been watching some jersey joe walcott

[StarshipTrooper]

One of the smartest fighters ever to lace up the gloves. Always had a plan going in as to how to beat an opponent and the tools the to carry out th plan. Bernard Hopkins developed his own style in part by watching film of Walcott. Fought malnourished and on short notice early in his career just to make enough money to eat with.

Be careful, there are some rabid Walcott haters on this forum.

Poet

[Yogi]

it's one of the worst robberies of all time from my perspective.

I'd say that's hardly the case, although Walcott did likely deserve to win the decision in a fight that was considered much closer (under the round scoring in effect for the fight) in it's immediate aftermath than what time has exaggerated it to be in today's age.

[Silencers]

I'd say that's hardly the case, although Walcott did likely deserve to win the decision in a fight that was considered much closer (under the round scoring in effect for the fight) in it's immediate aftermath than what time has exaggerated it to be in today's age.

I don't know about that but you're more of an historian than I am so I'll take your word for it, looking at the fight, I thought Walcott won comfortably even though he took some of the later rounds off, the referee did, the crowd did, I think even Louis did. As I said though, I'll take your word for it.

[Yogi]

I don't know about that but you're more of an historian than I am so I'll take your word for it, looking at the fight, I thought Walcott won comfortably even though he took some of the later rounds off, the referee did, the crowd did, I think even Louis did. As I said though, I'll take your word for it.

Most of the press reporters covering the fight were along the lines of Goldstein's 7-6-2 card for Walcott, like the United Press (7-6-2 for Walcott), the Indepedant News Service (8-7 for Walcott), etc., etc., and that seemed to be the prevailing opinion after the fight as far as ringside viewers went...A select few thought Louis edged it in a close one, but the majority of press row thought Walcott took it, albeit by no more than a round or two at the most from what I've seen. Even a few that scored it for Walcott expressed that they would have felt bad if the decision went against Louis based on the margin of victory for Walcott not being clear enough to take his title.

Walcott himself, along with his manager, also didn't think the margin of victory was all that big judging by his "I thought I had won nine rounds" comments immediately after the fight. Under the scoring used and if we gave Walcott the benefit of the doubt with what he said, nine rounds to six is still a pretty close fight, and you and I have both seen seemingly larger margins of victory taken away by the judges on many occasions, I'm sure.

The crowd? Yeah, they didn't like the decision much, but when I watched that fight last, I thought it was pretty obvious where their rooting interest lied throughout the fight, as they constantly cheered for Walcott throughout. Whether it be his hometown's proximity to New York, or whether they were just behind the underdog who was showing himself so well, the majority seemed to be behind everything Walcott did, so I'd take their boo'ing of the decision with a grain of salt.

Louis did say and did things that made it appear that he thought he may have lost, I'll give you that. He tried to say that his apology to Walcott was taken out of context when asked about it in the postfight, but I don't know...He also said that he only left the ring only because "I fought so lousy that I was embarrassed and just wanted to get out of sight" and not because he thought he lost, but again, I'm not convinced that that was only the case. Whether it be what his manager was saying to him ("you need a knockout, Joe" or whatever), or whether it be what he felt in his own heart, I think it's likely that Louis felt he didn't do enough to get the win after the final bell sounded.

Still, whatever margin Walcott seemed to have had in the fight wouldn't have been enough for consideration as "one of the worst robberies of all time" classification, in my opinion, as well as practically everybody else who saw the fight back in the day when it happened. Save for maybe Walcott and his corner, nobody thought the fight was a "robbery" (or similiar wording) back then.

[Silencers]

Most of the press reporters covering the fight were along the lines of Goldstein's 7-6-2 card for Walcott, like the United Press (7-6-2 for Walcott), the Indepedant News Service (8-7 for Walcott), etc., etc., and that seemed to be the prevailing opinion after the fight as far as ringside viewers went...A select few thought Louis edged it in a close one, but the majority of press row thought Walcott took it, albeit by no more than a round or two at the most from what I've seen. Even a few that scored it for Walcott expressed that they would have felt bad if the decision went against Louis based on the margin of victory for Walcott not being clear enough to take his title.

Walcott himself, along with his manager, also didn't think the margin of victory was all that big judging by his "I thought I had won nine rounds" comments immediately after the fight. Under the scoring used and if we gave Walcott the benefit of the doubt with what he said, nine rounds to six is still a pretty close fight, and you and I have both seen seemingly larger margins of victory taken away by the judges on many occasions, I'm sure.

The crowd? Yeah, they didn't like the decision much, but when I watched that fight last, I thought it was pretty obvious where their rooting interest lied throughout the fight, as they constantly cheered for Walcott throughout. Whether it be his hometown's proximity to New York, or whether they were just behind the underdog who was showing himself so well, the majority seemed to be behind everything Walcott did, so I'd take their boo'ing of the decision with a grain of salt.

Louis did say and did things that made it appear that he thought he may have lost, I'll give you that. He tried to say that his apology to Walcott was taken out of context when asked about it in the postfight, but I don't know...He also said that he only left the ring only because "I fought so lousy that I was embarrassed and just wanted to get out of sight" and not because he thought he lost, but again, I'm not convinced that that was only the case. Whether it be what his manager was saying to him ("you need a knockout, Joe" or whatever), or whether it be what he felt in his own heart, I think it's likely that Louis felt he didn't do enough to get the win after the final bell sounded.

Still, whatever margin Walcott seemed to have had in the fight wouldn't have been enough for consideration as "one of the worst robberies of all time" classification, in my opinion, as well as practically everybody else who saw the fight back in the day when it happened. Save for maybe Walcott and his corner, nobody thought the fight was a "robbery" (or similiar wording) back then.

