Chris Byrd vs Jersey Joe Walcott

Okay, so his footwork was better at avoiding punches. Cool

Louis using angles to cut off the ring? You're acting like he's young foreman or Chavez here. He was described as slow of foot and "plodding" during his reign and after. Watch the footage, he does plod at times, he does get exploited for his lack of explosive quick movement. If you mean create angles inside to throw punches, okay, but footwork isn't the main thing there. I'm talking about using angles from the outside, where angles are created more by your feet and quick movement, than by your body movement and positioning. One is relying more heavily on footwork than the other.

I agree, that he threw awesome well balanced combinations, one of the best ever, but that's because he wasn't using much movement. It was very methodical and economical, so he was always in position to punch. It's much easier to punch with power when you're not moving very quickly. It's much harder to punch hard and be effective, when you're moving around creating angles with your feet. Guess who did that better?

The last one I'm not sure if you agree or not. I'm not sure how you could possibly not agree that Walcott's movement disrupts the timing of his foe more than Louis. How do you think Louis was dropped by the Braddock, Galento, Buddy's of the world.. cause his movement threw off their timing? More likely the opposite, because his lack of quick foot movement and footwork, he was in range, and timed.

BTW, you can call it 4-0, but Walcott's movement and Louis lack there of, is exactly why Walcott likely won the first fight, and very easily at that. If you'd like, I can show you some of the cards, and commentary. Made to look foolish, couldn't catch him, followed him around the ring etc etc. Point is, there were cards like 11-3-2, 10-3-2 and more of them decidedly in favor of Walcott. The much fewer cards with the biggest margin had Louis winning, 9-6, and very few of those. This was even with Walcott coasting the last 2 rounds, and they were still that wide in his favor. In practice, Walcott's movement exposed a flaw in Louis. Plain and simple. Yes yes Louis was not prime and older then, but how old was Walcott and how padded was his life up until that point again?

Anyways, Louis was very effective, extremely effective. He's one the greats. But if there was one chink is his style or armor, was his movement/footwork imo