Very good or great? Volume 10: Jersey Joe Walcott

**** paragraphs I teach maths not English :good

 

You mean despite "losing" a fight most thought he won right? :good

 

I meant despite losing a close fight.

 

No, a more accurate statement is, losing one of the most controversial decisions in HW history that most thought he won. Doesn't get much more accurate than that :good

 

It was a close fight and a fight he lost.

I'm not gonna pass judgement on a fight I can't see but given the cards submitted and the reports written it was close and could have gone either way. Glad they had a rematch to settle the issue.

 

Using that criteria.. how do you judge any of the Greb fights? Since most of those were ND's? Here we have the clear majority of Newspapers... crowd and ref voting for Walcott. Was the majority wrong? Doubtful. If you accept the validity of newspapers decisions for greb and how much weight that carries... why not the same for this fight? It was one of the most controversial decisions in HW history... not because it was just a close fight.. but because most disagreed with the decision. So the correct wording is... Lost a fight most everybody thought he won.. including Louis (now we're getting somewhere eh luf? )

Not as much was settled in the rematch as you make out.. by my account and many others.. that would still only leave it at 1 n 1. To make things even more unclear... Louis was being SOUNDLY outboxed in the rematch.. So much so that he won 7 out of the first 10 rounds.. knocking Louis down again. To make matters worse.. The only time Joe landed the faitful blows.. was when Walcott was clowing joe and taunting joe. He didn't outbox him to land that KO.. he was handed the KO by a tauting Walcott showboating.. Hardly proves superiority if you're getting soundly outboxed and only score a KO cause the guy showboats.. Let's not act like Joe outboxed walcott.. it's the exact opposite really.

 

worlds apart in the example... Charles was still fighting world class top fighters on a consistent basis.. Mayweather is a decade older and been cherrypicking fights for that decade. World's apart really. To be fair, just because you haven't lost doesn't mean you're still prime... but charles was certainly prime or close to prime when he was KTFO

 

It was still a DECISIVE majority of Newspapers AND Fans... It's regarded as one of the most controversial decisions in history.. not because it was close.. but beause the majority felt that Walcott won and was robbed. Saying it was just close doesn't do justice to the feeling of the majority. Further, if most people did accept that Walcott could've gotten the decision he would be credited with that sentiment more around here. Peope in this very thread said if he had been given the decision against Louis they would've voted great.. Well see, that is my problem, because he likely should've gotten the decision according to most, yet he isn't credited with that when people evaluate his greatness. Which is why we're here. If people did so.. and said.. yeah walcott could very well have beaten a prime or close to prime Louis and given him his BEST fight to date and maybe ever.. that should some weight. Instead we have people just labeling the fight... Louis won a close decision.. which is think is an injustice to the man... his performance.. and the majority of people who saw the fight. That is my issue here.

 

It wasn't a decisive number of newspapers!

 

Depends on how you define decisive.. more than one or two or three can be decisive. Choose whatever wording you like.. it was still a clear majority big flea.

 

Great no doubt

 

My stance on ND fights is I credit the man who got newspaper vote and I don't hold it against the man who didnt since all he had to do was finish on his feet to avoid a loss.

regarding the Louis fight it clearly could have gone either way, Louis got the decision and he knocked him out in the rematch.

You might not consider a knockout a decisive victory but I still do.

Which brings me back to my initial point - Louis won a close fight that could have gone either way, he granted jersey a rematch and knocked him clean out.

Simple really mate.

 

Good case Suzie, although point 5 I think is wrong, think Harold injured himself and it wasn't a KO at all. Maybe you should have included the controversy of his losses too, ie Maxim.

I don't know how some call Burley a great and not Walcott tbh

There is the same 'evidence' for Mosley beating Delahoya in their 2nd fight (more ringsiders had Mosley winning) and the same 'evidence' for Pacquaio beating Marquez in their 3rd fight. No reasonable fair poster considers those anything but robberies. Ultimately their are highlights were Walcott easily outboxes Louis where Louis can't land anything. Louis himself considered Walcott the winner after the fight saying as much to Walcott, most fans in the stadium considered it a robbery. Nevermind the writers who were in the promoters pockets, we can find reporters who thought Mosley won the DLH rematch.

 

Point is.. ND do carry weight in your eyes is the point. So much so that you're able to award somebody the winner based on them.. having never seen the fight. See where this path leads. Here you discount the majority feeling walcott won.. fans feeling walcott won.. the man closest to the figh tfeeling walcott won.. **** louis himself felt Walcott won and apologized to him. Yet, that isn't good enough here... Odd indeed.

It was a decisive finish.. but the point is.. he was being TOTALLY outclassed and outboxed.. Walcott was WELL ahead on the cards. The only time Joe was able to land those fateful blows in when Walcott was LITERALLY showboating. He didn't outbox him to land those shots.. he wasn't ahead on the cards.. he ONLY landed them when Walcott was showboating beause of how he was dominating. So, in that sense it wasn't decisive at all.

 

I've read mixed account on that... some people there said it was a clear KO.. Johnson and his handlers said he hurt his back... who knows.. Good point about the controversy with Maxim as well.