Prime Joe Louis v Walcott and Charles?

I think Louis would always have trouble with these guys, they were both very skilled. Walcott came in very prepared vs Louis and Marciano and I think the results would be somewhat of the same. Louis was dropped in both fights vs Walcott and by tricky shots but he lured Joe into an aggressive move in the 11th rd of fight 2, same as he did Conn.

I would have to say Louis wins but JJW and Charles always a problem but Louis was a master of the rematch and got even better 2nd time in

 

Split??? What??? The votes were not split at all. Walcott had the clear majority of votes.. almost double if I remember correctly. It wasn't lopsided like Pac vs. Bradley, but nevertheless Walcott had the clear majority.

Please, don't talk to me about what Louis said in his autobiography. If you're so sure you won, why would you leave the ring. That makes ZERO sense. Like this would be the first time a fighter has claimed he won the fight when we all can see he didn't. Bradley thought he won.. Chavez thought he beat Whitaker... Holyfield thought he beat Lewis the first time. I could go on and on. So please try and spare me what Louis said in his autobiography. Talk about a bias point of view. I'll just choose to go with the ref.. the sportswriters and the fans that all had Walcott winning. I'll take that everyday of the week and twice on sunday over what a fighter in the fight thinks.

Do you throw out all of Greb's fights that were newspapers verdicts? If you don't, then why aren't you going with what the newspapers thought.. the ref thought.. the fans thought here. You can't have it both ways. You couldn't see the greb fights either, yet you still give him those wins. Hypocrisy can only go so far my friend and you know it. We can try and make excuses for joe that night, but the reality is, the most likely and most logical view is he lost that fight. Period.

let me ask you... if that fight had been scored under modern criteria... do you have any doubt Walcott wouldn't won then with his 2 KD's actually counted in the scoring and Louis having none?

 

Joe Louis had one disputed verdict against Jersey Joe Walcott then beat him in the re-match. It was under the old scoring system and two knockdowns only count as two rounds which does not necessarily mean he obviously won a fight where there are 15 rounds to be judged. I know the ref gave it to Walcott. One judge gave it to Larry Holmes in the Holmes-Spinks re-match too but Spinks won. JJW would always give Louis problems but the official result was two wins for Louis. Ken Norton would always give Ali problems - many thought he won the 3rd fight - you might as well conclude that it was 2-1 to Norton and the judges just got it wrong. You cant overturn results. atsch

I don't think there has ever been a heavyweight champion that didn't have stylistic problems against certain opponents.

 

Split just means there were opposing opinions.
It doesn't imply an "equal split".

The numbers of those apparently polled (2 judges, 1 referee and the 32 writers) suggest a 2 to 1 verdict in favour of Walcott.

It was probably a close fight.

 

^^^ I agree with Kurupt. It just seems so reasonable. Why would anyone dispute this? If you haven't watched the full fight, please do so.

As for the question of "Prime Joe Louis v Walcott and Charles," if we're talking about prime Walcott and Charles, then I don't think that gives them any advantage. It seems that Charles wasn't ever his best at hw and that Walcott was his best in his latter years (thus a non-prime Louis beat him at his best). Louis has problems, but he wins against them both. There's a good reason why prime Louis is the greatest (or second greatest) hw of all-time.

 

I must side with McVey on this and the reason I do, with all respect Suzie, is because Louis, in his autobiography, said that the Mauriello fight in '46 was quote "the last time I felt like my old self".

 

Louis of 47 was same Louis as 46. Deal with it. He felt like he did against mauriello because he was facing a short poly plodder who stood right in front of him instead of an ATG tricky defensive master

Louis said a lot of things. He said in the lee savold fight he felt and looked as good as 1946. Do you believe him?

 

Deal with it? Hey Suzy - calm down, that's a bit strong. There's nothing to "deal" with mate...we are just debating boxing. I was polite to you in my post to you, can't you reciprocate?

I was just quoting Louis himself in his autobiography, it seems you have taken my response personally. I don't know the reasons WHY he felt like he did against Mauriello, that is just supposition, all I can quote are Louis' own words.

You say that Louis was the same in '47 as he was in '46 - Louis' own quote about the Mauriello fight appears to contradict your view...with all respect, I'll take Joe's opinion on this one over yours.
Yes, Louis said a lot of things. Do I believe what he said about Savold - I can't comment, I've not seen the actual quote from Louis, so I don't know.

Peace fella...

 

Many think Walcott won the first fight. An issue with this thread is do you think the scoring would be fair. I have found the referee to be biased toward Louis in a few of his distance fights. Referee Frank Fullam has Louis ahead 5-2 over Walcott in the second fight. What a sham. Louis of course won via 11th round KO, but that does not excuse the shady scoring.

I’d pick Walcott to win the first fight and lose the re-match.

I think Louis would eventually stop Charles, but could be down on points before he does so.

 

I thought that might've been the case. I had thought I had seen the complete fight. My bad, I stand corrected. Thanks for the info :good