You scored the Walcott v Louis 1st figth as a w in for Walcott based on highlights?The rest of your post is fine.
On Louis Walcott 1: Obviously we can't see it ourselves, so it comes down to contemporary opinion. The ringside observers had it about 60/40 for Walcott, or something of that order. That is a clear majority for Walcott, but not exactly an overwhelming one. There was a significant minority, that argued it for Louis. The New York Times carried out some sort of primitive punch stats, and claimed that Louis landed more punches. Obviously punch stats can be very misleading, but they make the case for the prosecution difficult in this case. If Louis landed more punches, and he was clearly the aggressor throughout, then wouldn't there be at least a credible argument for giving him the decision?
I always thought that it was the first meeting that was in question with most experts - though footage of it is limited and I’ve never seen much of it. Just clips