Smooth legends HD Louis vs Walcott

[Ivich]

the better quality the footage, the more realistic it get's. The more frames we get, the more we see. You couldn't even see all the little micromovements 10 yrs ago. It's one thing great about AI.

And yeah, Louis is what? 212-215? in this fight not sure and 6 ft 2, we saw him stand beside Ali and Foreman, he's a heavyweight all right, big ass head, hands and deep voice (large voice box)

it's funny it get's closer and closer to how the old sports writers used to describe him.

Louis was six feet one and a half inches tall.

[them_apples]

Louis was six feet one and a half inches tall.

Arguably. I have seen a few figures and so have you. Also just watch him ref the fight with Frazier and Quarry. Thats him beside 2 heavies from the 70s.

[Ivich]

Arguably. I have seen a few figures and so have you. Also just watch him ref the fight with Frazier and Quarry. Thats him beside 2 heavies from the 70s.

I'm getting my stat from Joe Louis, he mentions his height in his autobiography ,twice.Like civilians, most fighters add bulk after retirement and as they age.Louis' optimum weight was around 200/205lbs. Quarry just under 6ft was under 200lbs Frazier also under 6 ft ,205lbs.

[them_apples]

I'm getting my stat from Joe Louis, he mentions his height in his autobiography ,twice.Like civilians, most fighters add bulk after retirement and as they age.Louis' optimum weight was around 200/205lbs. Quarry just under 6ft was under 200lbs Frazier also under 6 ft ,205lbs.

yeah but you can see even if he was leaner he's still big. Louis wasn't really that fat in his retirement, at least at that point. maybe if he came in fat like when he was reffing he could beat quarry? lol

[Dr. Z]

How many fights of that era were not edited to sell on Super 8mm film or be shown at cinemas? Very. very few. I began collecting them in the early 60's Louis,Johnson,Marciano,Dempsey were all marketed as "collections" and none of them were complete fights, I know because I bought them!
Super Fights.Classic Fights,Ring Battles,BlackHawk Films,they were al advertised in the Ring magazine and other trade magazines like.Boxing Illustrated,World Boxing.Ko,and Boxing News , all of which I subscribed to.
You speak from agenda driven ignorance.As per usual.

ps A minuet is a dance! lol

You are a fool. I'm not saying the fights were initially edited in the cinema. I am saying they were later. Why? Figure it out, I own the many of the same films.

Tell me, where can I buy the complete fight, not the edited hack jobs of ALL rounds and all minutes shown of Walcott vs Louis. The first fight? You don't have it ! So shut up, or show us. Keep pressing with you lies and agenda.

[Ivich]

You are a fool. I'm not saying the fights were initially edited in the cinema. I am saying they were later. Why? Figure it out, I own the many of the same films.

Tell me, where can I buy the complete fight, not the edited hack jobs of ALL rounds and all minutes shown of Walcott vs Louis. The first fight? You don't have it ! So shut up, or show us. Keep pressing with you lies and agenda.

I have explained to you that when films of these fights were shown in cinemas they were edited for time reasons ie the most exciting bits were included and the most humdrum bits edited out.
How hard is that for you to grasp?
When those films began to be released these edited versions were the ones commercially available for purchase.I am talking specifically about super 8mm film ,not todays dvd versions .
You say you own many of these films,or at least that's what i think you said,it's hard to decipher your posts!

Now tell me how many fight films of the 1920' s,30's,40's ,and 50's which were all on the old style film and shown on projectors on 8mm,Super8,Standard 8, that you say you own or have seen ,are of the COMPLETE FIGHT?
Lets have some names of fights from you of fights from that era that you have, that are ENTIRE AND UNEDITED?


Have I seen the complete version of the Louis v Walcott 1st fight ?
No I haven't and neither have you ,nor have I ever claimed to have seen it.
Unlike you, as I have only seen highlights of rounds,I reserve judgement as to who deserved the decision because I haven't seen the whole fight!
You, on the other hand, on the basis of a few edited highlights of round have been telling everyone for years that Walcott was robbed!

I find this opinion absurd, two thirds of the press voted for Walcott.but one third voted for Louis,that indicates to me reasonable doubt as to who actually should have received the verdict.
Here are the score cards.
ref: Ruby Goldstein 6-7 Frank Forbes 8-6 Marty Monroe 9-6.
My contention is that no fight that close is ever a robbery.

Are you now telling us that close fights that Louis was in eg Walcott 1 and Godoy 1 were deliberately edited to cut out and excise the rounds in which Walcott and Godoy did well in?
Is this your position?

I'd like to point out that I bought a collection of Joe Louis; fights in the mid 60's both Walcott fight highlights and Godoy fights were included.
The films show Louis being knocked down in both Walcott fights,if the intention in editing them was NOT to cut out less exciting rounds when Walcott was backpedalling with Louis doggedly trying to corner him,but to make Louis look better than he actually was,why did they not cut out the 2 knockdowns of Louis in the 1 st Walcott fight and the knockdown of him in their 2nd fight?

Please provide the names of the fight films in the time period I provided that you own?
You are not rational on this, like your obsessional hatred of Jack Johnson, your dogged refusal to accept calmly presented facts just highlights how bizarrely and illogically you mind functions.

Have a care ,this forum is the Last Chance Saloon for you, muck up here and you have nowhere else to go.

[Dr. Z]

I have explained to you that when films of these fights were shown in cinemas they were edited for time reasons ie the most exciting bits were included and the most humdrum bits edited out.
How hard is that for you to grasp?
When those films began to be released these edited versions were the ones commercially available for purchase.I am talking specifically about super 8mm film ,not todays dvd versions .
You say you own many of these films,or at least that's what i think you said,it's hard to decipher your posts!

