and dwarfed any clapping there may have been. We don't take those variables, throw logic out the window, and go... yeah... it was probably half and half. You're better than that Klompton.

 

And you originally said "The press.. the ref.. the crowd all felt Walcott won..", which was also untrue.

 

Again using terms like could have gone either way... closely contested paint a picture of a fight, that as you say, could go either way. Clearly that wasn't the case, since the majority of writers felt Walcott won. That was even using the old scoring system... and they still felt Walcott won. A fight that could go either way... you'd see a near split in voting from the press. You'd see the crowd having mixed feelings about who won. Instead what we see is, the majority of the press said Walcott won, and the majority of the crowd clearly felt he won. Same with the ref, who was closer than anybody to the action. For God's sake Louis own reaction speaks volumes about who he thought won. Point is, the majority felt Walcott won, not just some. It's that simple.

 

I very clearly, and on numerous occasions said the majority felt Walcott won. Me saying "all" refers to ALL of them i.e. all these cats and the majority feeling Walcott won. At no point did I say all of the crowd or all of the sportswriters. Nice try though.

 

No you just said the press, the crowd and the ref all thought Walcott won. That's pretty clear cut.

 

You said that. How exactly are you quantifying it? This a meaningless, unproveable, hyperbolic statistic.