Chris Byrd vs Jersey Joe Walcott

I cannot tell you how much I disagree. In fact, I don't think it's top 25 P4P.

 

Louis has some of the most well schooled ever. He wasn't flat footed, he was methodical. Look at the M. Baer fight, light as feather, on the balls of his feet.

 

Flaws of his jab, and that was a greener Louis. He wasn't at his full capabilities yet, which is common knowledge.

 

I can't tell you how much I disagree with this. Louis did not have better footwork, nor better mobility than Walcott. If you consider using economy as the only defining variable of better, okay. If you factor the variables most do, no way. Part of footwork is using it to evade punches. Jersey did this exponentially better than Louis. Another variable of footwork is using it to create angles, stay in balance, to throw meaningful punches. Again Walcott was better. Another variable is not just using to evade punches, nor land punches, but to throw the timing and flow of your foe. Again, Walcott is clearly better here. Now, I'm not saying Joe didn't have good footwork, he has footwork based on economy and his style, but to say it was clearly better than Walcott is pretty far off the mark imo.

 

If this were so, Louis wouldn't have spent nearly as many rounds following Billy Conn and Joe Walcott around in circles (and for the most part, Conn wasn't even really on his bike).

Whether you call it "methodical" or "plodding," his slow, tentative footwork was a big limitation against mobile, skilled opponents.

 

He did have better footwork, not better mobility.

I mean, it's not. Do you mean to get out of range? Sure, Walcott did it better. It was his style to.

Walcott wasn't better.

Louis defined these traits. Cutting off the ring at angles, being set and balanced to throw power shots is what he did.

Again, this just isn't true. This is a neiche thing which Walcott used. His 'foot feints' didn't help him much when he lost Rex Layne now, did it?

What about the other ways of measuring footwork? Simple fundamentals? Louis edge, getting the most out of his punch? Louis edge, cutting off the ring? Louis, edge. Ect ect.

For me, none of this matters, as footwork isn't defined by any of this; what good is it if none of it works? I decide how good I think someone's footwork based on the effectiveness of it. Louis' feet were much more effective than Walcott's.

Louis has Argüello/Spinks-esc footwork, it has pros and cons, but so does Walcott's. Louis' is better.

 

Yeah yeah, pick him when he's old or overworked, vs guys who were clearly faster than him, and act like that's it.

Look at the rematches, especially Conn, he remedied this by being more agile. And lo and behold, Conn only won round. In the Walcott rematch, Louis was near shot by now, but still managed to press him in a corner and time JJW as he moved off.

See above. Pros and cons. Louis was in position to destroy someone, he could follow people whilst being set to punch. He got stuck when the other person was considerably quicker. Oh and this big limitation left him 4-0 with 3 KOs vs Walcott and Conn, so it's not all bad, eh?

 

This is probably the safest bet.

 

Didn't he lose like 3 times to Charles? I mean, I'm no expert on these guys' records, but from what I've seen Byrd was bigger, quicker and slicker than Charles (and Walcott) and a southpaw to boot.

 

Who was it? Sounds interesting.

 

I agree with George here, Louis footwork was really good. Jersey Joe was confusing and cute at times, but I don't think his footwork was more effective than Louis's. I mean, people keep talking about Conn and Walcott fights (he was way past his best against Walcott) but he knocked them out 3 times out of 4.

 

It's true that Louis got the job done in those fights but after all he was in against a much lesser fighter in Walcott and a much, much smaller opponent in Conn. And even so, many people considered the first Walcott win to be a gift decision. It's hard to read much into the Conn rematch since the tiny Conn had been out of the ring for four and a half years and was a shell of himself. Louis was more aggressive in that fight but I don't remember him being more agile.

 

Can you name any fighter who never struggled with certain type of fighters? Surely, Louis footwork can be countered by fast and creative fighters, but you can find holes in every fighter, especially at HW.

 

So it sounds like you agree with what I said about Louis’ footwork?

Of course—no fighter is perfect.

 

I think I do, although I still call Louis footwork very good and I do think he had better footwork than Walcott. Do you agree?