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

If the fight was scored on the 10 point must system, it’s a robbery as Walcott scored two knockdowns. The fight was not under modern rules. Going on the surviving footage, and crowd reaction, Walcott should be the winner.

 

I totally agree. It seems to me that any score from the press could be feasible, I just can't declare Walcott the winner based on what we have.

I just consider it to close to be certain who the winner should have been hence see it as a draw.

 

Still, a more accurate count would be 3-0-5 correct?

So, you're not opposed to 10-8 rounds.. IF.. IF.. and i'm not saying this is the reason Walcott should be viewed the victor.. If that same criteria is used for that fight... Would Walcott be the clear UD winner?

Which is my point.. IF we did take every ringside report.. Walcott would be the winner.. whether that be split or UD.. matters not.. Nobody is disputing it was a relatively close fight. That said, if the majority feel Walcott won, I ask again, why would you have a suspicion that the verdict was true. In fact it should be the complete opposite no? Shouldn't it be.. I have a suspicion Walcott won? You taking the opposite approach is what I'm calling into question.

Let me present it to you like this... Is it common practice or a make logical sense.. that if you TRULY BELIEVE YOU WON.. that you would leave the ring before a verdict is rendured? Does that make logica sense McGrain? You know it doesn't so why perpetuate this myth and hide behind.. Well Joe said it, so are you calling him a liar. Common sense and logic tells us.. if you TRULY believe you won, you would have no issue standing around hearing your name called. In fact, that would be just what you expected. How Joe's reaction was the EXACT opposite of I truly believe he won, in fact, it couldn't be more opposite. You citing him saying he won is well.. just what you would expect from a seasoned champion who had been groomed to be politically correct and not tarnish his public image. You can try and act like I'm calling him a liar, but that doesn't change the fact that Joe's actions make his words look like a fib not me. I didn't make Joe react the way he did.. I didn't make the crowd react the way they did. Joe reacted like a lost fighter... so any question to the veracity of his statement falls on Joe alone not me.. correct?

Anyways, I just want you to know that I think you're an invaluable poster to this site and I enjoy our discussion. This is nothing more than this to me.. a discussion. We disagree, but that is just how it goes sometimes. you're a good guy McGrain and I don't want you to think there is any animosity in my post, because there isn't.

 

1. You're ready to declare a winner based on woefully incomplete footage?

2. Since when does a crowd know anything about anything?

 

In his autobiography Louis stated he had no doubt he had won, because he made the fight ,and Walcott ran all night.


"When the fight was over,I just wanted to get out of that ring .I was so disgusted with myself and the way I had fought that I started climbing out before the decision was announced, but my corner pulled me back.
I didn't care about the decision.I knew I won, since Walcott didn't come to me.
After all I was the champion,and he had to take the crown from me".
.

I am mystified how anyone can make a confident assertion either way unless they have seen the ENTIRE FIGHT, which to my knowledge ,NO ONE ON THIS SITE HAS.:huh


http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/69034907

 

Don't think you can label this a robbery. Maybe Walcott deserved the nod, maybe it was a draw. There's no way to know for sure now. The important thing is that Walcott got a rematch.

 

This thread makes me wonder whether my own approach is too far. An official fight that I can't watch should I give the official victor the benefit of the doubt?

Is considering it a draw me going too far?

 

Reversing the official decision on the basis of highlights is going too far,imo.

 

Fair questions. Since the entire match cannot be viewed today, we have to go on what we see and hear. In the given footage we can see today, Walcott is ahead. In the ending, we can see clearly that Louis felt he lost.

Boxing was a big sport back then. The crowd booing Louis ( who was viewed as a hero ) tells you those who saw the fight live from round 1-15 were outraged at the decision.

 

That isn't why he's calling it a draw though.. He's calling it a draw because the majority of Ringside reports had Walcott winning... the ref had walcott winning.. THAT is why.. not because of the highlights...

 

I do agree. But I currently consider such fights a draw and I'm wondering if that is too far.

 

Louis clearly thought he had won because he went into print and said so, both in next days papers, and in his autobiography , "Joe Louis My Life" , from which I have just quoted verbatim.

 

No it's not too far.. In some cases I give fighters a W where I think they deserve it. That is generally only for fights I can watch. So no, I don't think giving a draw is too far.

 

Yeah definitely the reports is the reason.

Highlights can often be misleading. Main case is probably dirrell v froch. Highlights make it seem a shutout.