I really don't understand how you cannot grasp that, when Louis fought Pastor the first time it was under the auspices of Jimmy Johnston ,the promoter at MSG and the manager of Pastor.Louis had nothing to do with picking of the referee, Johnston was the man who called the shots. The Farr fight was at Yankee Stadium ,I've told you this about 5 times this week! You're really ridiculous do you know that? Louis is just one of the fighters on your hate list ,you knock him at every opportunity ,I only reply to expose your blatant bias,your opinion is totally irrelevant to me.
Lewis for me. His size allied to his ability and style would place him well. Louis never beat anyone remotely approaching the greatness of Lewis. Louis can certainly not be written off and is a chance himself. I would not die of surprise if Lewis struck early. Louis could be caught and hurt early and Lewis possibly has the skillset to finish if such a scenario unfolded.
It's a bit more than that though. Almost nobody on the forum believes that Whitaker lost to Jose Ramirez. Almost nobody - anyone that is is treated as a statistical anomaly and ignored. The argument about what ringsiders saw in Louis-Walcott is really about an extension of what we would see. Presuming that the split of the ringside polls (there were two) would be a reasonable representation of what is captured on film (a big assumption in itself) we would expect that posters would be split along these lines. You and I and Kurupt, if we saw the film, Kurupt and I would see it for Walcott, maybe you would see it for Louis. The point is, that is a discussion. That is the kind of discussion that is had about Ward-Kovalev. If there was film, there would be arguments about the validity of that decision, for sure, but most people would probably fall into the "I had it to Walcott very close so I don't think the decision is that bad." Every card i've seen bar two (one apiece) are extremely close. I think if we could see the film there would be a clear argument for Louis to get the decision, and he did get the decision so people arguing for robbery - that is, for "changing" the decision in preference of the beaten fighter in terms of our perception - would be very limited. Compare that to ringside scoring for Pacquiao-Bradley or Ramirez-Whitaker. This is the difference I always see with this discussion under the spotlight.
How about people arguing that the officials were corrupt and in Louis' managements pocket? Got any comment to make there?
Not really. There just isn't much proof of it. I think that like any great superstar there was likely a tendency to favour him on the cards, but if it manifested itself it was only once and it was in Louis-Walcott I.
Louis by KO inside 8 rounds. Lennox keeps him at bay but runs out of steam and into Louis' combinations around the midway mark, he's simply too big for Louis not to miss and he gets nailed. I think Lennox would have been competitive early on and may even drop Joe but he'd get up and that's the difference. Louis KO 8 Lewis.
Lewis would look good the first four rounds (I'm talking about the latter era LL, when he gained an actual jab). But Louis would have caught him with something at least as hard as McCall threw. Louis might conceivably get knocked down, Lewis would be devastated.
