One sided mismatches that actually got a rematch

Fullmer-Basilio
Evan Armstrong-Howard Hayes
Hope- Paul
Stracey-Arthur
Olivares-Chacon
Stay safe guys.

 

Were the judges going under some alternate 10 point system?? 149-130 requires 6 knockdowns/point deductions (assuming no 10-10 rounds).

148-120 requires SEVENTEEN knockdowns/point deductions.

 

TS, the 149-138 score was by the South African judge. The two lop-sided scores were from the two judges from New Mexico - Foster's hometown. I'm not saying anything funny was going on as referee Jim Cleary was the dissenting judge in Foster's bout with Jorge Ahumada. He scored it for the Argentine also in New Mexico. But if I was to guess I would say they were given very liberal rights in the scoring and giving Bob quite the number of 10-8 rounds for dominant rounds. I've never seen a film on this, but it would be my guess.

 

Joe Walcott got thoroughly outboxed by Ezzard Charles in early 1951 and knocked down on the way to losing a decision.

That was Joe’s second loss in a row and his fifth out of his last 10 fights.

Four months later he was gifted a rematch with Ezz for no good reason (except shady connections) and KO’d Charles to win the heavyweight championship.

Makes you wonder if Ezz was in the bag for this one — JJW was going to keep getting title shots until the ‘powers that be’ behind the scenes got the result they wanted.

 

The first Hagler Obel fight was actually a heck'uva rumble . He fought back against Marvin with a lot of guts and courage. But putting him back in there had predictable results

 

I agree Joe had no business getting another shot at Charles, but I think he just caught lightening in a bottle with that knockout shot.

 

It does not make me wonder considering Walcott was one of the greatest technicians of his generation in addition to being one of the greatest technicians in the heavyweight division of all time. No way Ezz took a dive, and Walcott was an accredited fighter he wasn't some schmuck getting title shots. How did the powers that be benefit from Walcott losing so many bouts and winning half of them?

You've got no proof for such a claim and the rational just isn't there to make a sensible case. This is a bad take imo

 

Ezz won the first fight by wide UD yes, but the second fight was controversial even with Charles a 5-1 betting favorite, Walcott was in the general consensus robbed once again, just as he was against Louis in a previous title fight. Walcott had bad luck, and he had trouble always showing up his best but he was a legendary talent. There is no lightning in a bottle, what there is, is a working class man in his middle 30's fighting for a title every chance he gets.

Ezzard is one of the greatest fighters to ever live, as is Walcott. Walcott was robbed numerous times and there was a lot of public support for an aging and working-class fighter, an underdog to continue getting title shots as he continued being robbed, and genuinely losing along the way too.

 

1) Walcott’s career was on a downslide when he took on Felix Boccicchio as his manager. He was mob through and through — involved in running gambling operations, holdups/stickups and suspected of masterminding the murder of a policeman. Oh, also fixing fights. He was an underboss in mafia terminology.

This content is protected

.

2) The IBC, which was mob-controlled, had a stranglehold on boxing. Especially, after Joe Louis retired, the heavyweight championship. Ezzard and Walcott were both signed to the IBC. They did things as they saw fit, and it probably ‘fit’ their interests to have an underdog who was 5-5 in his last 10 fights go over the champ as there was little to no money to be made in Charles, who wasn’t a popular attraction, continuing as champ much longer.

Explain to me how Walcott, pedestrian in his last 10 fights and a runaway loser to Charles in their previous fiht (including being knocked down) merited an immediate rematch. Curious to say the least. Something doesn’t smell right.

EDIT: To further illustrate how it fit their interests, you had a 37-year-old guy who was considered pretty washed, a 9-1 underdog who had been soundly beaten by the same guy four months earlier … pretty ripe for a mob fix to put the money on Walcott and cash Ezz in.

We look at Jersey Joe a lot differently now because he won this fight and was outboxing Marciano til he got caught. If he doesn’t get this rematch, the four-time loser in heavyweight title fights wouldn’t be appreciated as much more than an also-ran who was a pretty good boxer. He lost to some pedestrian guys and fell short against the top of the division til this fight.

 

Couldn't quite grasp how Steve Mamakos gets himself a rematch and a middleweight title shot to boot against Tony Zale. For one, he was an unranked welterweight who - earlier in 1940 - was outclassed by Holman Williams and had his arse handed to him by so-so welterweight Phil Furr (dropped 6 times and stopped in 7). Six months later he gets a non-title fight with Zale and, although he gives Zale some resistance, he is dropped twice and loses yet another fight. So let's ignore every top contender and give this welterweight clubfighter a title shot at middleweight. Brilliant!

 

With punchers like Shavers and Smith, though, you can never say a rematch is unwarranted, because a single punch can change everything. Smith was also a guy that kept his power late, so you could never count him out. Had Tyson had just an average chin Smith might actually have scored a KO there.

McCallum, though, wasn't usually someone who turned a fight with one punch and he got thoroughly outboxed by Kalambay the first time around. But he won the rematch, which is probably the most technically perfect I've ever seen, from both parties, so it was warranted.

 

Shavers lost to Holmes in a 12-round eliminator (Shavers ranked third, Holmes fourth) In June 1978 for the WBC crown that had been given to Ken Norton (retroactively making his fight vs. Jimmy Young for the vacant title when Leon Spinks elected to rematch Ali rather than fight Norton). Thus Holmes got the shot at Norton and claimed that crown.

In March 1979, on the Holmes-Ocasio undercard, Norton fought Shavers in an eliminator and knocked Norton out in one. That made him a mandatory. So he earned his rematch.

 

Dempsey & Flynn, which Dempsey reversed the one sided beat down