The reason I call it one of the biggest robberies of all time wasn't just because of the scoring, I've seen worse robberies from a scoring standpoint, but it was also because of the occasion of the fight, it was for the heavyweight championship of the world which was, as you know, a very big thing back then, even though it wasn't Louis' biggest fight, it was still a very big thing.

Scoring wise, I've definitely seen worse, like the Whitaker-Ramirez 1 fight.

[Yogi]

The reason I call it one of the biggest robberies of all time wasn't just because of the scoring, I've seen worse robberies from a scoring standpoint, but it was also because of the occasion of the fight, it was for the heavyweight championship of the world which was, as you know, a very big thing back then, even though it wasn't Louis' biggest fight, it was still a very big thing.

Well, we've had a few heavyweight championship fights throughout history that were deemed controversial with the majority of those viewing the decision thinking that it should have gone the other way...Sharkey-Schmeling II (might be the most controversial for this category, as I've never seen one press clipping saying that Sharkey deserved it...most press scorers had it in the 9-6, 10-5 range for Schmeling), Holmes-Spinks II, Ali-Young, Ali-Norton III, Briggs-Foreman, etc., and even Walcott himself might have benefitted in another fight that most ringside observers thought should have gone the other way when he faced Ezzard Charles in their June of 1952 meeting. That fourth Walcott-Charles meeting and the decision rendered in it by the officials was by no means popular with the fans who boo'd the decision, and even the majority (by a margin of 21 to 16) press row writers thought Charles had did enough to regain the title in a close and slow paced fight. For a couple of examples, the Associated Press scored it 7-6-2 for Charles, while the United Press had it for him at 9-5-1.

There's been more than a handful of highly controversial decisions throughout heavyweight championship history, and Louis-Walcott was just another one of the bunch.

[TheGreatA]

It seems like a robbery today but back then the decision usually went for the more aggressive fighter, not the "runner" (who used movement, defense and counter punching to frustrate the aggressor). Especially when the aggressor was the one holding the belt ("you've got to take the title from the champion").

Taking a look at the fight now, yes it's very clear that Walcott won the bout (to me atleast), but if we were to score rounds for the aggressor (not necessarily the effective one), then the fight would be significantly closer.

[Silencers]

Well, we've had a few heavyweight championship fights throughout history that were deemed controversial with the majority of those viewing the decision thinking that it should have gone the other way...Sharkey-Schmeling II (might be the most controversial for this category, as I've never seen one press clipping saying that Sharkey deserved it...most press scorers had it in the 9-6, 10-5 range for Schmeling), Holmes-Spinks II, Ali-Young, Ali-Norton III, Briggs-Foreman, etc., and even Walcott himself might have benefitted in another fight that most ringside observers thought should have gone the other way when he faced Ezzard Charles in their June of 1952 meeting. That fourth Walcott-Charles meeting and the decision rendered in it by the officials was by no means popular with the fans who boo'd the decision, and even the majority (by a margin of 21 to 16) press row writers thought Charles had did enough to regain the title in a close and slow paced fight. For a couple of examples, the Associated Press scored it 7-6-2 for Charles, while the United Press had it for him at 9-5-1.

There's been more than a handful of highly controversial decisions throughout heavyweight championship history, and Louis-Walcott was just another one of the bunch.

I understand what you're saying, and those fights were controversial fights but I don't think they were as big as Louis-Walcott 1 but I can definitely understand what you're saying.

On a side note, Young's tactics against Ali was incredibly irritating, sticking his head outside the ropes almost everytime Ali got something going was very irritating and I'm pretty sure illegal.

[Yogi]

I understand what you're saying, and those fights were controversial fights but I don't think they were as big as Louis-Walcott 1 but I can definitely understand what you're saying.

On a side note, Young's tactics against Ali was incredibly irritating, sticking his head outside the ropes almost everytime Ali got something going was very irritating and I'm pretty sure illegal.

Going into it, the first Louis-Walcott fight wasn't considered all that big as far as heavyweight championship fights go, as I'm sure you do remember that it was originally slated to be only a ten round exhibition bout for charity before the NYSAC came in and said that all fights that a champion takes part in over six scheduled rounds are considered title fights. Thus it was changed to the 15 round limit. And remember this was an indoor fight at Madison Square Garden, as opposed to the big money heavyweight fights which almost always took part in an outdoor venue like Yankee Stadium for gate reciepts purposes.

As a 10 to 1 underdog, nobody gave Walcott much of a chance going in, and in fact, it was even money that Louis would get rid of him before five rounds were up.

It's been made famous after the fact because of Walcott's performance and the decision in it, but going into it, it was far from being considered a "big" fight as far as heavyweight title fights go.

[Silencers]

Going into it, the first Louis-Walcott fight wasn't considered all that big as far as heavyweight championship fights go, as I'm sure you do remember that it was originally slated to be only a ten round exhibition bout for charity before the NYSAC came in and said that all fights that a champion takes part in over six scheduled rounds are considered title fights. Thus it was changed to the 15 round limit. And remember this was an indoor fight at Madison Square Garden, as opposed to the big money heavyweight fights which almost always took part in an outdoor venue like Yankee Stadium for gate reciepts purposes.

As a 10 to 1 underdog, nobody gave Walcott much of a chance going in, and in fact, it was even money that Louis would get rid of him before five rounds were up.

It's been made famous after the fact because of Walcott's performance and the decision in it, but going into it, it was far from being considered a "big" fight as far as heavyweight title fights go.

You've convinced me Yogi, much respect.