Wladimir Klitschko vs. Joe Louis.

Ruby Goldstein the referee and a pal of Louis', voted for Walcott.

 

He probably deserved the nod. Something had to be controversial to prompt an immediate rematch.

 

That kinda proves my point. Are we really gonna tell those ten who scored it for Louis they're in the wrong despite the fact they've seen it and we haven't?

 

One knob on here would!

 

No absolutely not.. But there were also 21 others who scored that fight for Walcott who's opinions one might lean towards too.

 

I think given that 1/3 saw it one way and 2/3 saw it another, due to that being a small sample size, all you can really conclude is it was a close fight that either man could have won.

 

He could have fought either Elmer Ray or Lee Q Murray, but both had been beaten by Walcott at that stage.

 

Klitschko vs Andrew Ward who wins?

 

That seems reasonable.What seems unreasonable,imo is for someone to state 65 years later ,and based on some edited highlights that Walcott deserved the decision.That is my stance.

 

Without having seen the fight I would remain completely vertical!

 

There is enough information to assume the possibility of the decision being wrong.
But there is not enough information to know for sure. And there won't be until there is a full film of the fight.

 

Joe Louis by a 3-4. round ko.

 

This is an interesting fight. Both were supreme in their own eras, and both were very technically sound boxer-punchers. Neither had what you'd consider iron chins, and both could flatten almost anyone if they land right.

Wlad is a physical colossus with great movement and a ramrod jab. Inside he ties up shorter men and forces them to carry his weight. These are some considerable obstacles to overcome, even for the great Louis.

That said, it is difficult to mentally shake the losses Wlad suffered. When he got dropped, he lost. Only against Peter and (forget the fighter's name now) did he win when dropped.
But Wlad was in some serious difficulty in those fights too, and one got the impression that he stumbled over the finish line in those fights, thankful for them to be over.

By contrast, if one dropped Louis, then it was like poking the bear. You had a wildcat on your hands. There is simply no comparison between a hurt Louis and a hurt Wlad. Louis was by FAR the more dangerous fighter when dropped or hurt.

The choice of ref might be the biggest and most important variable in this fight.
A lenient ref that allows excessive smothering and clinching will be a huge plus for Wlad.
Louis will have a very tough time of it if Wlad is allowed to establish his jab n grab routine.
On the other hand, a Mills Lane or some other disciplinarian, who is not afraid to dock points or even disqualify a fighter, will be a big plus for Louis.
Wlad did not have much of an inside game, at least not the Steward version. If Louis is allowed to get in closer, without fear of being tied up and mauled, then Wlad is going to find out sooner or later just why Louis was called the 'Brown Bomber.'

 

Without sufficient film footage to watch the actual fight in its entirety we can't draw clad iron conclusions. That much I'll agree with. But sometimes boxing historians have to function like experts of other historical disciplines and piece together the puzzle, in much the same way that archaeologists or paleontologists do with what little evidence they have.. Of Walcott vs Louis I, we have the following to work with :

- 21 of 32 ringsiders gave the fight to Walcott
- The acting referee and friend of Joe Louis gave it to Walcott
- Louis was decked twice in the fight
- what little film footage exists shows Walcott doing better than Louis
- An immediate rematch was demanded.

To be fair, when it comes to fights we haven't seen we've all been guilty on this board of saying at one time or another " well a lot of people felt that fighter Y beat fighter X" Or " There were many who felt that fight was a robbery. "

 

The underlined is true, but that is totally different to stating so and so won the fight!
That is sheer lunacy! And the key to support this is your phrase,"what little footage exists!"

I don't class myself as a boxing historian and would be hard pushed to so describe anyone else here.