Joe Louis vs. Jersey Joe Walcott I: Was it a robbery or just a close fight?

I like how when I'm quoted my name is shortened to luf

 

I like you McGrain and I respect your knowledge and thoughts a lot, but I think you're a little off here. The prudent thing to do is say, walcott probably should've gotten the nod, but a draw might have been in order. That would be pretty impartial in my view. However, your.. I think it might been a good verdict.. is way off. There is no way that was a good verdict, no way, no how. The worst Walcott should've gotten for that fight was a draw, and even then, I think that would've been a bad choice. Let's not forget these facts

1. I honestly don't know how you can view the highlights of what we have and say they are indecisive. I can pretty clearly see Walcott getting the better of Louis, even toying wtih Louis. Walcott is shown throughout that fight oozing with confidence because he is getting the better of the man. Not timid, not running away, not getting outboxed, but doing the outboxing and with great confidence in the process

2. If KD were socred like they are today, Walcott would've gottne the clear majority decision correct? Do you disagree with 10-8 rounds being scored for KD's McGrain? If you don't, then why not judge the fight how it should be judge.. giving Walcott 10-8 rounds where he deserved? Further, Walcott proved clearly superiority over Louis with said 2 KD's.. where Louis had zero KD's the first fight. How on God's green earth any ringside person could say Louis was landing the harder blows is a complete lie. The guy who ACTUALLY got two KD's was landing the harder blows... clearly

3. Most ringside observers HAD walcott winning. From what I've read on research.. I thought the number was more like 30 to 11, but maybe I'm wrong on that. Either way, Walcott got the majority which speaks volumes to me about how clearly it probably was. Louis was clearly the more popular fighter with the media and the country. As we know people sometimes see fights the way they want to see them.. So Walcott even getting a majority against a guy as popular as Louis to me says a lot.

4. The crowd reaction and Joe's reaction is very telling. He believed he lost and the crowd believed he lost.. More ringside observers say he lost, and yet you would say... that it was probably a good verdict? Umm no, you should be saying the exact opposite of that. If Joe thought he lost, he probably did.

5. Lastly, even though we can't see the fight in its entirety, we can see what transpired in the second fight to get a glimpse of the first. In the second fight, Walcott picked up right where he left off in the first fight. Utterly outclassing Louis on his way to racking up a comfortable lead in the fight. It's my opinion that the only reason he lost was because he got TOO cocky and started toying with Louis too much. **** right before the KO he was doing his shuffle and toying with Louis. You don't fight like that if you're being beat up or have something to fear. He fought like that because he dominated the first fight and was dominating the second fight. Let's call a spade a spade.. Walcott deserved the first fight and was completly outclassing Louis in the second fight. To say he didn't deserve fight no. 1 is pretty disingenious and taking something away from a great fighter who already gets underrated.

 

Right, and most people for partial to Louis and like him more. This can very easily explain how Louis was ahead on some cards. He was much more liked that Walcott and more popular. yet depite that, Walcott still won on most ringside cards and that is telling imo

 

I used to score every fight ten point but it is misleading and unfair to judge a past fight from a modern perspective. Had Louis really been on danger of losing 2 point rounds and thus felt his lead insurmountable he might have pressed harder and forced a stoppage (as he did do in the rematch)

 

Come on Luf.. that is just silly and you know it. Louis was trying to get the KO.. NO matter how those KD's were ruled. It's just plain silly to suggest otherwise. He tried, and he was still being outboxed, made to look silly, and toyed with throughout both fights. He also landed the harder blows.. ya know the 2 KD's scored. Credit should be given to Walcott for beating Louis, and to not do so, imo is an injustice to the man.

 

I'm not saying his aim wasn't to win by ko. I'm saying retrospectively making the lead insurmountable is not fair.

I'm not sure who deserved it as I can't score it myself. There's enough controversy for me to consider it a draw. That's as far as I can go.

 

I heard it was a robbery but i guess most people thought Louis was going to walk through JJW, Walcott had Joe down 2X but its hard to take the decision from a popular boxing figure as we have seen with Ali

 

Well, that isn't entirely true though is it buddy.. Most people say they can't tell.. while 3 others say they can clearly see Walcott winning. So that would actually be 3 -0-5(draw for those who can't tell) Not one person has said Louis looked to be winning, only people saying Walcott was.

No, I'm asking you a simple question.. Do you believe the rule change to score rounds in which a KD occurs a 10-8. Do you agree with the rule change?

WHere did I call it a robbery.. I've only stated that I believe Walcott won.. It was probably reasonably close that a robbery isn't the correct choice. However, I would say, it should've be a UD in favor of Walcott

Many fighters the next day, are instructed or know enough about Public Image (something Joe was instructed on from the start of his career) to not concede defeat when you were awarded the victory. It proves nothing that Joe didn't admit he lost. What wasn't in the script and more telling is Joe reaction immediatly after the 15 round ended. It's VERY telling that the guy didn't even want to stay around for the verdict. If he TRULY believed he won, then he should've had NO problem sticking around to hear he got what he thought he would get. It also wouldn't make sense to look somber and like a beaten fighter directly after the fight. That makes no sense at all, and I don't accept the script of "I was just disappointed with how I did" That while true, isn't the whole story. He thought he lost the fight. Period. If he TRULY felt he won, like you claim, then he would've not wanted to leave before the decision was read. That makes zero logical sense if you truly believed you won.

You citing a definition of a word was both pointless and without merit. When the really question is WHY would somebody have a suspicion a verdict was correct when the EVIDENCE points in the opposite direction? More ringside observers had Walcott winning... Walcott landed the harder blows (scoring the only KD of the fight).. Walcott was making Louis look foolish over and over again. He was seen toying with Louis.. Does somebody who is getting beat up.. Toy with a fighter like he is utterly dominating them? No, that doesn't happen very often, if at all. So the question is, why would you even have a suspicion the verdict was just, when the majority disagree with you?

Let me ask you this... In the clips you've seen of fight NO. 1 and of fight NO. 2.. Does it not look like Walcott is a very confident fighter? Does it now show him toying with Joe in the highlights of the first fight and much of the second? Does this look like a fighter who is getting the worst of it? The second fight is a good indicator because the MAJORITY thought Walcott won the first fight but we can't see the whole fight. yet, when they meet shortly later for fight no. 2. .. Again we see Walcott getting the better fo Louis.. Tauting him.. toying with him.. dropping him.. building up a big points lead with messing around. Yet you go, no that gives no indication what happened in the first fight..WTF? Nobody is saying we say the exact thing happened as did in no. 2.. but what we can see is again Walcott getting the better of Louis.. doing the same things he did in the higlights we had.. and we can certainly deduce he was probably doing very similiar thing in fight no. 1 that we are missing. Why is that such a big leap for you, it's certainly not for me.

 

I Agree with Kuruput's points. The video of Louis at the end of the fight just before they announce the winner shows the body language of the loser. And the audio pickups a thunderous boo on the decision.

 

God no.

Are we really willing to declare a man a loser based on a post fight reaction? For every 2 reports saying Louis lost, there's a third saying he won.

That kinda split, without having the ability to score it yourself makes a verdict of robbery ludicrous.

 

Exactly. It is a bit strange to see such conviction.

The crowd booed the first Robinson and gavilan fight, are we to declare gavilan a victor in that fight?