Now tell me how many fight films of the 1920' s,30's,40's ,and 50's which were all on the old style film and shown on projectors on 8mm,Super8,Standard 8, that you say you own or have seen ,are of the COMPLETE FIGHT?
Lets have some names of fights from you of fights from that era that you have, that are ENTIRE AND UNEDITED?


Have I seen the complete version of the Louis v Walcott 1st fight ?
No I haven't and neither have you ,nor have I ever claimed to have seen it.
Unlike you, as I have only seen highlights of rounds,I reserve judgement as to who deserved the decision because I haven't seen the whole fight!
You, on the other hand, on the basis of a few edited highlights of round have been telling everyone for years that Walcott was robbed!

I find this opinion absurd, two thirds of the press voted for Walcott.but one third voted for Louis,that indicates to me reasonable doubt as to who actually should have received the verdict.
Here are the score cards.
ref: Ruby Goldstein 6-7 Frank Forbes 8-6 Marty Monroe 9-6.
My contention is that no fight that close is ever a robbery.

Are you now telling us that close fights that Louis was in eg Walcott 1 and Godoy 1 were deliberately edited to cut out and excise the rounds in which Walcott and Godoy did well in?
Is this your position?

I'd like to point out that I bought a collection of Joe Louis; fights in the mid 60's both Walcott fight highlights and Godoy fights were included.
The films show Louis being knocked down in both Walcott fights,if the intention in editing them was NOT to cut out less exciting rounds when Walcott was backpedalling with Louis doggedly trying to corner him,but to make Louis look better than he actually was,why did they not cut out the 2 knockdowns of Louis in the 1 st Walcott fight and the knockdown of him in their 2nd fight?

Please provide the names of the fight films in the time period I provided that you own?
You are not rational on this, like your obsessional hatred of Jack Johnson, your dogged refusal to accept calmly presented facts just highlights how bizarrely and illogically you mind functions.

Have a care ,this forum is the Last Chance Saloon for you, muck up here and you have nowhere else to go.

First off the are plenty of forums and I am active where I want to be. Stop you lying.

You are lying / not telling the truth that 2/3 of ring side reporters means nothing. False it is an indication of a bad decision. And Louis wanted to leave the ring before the decision was announced. The very pro Joe Louis crowd booed the decision in his house (MSG where Louis often fought ) ! Sure -- go ahead and think the judging was spot on It fits nicely with your agenda.


Using the shown action Walcott was the better. Why was the other footage cut out? Hmm... could it be that he didn't do much and they cut the action?

[Ivich]

First off the are plenty of forums and I am active where I want to be. Stop you lying.

You are lying / not telling the truth that 2/3 of ring side reporters means nothing. False it is an indication of a bad decision. And Louis wanted to leave the ring before the decision was announced. The very pro Joe Louis crowd booed the decision in his house (MSG where Louis often fought ) ! Sure -- go ahead and think the judging was spot on It fits nicely with your agenda.


Using the shown action Walcott was the better. Why was the other footage cut out? Hmm... could it be that he didn't do much and they cut the action?

You are permanently banned from Classic and we both know it. Are you trying to convince posters here that you aren't?
This is easily settled .You go to Classic,make a thread copy it, being sure to include the date,come back here and paste it.
If you do that you are NOT BANNED.
If you don't you are BANNED.
Easy Peasy!
Now the clock is ticking and the ball is in your court Mendoza.

I did not say that 2 thirds of the reporters voting for Walcott means nothing,I said that because 1 third voted for Louis the decision was close and debateable,and the scorecards reflect that.
Neither did I say the judging was spot on, I said the close score cards indicate a close fight.
You have been flogging this horse for about 10 years now,just as you have flogged the BS that GunBoat Smith tko'd Johnson in a spar. That Langford floored Johnson, and many ,many other agenda driven fairy tales.

[Ivich]

You are permanently banned from Classic and we both know it. Are you trying to convince posters here that you aren't?
This is easily settled .You go to Classic,make a thread copy it, being sure to include the date,come back here and paste it.
If you do that you are NOT BANNED.
If you don't you are BANNED.
Easy Peasy!
Now the clock is ticking and the ball is in your court Mendoza.

I did not say that 2 thirds of the reporters voting for Walcott means nothing,I said that because 1 third voted for louis the decision was close and debateable,and the scorecards reflect that.
Neither did I say the judging was spot on, I said the close score cards indicate a close fight.
You have been flogging this horse for about 10 years now,just as you have flogged the BS that GunBoat Smith tko'd Johnson in a spar. That Langford floored Johnson, and many ,many other agenda driven fairy tales.

DR Z Made that post on classic as I asked yet?
The one that would prove whether you are banned or not?
Of course you haven't and that is because you are banned,and also a congenital LIAR.

[Dr. Z]

You are permanently banned from Classic and we both know it. Are you trying to convince posters here that you aren't?
This is easily settled .You go to Classic,make a thread copy it, being sure to include the date,come back here and paste it.
If you do that you are NOT BANNED.
If you don't you are BANNED.
Easy Peasy!
Now the clock is ticking and the ball is in your court Mendoza.

I did not say that 2 thirds of the reporters voting for Walcott means nothing,I said that because 1 third voted for Louis the decision was close and debateable,and the scorecards reflect that.
Neither did I say the judging was spot on, I said the close score cards indicate a close fight.
You have been flogging this horse for about 10 years now,just as you have flogged the BS that GunBoat Smith tko'd Johnson in a spar. That Langford floored Johnson, and many ,many other agenda driven fairy tales.

I can post there when I want to and don't use Dr. Z there. Besides coping ad pasting is against the board rules. You have been warned

Here, we had a thread about it. Someone posted a news article on it, page 1 of the thread, post #10. It

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/b...lts-the-action