Louis vs Walcott 3?

You have been posting some intruiging questions lately, a shining light in what is rapidly becoming an ocean of dross.
I'll have to think about this.

 

Well Louis edged the first on points and the second time round he knocked him out.

My guess is the trilogy fight would have gone same way as the second.

Louis KO Walcott to finish the series at 3-0(2)

 

Louis according to the vast majority at ringside and the surviving film, which is not 100% complete lost the first fight! On a 10 point must modern scoring system, which was not used at the time of the first fight, he loses on the given cars.

• 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.

Louis was well behind in the second match, then Walcott inexplicably got cute and caught.


Louis was fading a bit after Walcott 2, and I think he would lose the 3rd match.

 

I think Joe Louis would have won.

 

Good question.

I reckon Walcott would make it third time lucky. Louis/Walcott II,Jersey Joe had kept his form. Maybe even improved while Louis had slipped.

 

What do you class as a vast majority?

Why would you condemn a man with scoring not used in his time? On a ten point must Johnson beats Hart but the fight was thought with aggression being the main criteria so I'm not gonna gift him a victory he didn't achieve.

11 men at ringside didn't give Walcott the victory, are you gonna tell them they're wrong without seeing it yourself?

 

Right, and almost twice as many gave it to Walcott Luf, so are they wrong? You're siding with the minority here Luf, not the majority, and that is the key difference that seems to elude you. The reality is this about this particular fight... You'd have to make Walcott the clear favorite here. The first match, while contentious, should've LIKELY been give to Walcott. Most seem to agree, that Walcott was likely the victor of that match. So your whole premise of, well Joe, won the first, and the second, so he should when the third is faulty at its core. Louis was decidedly outboxed the first fight. Walcott coasted the last 3 rounds feeling the fight was in hand. Everybody gave those rounds to Louis, and the majority still had Walcott winning. Walcott basically conceded the last 3 rounds, and yet still lost, yet you're going to sit here and ride a premise of... Louis won the first fight so... LOL. That logical line of progression is terrible to say the least.

Further, even referencing the second fight is faulty, just not to the degree the first is. He at least got a KO, and it was decisive, but there is valuable context missing here to. Firstly, AGAIN, Walcott was outboxing Louis convincingly. Walcott was ahead when he was put down. Not to mention, the only reason Louis even put down Walcott was because he was showboating at the time. He wasn't afraid of Louis, because he had been handling him for TWENTY FIVE ROUNDS. In those 25 rounds, Louis never hurt Walcott, nor was he outboxing him. On the contrary, Walcott had put down Joe 3 times in those 25 rounds and continually outboxed him. So there is every reason to understand why he was showboating and confident. He had handled him for 25 rounds, with relative ease I might add, and thus he got overconfident. In a third fight, Walcott wouldn't do so again, and would likely stop Louis or win an easy points decision. The facts point to this, more than the reverse.

 

Very good post.

 

Yes he is!

 

It's my contention that any definitive verdict of the first fight , given by anyone who has not seen the complete fight and is basing his opinion on hearsay and edited highlights is not dealing in reality.

 

Actually If Walcott engaged more in a third fight he would be giving Louis more opportunities to stop him.imo