Louis-Walcott 1 - Was it a robbery?

Problem is, we also can't assume that all of the missing footage (or even the majority) is Louis attacking like hell. It may not be so misleading to think that much of the missing fight was along similar lines...that's not a 100% assumption, but perhaps a reasonable one.

 

Well, I have most of the rds that "Louis & Walcott" fought between their two fight s from '47 & 1948.... In my view, I think Joe Walcott did enough to take the title by way of points from Joe Louis in 1947. Plus, Walcott did drop Louis twice in the bout.. Team Walcott screwed up by telling their man to stay away and box / coast in the final three rds, because, they were worried about the "Billy Conn" scenario earlier in 1941... The Problem with that strategy was, Joe Walcott was NOT a very popular figure with a solid reputation behind his career in 1947.. Had Walcott owned a bigger fan following and more pull with the press, he more-than-likely would've gotten the decision over Joe Louis in 1947.... Basically, Joe Walcott received a political screwing....:|

MRBILL

 

This is not what I'm saying. My point is this: It seems silly to make such bold robbery claims based on watching only a few seconds of each round. I, personally, believe Louis won the fight, but I'm not claiming any certainty to my opinion since I haven't seen enough of the fight. It was obviously a close fight, however.

It's just as reasonable to believe that the missing footage shows Walcott not being aggressive enough and throwing away enough rounds to lose the decision.

 

Originally Posted by Mendoza
Louis low guard, slow feet and average defense were no match for Walcott's fancy footwork, and countering ability.

Walcott was well in the lead in the 2nd fight. For some reason Wlacott decided to stand and trade with Louis. A mistake for sure.

 

"Walcott was well in the lead in the 2nd fight."

No. It was close. The referee had Louis ahead 5-2. One judge had Walcott ahead 6-3. The other had it for Walcott 5-4. As Louis was on his way to winning the 11th even without the late round knockout, I would say the fight was even with Louis coming on.

Walcott traded with Louis because Louis caught him with a right cross which buckled Walcott's knees. Louis was then able to trap Walcott against the ropes and begin to work him over. Walcott tried to fight his way out and Louis finished him rather impressively.

A lot of people mention the knockdowns, but they meant nothing outside of perhaps swinging the round of the knockdown under the New York scoring of the time. These fights were scored by rounds.

 

Shirley Povich called it "the boldest robbery in modern heavyweight annals." The British sportswriter at the fight faxed something along the lines of its having been the biggest robbery since Colonel Blood stole the crown jewels. The Police Gazette publishers subsequently presented Walcott with a belt and declared that they would recognize him as champion. All in all, I'd say there's quite a bit of pretty adamant testimony to the effect that this fight was a robbery of major proportions. Of course, there were also those who differed, but the fact that a substantial majority of the sportswriters in attendance scored the fight for Walcott, some of them reacting with utter disgust at the verdict, is particularly significant in my eyes when one considers what a national hero and sentimental favorite Louis was at the time. I do believe this fight was a robbery.

 

Good points, but don't forget that pumping the "robbery" line also helped build up interest in the rematch and so there was a motive for exaggerating Walcott's superiority.

 

When 2/3 of the ringside press score it for the challenger it's a robbery in my book.

 

But wouldn't that also mean 1/3 scored the fight for Louis?

I don't think 2/3 automatically means the fight was a robbery. What did those 2/3 individually think of the decision? Did everyone who scored it for Walcott think he won decisively, or did a lot of them think it was a close fight that probably could've gone the other way, or been scored a draw?

 

But 66.6% is enough for me to think the decision was not correct, especially as there's always a handful of "have to take it from the champ" types. I think it's a fairly well-known dodgy verdict too, and Louis thought it was a bad 'un- and he was taking those shots.

 

I would say not necessarily. The press voted unanimously for Patterson over Maxim while all three officials picked Maxim. I have seen this fight several times and I think Maxim took it.

Reporters can be biased toward a good story. Maxim beating Patterson was not interesting. Patterson beating Maxim heralded the birth of a new superstar.

Louis was very popular in 1947, but the heavyweight division was viewed as moribund with no worthy challenger on the scene. Walcott upending Louis, or being robbed, not only set the sports pages on fire but obviously enjoined a compelling rematch. Could this effect the coverage of the fight? Possibly.

I think Walcott probably deserved the decision off the ringside votes and the general turmoil, but without seeing an unedited film of the fight I would be cautious about pushing the "highway robbery" angle. It was a close fight from all indications.

 

Louis always maintained that while he performed poorly, and wanted to leave the ring because he was embarressed by his performance, he also did not think Walcott deserved the decision, as Walcott ran most of the fight. He said this on TV as late as the 1970's on "The Way It Was" with Walcott present.

 

All good points OF. I do think in this case, it has gained a notoriety as being a bad verdict though. For example, before this thread was made if I was asked to name a 'well known' robbery from the 1940s, I'd immediately have thought of Walcott-Louis.

 

It is the best known. But there were others that many thought were unfair such as Sugar Ray Robinson's decision verdict over Georgie Abrams.