Walcott-Louis 1...your score cards...

[Robinson]

How did you score it ?

Seems plenty here proclaim this as an absolute
robbery, more so than many others listed here.

I have unfortunately only seen a compression of
this fight :(

I am curious to know how others scored it, as many
have an opinion on it.

Thanks again guys.

Kym

[TheOneIsHere2008]

How did you score it ?

Seems plenty here proclaim this as an absolute
robbery, more so than many others listed here.

I have unfortunately only seen a compression of
this fight :(

I am curious to know how others scored it, as many
have an opinion on it.

Thanks again guys.

Kym

It was right up there with Park Si-Hun over Roy Jones Jr.... (JUST KIDDING)...It was a close fight and the champ got the benefit of the doubt...

[Woller]

A full 15 round fight version does not excist on film, so all is just talk without substance.

From what I have read during the years, and seeing the official scorecards, it sounds something like ODLH v Trinidad.

Woller

[My2Sense]

From what I have read during the years, and seeing the official scorecards, it sounds something like ODLH v Trinidad.

That seems like a good comparison to me.

From what exists of the fight, I don't see Walcott controlling Louis at all. Except for a couple of rounds that Walcott won big (namely, the two that he floored Louis in), he mostly does a lot of dancing, feinting, shuffling, and showboating, but in terms of actual fighting, I don't see him doing any better than what Louis is. In fact, I see Louis as the aggressor and at least making an effort to win. It was similar somewhat to Pernell Whitaker's "controversial" losses, with Walcott making Louis look bad and perhaps "looking" like the better fighter, but not doing enough of the actual fighting needed to outpoint the other fighter.

From the bulk of the fight that I've seen, it looks like one of those fights where neither fighter deserves to win.


On another note, IMO the two fights with Louis represent Walcott at his peak. People are quick to dismiss Louis as being "shot" at this time and put down his struggles simply to that, but that's being somewhat shortsighted IMO and not giving Walcott credit for what he did to trouble Louis in those fights. Walcott showed very good all around speed and footwork in those fights, much better than he would years later when he finally was a champion. I think if the Walcott from these fights had fought Marciano, both fights might well have been a different story. I think Walcott's prime years were basically spent on all those failed title challenges he had before he became a champion.

[Robinson]

I am curious to know how people have an opinion on this fight
when they have not seen the full fight. They use this as a
comparison to otehr close and controversial decisions.

I have seen MOST of the fight and what I have seen does not
lead me to believe what has been written about it by the
boxing 'experts'...that Walcott boxed the ears of Louis and so on..
but then again I have not seen the full fight and maybe they have.

One thing I have learned about boxing is not to believe everything
or most things you read....whats for yourself and trust your own
opinion...

[BoxBuzz]

I think both Louis and Walcott disagreed with the decision. That tells us something. But I'm good with the decision based on all I've read....but like someone said without all the film it's all conjecture.

[Robinson]

I think Cobb disagreed with his decision against Holmes, but I dont
think their are too many that would agree with Cobb. Most fighters
tend to think they were robbed after a loss.

I just find it interesting how this fight is quoted as one of the greatest
robberies yet no one has seen it, in its entirety here.

[Ambling Alp]

A full 15 round fight version does not excist on film, so all is just talk without substance.

From what I have read during the years, and seeing the official scorecards, it sounds something like ODLH v Trinidad.

Woller

This is what I have never understood about this fight: If almost no one (that's still alive anyway)have seen the entire thing, how come so many people call it such a bad decision?
Most people don't qualify it with something like "allegedly" or "those who saw it thought Walcott won".

I have never seen this fight and always reserve judgement on a decision that I haven't seen myself. I have heard way too many people say that so and so "was robbed", and know that wasn't the case.

I think a lot of people just see that Louis was knocked down twice, and think Walcott must have been robbed. The thing is, there are still thirteen other rounds to score.

In the Samuel Peter-Wladimir Klitschko fight for example. Peter scored 3 knockdowns, but lost the fight. No one really challenges this becasue Klitschko clearly won every other round of the fight.

It also bears mentioning that in the Walcott-Louis fight the scoring was done on the rounds system. It's not like Walcott was winning "10-8" rounds, which mean a lot. All that the two knockdowns did for Walcott was win him round 1 and round 4.

That Louis himself thought that he lost is an indication that he shouldn't have got the decision. however, even that isn't really a "smoking gun".

Yes, the fact that most people thought Walcott should have got the decision (including even Louis himself) has to count for something. And who knows, maybe it was highway robbery. However, it's still not quite the same as seeing it for yourself.

[Robinson]

Exactly.

[Tantum]

BoxBuzz is saying that Joe Louis felt that Walcott was robbed. Not that they each felt they won.

[My2Sense]

I don't know of Louis ever saying outright, "I thought I lost". His body language showed he had certainly been frustrating by his performance, and perhaps being as frustrated as he was throughout the fight, he was not confident about getting the decision. But that doesn't neccessarily mean he thought he was beaten outright, either. Supposedly, he did try to walk out of the arena before the decision was announced, but who knows if that's really true or what was really going on in Louis' mind if he did that anyway.

