A closer look at Jersey Joe

[JAB5239]

Let's have a look then.

Of the polled ringside reporters 2/3 thought Walcott deserved the nod. 1/3 disagreed.

2/3 judges thought that Louis deserved the nod. 1/3 disagreed.

Both The New York Times and Ring Magazine report that Louis landed the more punches of the two. The New York Times and Ring Magazine both scored for Louis. Neither was counted in the ringside poll.

Louis was unquestionably the more aggressive of the two. Aggression was prized as highly then as it is now.

I have extended highlights of the fight. These fights can not be scored in favour of one fighter or another (as a general rule).


So, to summarise, around 40% of qualified ringsiders disagreed that Walcott won the fight. This included four of the five most "recognised" sources in the building, two judges, Ring, The NY Times. Compare this with the 0% that thought Sharkey beat Schmeling, or the 90% that thought Valuev beat Holyfield (your read that right). Those are the type of figures that lead to retrospective decisions regarding definite attitudes to fights for which we have only highlights...highlights which do not show a domination for either man. They do show, in tandem with ring reports, that Louis landed more punchers and was the aggressor.

There is to much evidence to the contrary to rank this a stuck-on robbery. If it was such a clear win for Walcott, how can two judges, The Ring, The New York Times and many others find a card for Louis? Why don't the highlights, the best bits of a fight, show a Walcott domination?

I don't buy conspiracies, as a rule.

Louis had slipped badly. People were shocked by what they had seen. The Champion underperformed and the challenger overperformed. Changes in the rules aided and abetted a legend. KD's were not scored a point in the era and are now. The crowd's displeasure stoked the fire.

Sharkey-Schmeling was a robbery. Louis-Walcott was a close fight where a great champion underperformed. That's how I see it.

I can't change my opinion based on what I've seen. It wasn't a robbery per say, just a bad decision in my opinion. Even Louis believed he had lost and wanted (and did) to set things straight with a rematch.

[McGrain]

Did Louis think he'd lost? What's the source on that? I have Louis saying he thought he won the fight in every post-fight interview but that he was "disgusted by his performance."

[Barn]

6:15. Louis explains a bit, and Walcott gives his input.

[IronDanHamza]

How much credit does Walcott really get for the Johnson win though? To you guys?

Barn left nice article in one of his posts from a while back if anyone is unaware of what happened there.

[Barn]

How much credit does Walcott really get for the Johnson win though? To you guys?

Barn left nice article in one of his posts from a while back if anyone is unaware of what happened there.

It's a hard one, Walcott did knock Johnson down. However that is not a microism of how the fight would have went as there was no reports of Johnson being shaky in the third round when the incident happened. Shame they never rematched. I don't think he should get FULL credit. It wasn't as if Johnson quit as back injuries are a real deal and can cripple you.

As I said, not full credit but deserves some as if it went to a technical decision (even though it was only 2 rounds.) Walcott does win but the fight was too young to even argue that.

I don't know, I've just kind of argued myself in writing this. One thing is for sure he doesn't deserve full credit by any means. A win is a win though.

[IronDanHamza]

It's a hard one, Walcott did knock Johnson down. However that is not a microism of how the fight would have went as there was no reports of Johnson being shaky in the third round when the incident happened. Shame they never rematched. I don't think he should get FULL credit. It wasn't as if Johnson quit as back injuries are a real deal and can cripple you.

As I said, not full credit but deserves some as if it went to a technical decision (even though it was only 2 rounds.) Walcott does win but the fight was too young to even argue that.

I don't know, I've just kind of argued myself in writing this. One thing is for sure he doesn't deserve full credit by any means. A win is a win though.

Hmmm, I'm not sure.

Walcott may have been winning the fight but he didn't beat him. It was 2 rounds in and was stopped due to an actual injury (Not a Klitschko style one )

Hard to give credit for that IMO.

[Barn]

Hmmm, I'm not sure.

Walcott may have been winning the fight but he didn't beat him. It was 2 rounds in and was stopped due to an actual injury (Not a Klitschko style one )

Hard to give credit for that IMO.

Yeah I know, I've sparred with a minor back strain and it's not pleasing at all.

It's hard to give credit but, hard to simply deny it as well. I'm trying to think of a comparable fight in history where someone got injured so bad they literally couldn't go on. It's more problematic here as it really helps Walcott's resume if he does indeed win this one outright.

[IronDanHamza]

Yeah I know, I've sparred with a minor back strain and it's not pleasing at all.

It's hard to give credit but, hard to simply deny it as well. I'm trying to think of a comparable fight in history where someone got injured so bad they literally couldn't go on. It's more problematic here as it really helps Walcott's resume if he does indeed win this one outright.

Nicky Cook-Ricky Burns

But that fight was fixed anyway. Shame I'd already put 100 quid on it! And lost it!

If I ever cross paths with Nicky Cook I'll have to restrain from punching him in that ****ing back

[Barn]

Nicky Cook-Ricky Burns

But that fight was fixed anyway. Shame I'd already put 100 quid on it! And lost it!

If I ever cross paths with Nicky Cook I'll have to restrain from punching him in that ****ing back

I was at a friends for that fight, absolute piece of crap.

How do you not know your back is so mangled if you're sparring in training camp?

[IronDanHamza]

I was at a friends for that fight, absolute piece of crap.

How do you not know your back is so mangled if you're sparring in training camp?

It was fixed. Literally.

Everyone got the tip on the morning of the fight that Cook would go down in 3 or less.

They even shut down bookies in East London because of it then froze all betting on the fight across the entire UK.

Cook only took the fight to get some money. That's it.

Problem was, I'd already put £100 on it to go 6 rounds or over!!!

Because, as everyone knows, were it not fixed it would have 100% gone to Round 6.