Joe Louis' scorecards vs the best boxers he fought.

I would also add that "a poll" of sportswriters that showed a majority thought Walcott won is only as good as the person who took the poll. I experienced this myself when I came across a poll of sportswriters that had Tiger Flowers winning his first fight with Greb by something like 9 voting for Flowers, one for Greb, and one a draw. Problem was when you took actual comprehensive poll of ringside sportswriters whose opinion we can accurately document Greb wins THAT poll by more than 2 to 1. Polls are not the final word in anything. They are tools that CAN be used to guage OPINION. Thats it. It might be entirely possible that if someone took a comprehensive poll of ringside accounts of the Louis-Walcott 1 fight that Louis would come out looking even worse. Its possible but totally unscientific and totally unofficial. Its also entirely possible that you might start uncovering more and more opinions of people who thought Louis won. Again, unscientific and unofficial but Id be wary of quoting someone elses opinion poll I found reprinted on boxrec.

 

Logical deduction. Again, you're better than this. I could with what is the most logical scenario and conclusion to be drawn. These are the scenarios and you tell me which is more logical.

1. The majority of the audible noise that can be heard in the area are mostly protesting the verdict. In fact, you can barely make out any clapping of approval for said verdict. They opened up a investigation into the fight, likely because there were a great many who didn't think it was a just verdict.

or

2. The crowd was actually split on who won the fight, but it just so happened that most of all we can hear is protesting of the verdict. But by happenstance and coincidence, it really was split half way. An investigation was opened into the fight, even though there were split feelings both ways on who won. Despite this split on who won, they decided to open up an investigation anyways.

Now ask yourself, which is most likely, No. 1 or No. 2 scenario?

 

Umm okay, I don't really disagree with anything here, but I fail to see how this changes the argument any at this point. If you'd like to do more in depth research on the polling of this fight, I'm sure many would be happy. However, as it stands we see to have a picture of what the sportswriters thought. If you have information that this was correct than please post it. Divulging the fact that there could be impropriety and mistakes made, isn't a valid argument or even a valid rebuttal. Most here are aware that this is possible in any fight or any sport.

 

Okay bud, I'll just go ahead with post after post where I blatantly say Majority over and over. Literally over and over I use the term majority. I explained what the all was referring to... i.e. all of the cats had a majority feeling Walcott won. If that is too hard of a concept to grasp, so be it.

 

But the fight could have gone to either man based on what people who have seen the fight say.

There are those who scored it for Louis and those who scored it for Jersey. It was clearly close enough to warrant a rematch one which left no doubt as to the winner.

I don't know of it was the majority at ringside, I haven't taken a poll nor seen a poll. The only thing I no for sure is that people did score for each man, I do not know how many, I just know it was some.

 

"Walcott had the votes of the press... the closest person to the fight.. the ref.. and the crowd." No "majority" there. You only changed your tune when it was pointed out a sizeable number of ringsiders scored it for Louis.

 

With regards to the first Louis Walcott fight:

We can say that the majority of reporters at ringside thought Walcott won.

We might even go as far as to say that Walcott deserved the decision in the balance of probability.

To say that the fight was an outright robbery would require a somewhat tougher burden of proof.

The fact that we cannot view footage of the full fight would make such a position hard to sustain. The New York Times stated that Louis landed more punches, and it is obvious from the footage that it was he who was forcing the fight. These two factors in combination, would have given Louis a significant argument at the time, because it would have left Walcott heavily dependent on his defence for scoring.

I vote that we record an open verdict on this one.

 

LMAO... Yes because this is the first discussion of the fight I've ever had. I never knew there were some sportswriters who voted for Walcott... Clearly I felt every single one voted for Walcott atsch Luckily I have you here to remind me this is how I felt. I didn't think I needed to hold your hand through such basic stuff like this. To think you actually thought that I meant every single sportswriter.. every single person in the audience all voted for Walcott, and I didn't mean the majority of each.. speaks volumes

 

The Louis Walcott first fight was a controversial decision. However it was not the first or last title bout won by an aggressive champion fighting a defensive minded challenger. Nor was it in any way indicative of Louis having poor boxing abilities. Prime Louis was one of the most gifted technical boxers in hwt boxing history.

 

Don't disagree with most any of this really. I think it's pretty spot on. I wouldn't call it a robbery. I would say it's more likely than not Walcott should've been given the decision.

 

Likely, like probable is not an absolute,and if your [or anyone's], opinion happens to concur with a "likely" scenario it is human nature to give that more import than perhaps it deserves.

 

Forgive me for thinking that your statement that the sportswriters, the crowd and the ref all though Walcott won meant you believed that the sportswriters, the crowd and the ref all thought Walcott won when you actually just meant some of them. But then if you're going to nitpick someone else's wording, you kinda leave yourself open to this.