This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
Still waiting on somebody to explain how one judge went against virtually all ringside reports and had Louis ahead? How is that possible?
Yeah, I'm not sure why Jersey Joe gets so much praise for his fights with Louis but Godoy rarely gets a mention. Joe said himself 'Godoy was even cuter than Walcott'.
Because different fights can look different to different people. It is a meaningless question. You might as well ask why Thomas Hauser scored Pacquiao-Bradley for Bradley. There is no answer. Godoy-Louis was close with a lot of close rounds.
What needs explaining ? Maybe the judge was ****, or corrupt. This is professional boxing, it's a crooked game, that's all you need to know. Joe Louis knocked Walcott out though, rendering the scoring completely irrelevant.
Actually it's not COMPLETELY irrelevant because I think it goes to show how much people wanted to see Louis (a hero) retain the title and not have Walcott win it. It shows the sway Louis and his camp clearly had. If the majority of sportswriters.. fans.. and the ref score the first fight for Walcott yet Louis gets the nod... Then we see an even more clear decisive majority of writers again have walcott comfortably ahead... then how did a judge still have Louis ahead. It's just another thing to add ammo to the fact that Walcott probably should've won the first fight.. when we see the same judging going on in the second fight.
I dunno, how come I scored the fight to Hagler while others score for Leonard ? One judge had it 118-110 Leonard ... ... what does it all mean ? :think Walcott "probably" should've won the first fight. "Probably", if all of us here could see the full fight, some would score for Louis ... maybe you, maybe I. I guess we'll have to wait 'til the last day when all will be revealed.
Trying to prove that one fight you haven't seen is fixed, based upon the unneeded scorecards for another fight you haven't seen, is over the top.
Mcgrain... let me ask you this... Do you think the judge in the second fight that had Louis ahead was correct? Simple question. Don't give me this oohhh I can't see the fight excuse. It's a simple question of possible and probable and logic. You know very well that a decisive and VAST majority had walcott WELL ahead.. including the other judges...So then.. would you say that one lone judge was likely right or wrong?
I don't know that "the vast majority had walcott Well ahead", no. I told you on page one i think - i never looked into this fight in any detail. Because i've seen Louis blast Walcott's teeth out on film. But when I looked into Louis-Walcott I, I was surprised by what I found. So...
maybe you'll be surprised on what you find if you ever review what the writers thought at the time of the stoppage of the second fight. Maybe.. just maybe...
If I were able to score every round of the two fights I would be comfortable arguing it. Since I haven't, I won't. Louis 2 - 0 Walcott
McGrain is a big Louis fan. While I appreciate him talking about Louis, his drawback on this topic is he won't give a direct reply to a question like this, as it would diminish Louis. Anyone who saw the film of Louis vs Wallcott II knows Walcott was far ahead! I have told others repeatedly here that the scoring in some of Louis matches where he was behind on points, or in a close match were off. See the Farr, Godoy 1, or both Walcott fights. Of see the Farr match, where one judge had it 14-1. Horrible. On the topic, what were the score cards in the first Schmeling match. I have never seen them. Can anyone post them?