Louis vs Walcott 3?

You say give away the rounds. I say Louis forced the pace and won the rounds.

To be in a world championship fight and actively give away 20% of the rounds is incredibly stupid.

The victories are written in stone mate. As I said, if the full fight ever becomes available you might find yourself scoring in favour of Louis anyway.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Maybe he deserved the decision in the first fight, but enough people seemed to think he didn't do quite enough, so maybe it wasn't a robbery. Are you saying he deserved to win the first 12 rounds ? Or that he'd unequivocally won 8 of those first 12 ? Have you seen the entire fight ?

The controversy of the first fight was real. Some swore he was done an injustice. So they rematched.

The second fight he was KO'd.
He was KO'd, completely and fairly beaten. There's no way round that.

 

The referee voted for Walcott but only by 7 rds to 6rds, a fight like that close can never be "a robbery". imo

 

The second Louis-Walcott fight was fairly uneventful because Louis changed his strategy, instead of attempting to chase Walcott he boxed more cautiously.
The idea that Walcott was having his way for the first 10 rounds is just wrong anyway. The referee told them to pick up the action in the 10th round. And when they engaged it was Walcott who got KO'd.

I'd also like to point out that "over-confidence" is a weakness, not a strength. Geting knocked out when you're attempting some useless shuffle isn't proof of being a superior boxer, far from it.
Besides, many fights do such nonsense in an attempt to hide their lack of confidence in winning a match of straight-up boxing skill, it's an effort to confuse and stall, and buy themselves some time.

Either way, getting caught on the chin, and smashed to the canvas by a combination of devastating punches to be counted out really doesn't require any further interpretation.

 

As the great Ezzard Charles found out, challenging Walcott three times isn't the best idea. Walcott finally puts together a convincing win here.

 

"Always one to give a worthy challenger a rematch, especially one necessary to redeem his public image, Louis granted Walcott a rematch on June 25, 1948. "There ain't gonna be no argument when we meets again," he told one reporter. Despite the boast, Louis came in heavier than any time previous in his career, weighing 213 pounds, and looked every bit of it. Again he appeared slow and clumsy, even hitting the deck in the third round, thanks to a combination from the evasive challenger. Rising to his feet before the referee could even begin his count, Louis fought on. Aside from that brief moment of excitement, the fight proved a bore for the fans through most of the going, as Walcott did little but dance out of harm's way while Louis failed to put any harm on his fleet-footed challenger. In the tenth, Referee Frank Fullam commanded the fighters to "get the lead out of your ass" and finally the pair started battling, Louis seeming to having the edge on the action. When another lull in action occurred in the eleventh round, the referee again told the fighters to start throwing punches. Louis hurt Walcott with a right, and soon afterwards, dropped him with a devastating five-punch combination. Referee Fullam counted him out."

 

I'm not sure what you mean by, what are you getting at, as I believe I've clearly said where I'm getting at. I'll summarize:

1. Walcott won the clear majority of pretty votes
2. In those votes, they fight were relatively close one way or another with a couple exceptions
3. Some people who gave the fight to Louis, and even ones who gave it to Walcott, noted that Joe was content to move away from Louis feeling that he had already done enough

Now what are the logical deductions to the above?

People who scored the fight for Louis or Walcott essentially all gave Joe the last three rounds, some citing the above reason. Not that Louis did anything those rounds, or even hurt Walcott in the slightest, they just didn't like that Walcott was coasting. Yet, the majority still gave the fight to Walcott, when essentially, he willing gave away the last 3 rounds. What other logical deduction can we come to than... When Walcott was actively engaging and trying, he was thoroughly outboxing Louis? Tell me how that wouldn't be correct? Yet here, people are using the first fight to illustrate why Joe would win a third? Illustrating a fight Louis got outboxed in and KD twice in? That is my issue here

 

It doesn't? You don't you might get overconfident when you had been showboating for parts of the first fight, and fight you should've likely been awarded the victory? A fight in which you put down your foe two times, and were never once hurt yourself. You don't think you might get overconfident when your CONTINUE what you had been doing the previous 15 rounds and continue to outbox Louis, while seemingly doing it with ease for the first 10 rounds. Being up on the cards and again, knocking for foe down and never being knocked down yourself. All the while continuing to showboat. Yes it was a careless mistake, but it's easy to see how it happened. He had been handling Louis with relative ease for 25 rounds and put him down 3 times to 0. Doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake, but it doesn't change the fact, that it was likely the only reason Louis got to him. He certainly didn't get to him for 25 rounds prior while not showboating or showboating.

 

I don't say, the press reports say. Which using your argument, are you going to argue with people who saw the fight and you didn't? Most people who voted for Louis or Walcott noted Walcott was coasting the last 3 rounds, they SPECIFICALLY said this the reason why Joe won those rounds. So yes, he coasted, Walcott even admitted him coasted in interviews. Yet, even giving away those last 3 rounds, Louis still lost the majority of votes. Why? Cause he was getting DECISIVELY outboxed by Walcott the previous 12 rounds.

 

I'm not gonna argue with anyone about a fight I haven't seen. If we saw it we might both score it to Louis.

The fight was close enough to warrant a rematch, everyone agrees there. The rematch had a conclusive ending.

 

Fair enough, but why do fighters "coast" at all ?
If he's so superior when engaging in boxing* there's no need to coast.

*which doesn't even seem to be the case, unless we're saying he was 12-0 ahead - if not, then clearly he DID lose rounds during the part of the fight where he was "trying".


But, as I say, he likely deserved the decision in the first fight. And, I agree, the first fight is no indication of Louis beatng Walcott in a third fight.
The second fight though was not even a remotely disputable result. Louis knocked Walcott out.

 

He got knocked out. Before the KO neither fighter was doing much. Then when they started to get going a bit, Louis knocked Walcott out.

Overconfident is no alibi. Some of the worst fighters in the world are overconfident.
There's a whole lot of lot of reason to say Joe Louis was overconfident going in to the first fight. If it's some sort of alibi for you, then consider that.

You can talk all you want about "25 rounds with ease", it doesn't count for much when you get KO'd.
Louis was knocked down 3 times in those rounds and got up 3 times. Walcott went down and was stumbling around until he was counted out. That's boxing.

Walcott wasn't the first man to walk away from being KTFO by Louis and say "I was ahead on points" or "It was even until he got to me". It means nothing, Louis had a knack of knocking those men out. I guess his presence made them do some strange things. And I guess he was just the better fighter on those night.

 

the problem for Walcott is to win he has to walk a fine line between getting ko'd and losing on points

 

I think the answer is pretty straightforward, Walcott was trying to do something nobody in a VERY long time had done. Beat Joe Louis. It likely didn't matter that he had been doing just fine engaging and fighting more. As you say, it's fing Joe Louis!! When you're on the verge of your crowing moment, and fighting a killer, why would you continue to take chance even if it had been working. He simply thought the safer play was to stay away, and not take any big chance feeling he had done enough. Which according to most, he still had.

 

If you watched the first fight I bet you'd score it to Louis.