[raylawpc]

Here are some articles on the fight from the New York Times the following morning:

[Robinson]

Ray

Thanks a heap for posting those articles. Much appreciated :)

[I Feel Fine]

Robbery? Didn't Joe Louis KO all of his title challengers in the first round? He was unbeatable, damnit.

He walked out of the ring before the decision was announced, I guess he had to use the bathroom or something.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

I have highlights of every round. It was a clear decision for walcott. walcott won at least 9-10 rounds, he knocked louis down twice, bedazzled, outboxed, outricked, outmanueved louis all night to put it short and sweet. one of the biggest robberies of all time.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

he mostly does a lot of dancing, feinting, shuffling, and showboating, but in terms of actual fighting, I don't see him doing any better

Im confused, you claim walcott didnt actually fight well, he did lots of feinting showboting but not fighting.......YET THEN you claim


" Walcott showed very good all around speed and footwork in those fights, much better than he would years later when he finally was a champion. I think if the Walcott from these fights had fought Marciano, both fights might well have been a different story. I think Walcott's prime years were basically spent on all those failed title challenges he had before he became a champion"


im confused.... so either his showboating feinting made him less of a fighter in 47 or like u said later on it made him a better fighter in 47. not both. also you say the walcott of 47 was better than walcott of 52 but the same thing you accused walcott of not doing "fighting" in 47 walcott did tons of "actual fighting" in 52. so which is it?

[Robinson]

I have highlights of every round. It was a clear decision for walcott. walcott won at least 9-10 rounds, he knocked louis down twice, bedazzled, outboxed, outricked, outmanueved louis all night to put it short and sweet. one of the biggest robberies of all time.

If you just have the HL like the rest of us. how can you proclaim it as
a clear decision win for Walcott ?

[Tantum]

Because he's a Bush supporter.

[I Feel Fine]

HL usually... and I emphasize the word usually... present the parts of the round that have the most action. As for the notion that we should be particularly skeptical about Walcott's performance or the notion that this was a bad decision, I would just say that its one thing when we have complete footage and can check for ourselves, but when we don't we just have to rely on what was said at the time, as we do for other fights like Robinson-LaMotta I-V or Charles-Moore or Sullivan-Corbett. And, according to most reports, Walcott got robbed. And, in this case, at least we have some film, and from what we can see on whatever film we have of it, Walcott out boxed Louis, put him down cleanly on two separate occasions, and shut down Louis' offense. Simple.

I know its hard for some to admit, but Louis wasn't unbeatable, and Walcott made him look bad. It happens. Louis knew it.

My2sense... what Whitaker fights are you referring to? Whitaker-Ramirez? Whitaker-Chavez? Whitaker didn't just "look" like the better fighter in those matches, he was, and he deserved both decisions. Can't make excuses for those, we have the fights in their entirety.

[Collins2000]

Because he's a Bush supporter.

Time for this unfunny joker to be added to my ignore list with Elmo & Elton.

[Robinson]

The ever growing list :)

[Tantum]

Aww, so I won't be blessed with your immense wisdom and logic as response to my posts anymore, Collins?

Will you still be responding to me under all your "other" user names?

[My2Sense]

he mostly does a lot of dancing, feinting, shuffling, and showboating, but in terms of actual fighting, I don't see him doing any better

Im confused, you claim walcott didnt actually fight well, he did lots of feinting showboting but not fighting.......YET THEN you claim


" Walcott showed very good all around speed and footwork in those fights, much better than he would years later when he finally was a champion. I think if the Walcott from these fights had fought Marciano, both fights might well have been a different story. I think Walcott's prime years were basically spent on all those failed title challenges he had before he became a champion"


im confused.... so either his showboating feinting made him less of a fighter in 47 or like u said later on it made him a better fighter in 47. not both. also you say the walcott of 47 was better than walcott of 52 but the same thing you accused walcott of not doing "fighting" in 47 walcott did tons of "actual fighting" in 52. so which is it?

What's there to be confused about? I said he looked like a better fighter in 47 than he did five years later. What fight with Louis in 52 are you saying he did more "actual fighting" in than the ones in 47?

[My2Sense]

Interesting that James P. Dawson scored the fight for Louis. Dawson also scored the infamously "controversial" Gavilan-Graham fight 9 rounds to 6 for Gavilan, which I thought was the correct score. That was another fight where I thought the challenger/underdog frustrated the champion/favorite and made him look bad, and got the crowd behind him, but didn't do enough to actually win the fight.

Perhaps James P. Dawson is the voice of reason?

[Collins2000]

The ever growing list :)

Not really, Kym. There is only 3 on it. Elmo, Elton and this Tantrum clown.

It's quite an elite list. To get on it, you have to fulfill ALL the following criteria:

1. Know virtually nothing about boxing
2. Be totally biased while claiming to be the voice of reason
3. Have no sense of humour at all