Lennox Lewis vs Joe Louis

I'm very glad you have.lol!

 

Made a new friend? I hope you'll be very happy.

 

Question, you have no issue giving credit to Greb for his NP Decision "victories" that he got in many of his fights. You weren't able to witness the fights yourself, yet you still give him credit for them based on the fact that he got the majority of the newspaper decisions. Yet here, when the majority vote for Walcott, including the closest man to the action, plus the clear disproval from the majority of the viewing audience there... Yet, you go in the complete opposite direction and say the verdict was likely reasonable. Can you explain this discrepancy to me? Seems like a double standard on its face.

 

Agreed totally. If the fight is based on the current system, I see no way it wasn't a robbery considering the 2 KD's and Walcott never being hurt or giving up a 10-8 round himself. That would be a robbery. However, based on the scoring of the day, I wouldn't call it a robbery, but I'd simply leave it at Walcott likely deserved the nod.

 

Some irony right here.

We're talking fantasy matchups prime for prime, not who got beat at certain points in their career. Using your silly logic it would be impossible to even discuss fantasy fiughts without "but x lost to y so he would lose to z", buzz off back to general with that horse**** son.

 

Simple.

It depends upon the scale of the discrepency.

If it is say 60/40 in favour of A, then you say that A probably won, but that there is still a significant/valid argument to the contrary.

If it was more like 80/20 in favour of A, then the contrary argument starts to look unrepresentative, or even ecccentric.

I also think that the punch stats lend the minority argument a bit of credibility in the case of Louis Walcott.

 

I understand what you're saying, but the issue is, you're applying that logic here. Even with the 60/40 scale you're discussing where you say fighter A probably won, the scale here is slightly more than that even. Yet even with a slightly higher scale, you're still trying to find a way NOT to say Walcott probably won, instead you're taking the opposite stance even then. This is what I'm trying to wrap my head around. That isn't even bringing up the elephant in the room of, if it was scored today, it wouldn't even be close with the 10-8 rounds. Further, Walcott essentially stayed away the last 3 rounds feeling like he had won already. Even then, it's not like Joe did anything of significance or damage, he still was unable to land anything of consequence, he just applied pressure and landed the occasional blow. Yet, those are his best rounds when Walcott was just content to stay away at that point. That certainly isn't a ringing endorsement for Joe being the better fighter that night.

 

Why are you guys arguing about the walcott fight? Lennox fought nothing like him and was built completely different, so what can you gain in discussing that fight for this matchup?

 

I think Lewis could keep Joe at bay for a couple rounds. He might even catch Joe coming in with a huge right that knocks Joe down.

But at some point Louis will slip a jab and land a hook that will wobble Lewis. From there Lewis has nowhere to go and will be punched out by Joe.

I think Louis can get hit with a big shot, recover, and win the fight against Lennox.
I don't think Lewis can do the same against Joe.

 

18 men, but far more felt Walcott won, and the crowd gave a thunderous booooo to the decision. Walcott corner was visibly upset. Louis had the body language of a loser. Surviving video shows Walcott was the better, and if this match was scored on the 10 points modern system used today, Louis is most certainly the loser. Back then they scored by rounds and did not issue 10-8 rounds when knockdowns happen.

• Louis was down in rounds one and four.
• Louis was so disgusted by his performance that he attempted to leave the ring as soon as the fight ended, but he was restrained by his handlers.
• A ringside poll of 32 boxing writers had 21 scoring the bout for Walcott, ten scoring it for Louis and one calling it a draw.

McGrain, being relatively fair-minded, I have offered those who want to score the Pastor 1 and Farr fight, and match their scorecards vs Joe Louis's picked promoter, reg and judges. My finding is their cards for Louis was very bad which suggests Louis wasn't going to lose any close fights for openers.

Art Donovan, a ref in 16+ Louis fights, only giving Farr one round and Pastor 2.
That to me is gross incompetence, more likely biased judging as they won closer to ten combined rounds. The other judges were often as bad

 

For the third time Louis v Pastor was promoted by Jimmy Johnston who was the promoter for MSG at the time and also Pastor's pilot.Louis had no say about the judges and the Farr fight was at Yankee Stadium where Jacobs had no pull at all.
Now you've accused both Donovan of being crooked, the judges of the Godoy fight , and Louis's management who is next? Donovan only gave a decision in two of Louis's title fights ,so his input was negligible. How the Walcott fight would be scored today is totally irrelevant ,it was scored under the rules of the time, so it was an equal playing field for both men.

 

Watch the fights, and score them. Then we can compare your card the judges. Are you going to do this or avoid? Dare issued for Pastor1 and Farr. Donovan only gave them 3 combined rounds.

The promoter picks the judges in most cases, and MSG was Joe Louis house more so than any other fighter in the 1930's and 1940's! I've also seen the MSG matchmaker comment on Joe Louis, and he was fond of him

At the time, the Walcott fight was viewed as a bad decision. See the data I posted. Donovan was kicked out of that fight, but the 2 judges that remained saw it for Louis, despite the majority of ringside boxing people and crowd smelling and voicing a bad decision.

 

Sometimes it is OK to say that you don't know who won the fight.

It is also sometimes prudent to not come down too heavily on either side.

In this case I would lay the known facts in front of my audience, and say that there were a few scenarios that fit the facts.

 

I couldn't really disagree with much here. All I'd say is, I believe there is clearly more evidence on the side of Walcott likely being the winner.