Why did Louis decline faster than his contemporaries?

Two reasons.

1. Prety much half of his fights, were against current top 10 ranked opponents.
2. His style was not the best suited to longevity.

 

It's not true!

Lewis was one of the best 35+ yo old ever.

Wlad
Lewis
Vitaly
Walcott
Ali
Louis
Holmes
Holyfeild
Foreman
Witherspoon

Who can add or rearange this list? Could be argued Lewis was #1

 

1. He spent almost his entire career fighting elite opponents which will kill anyone over time.

2. His game was centered on throwing fast combinations which relied on sharp reflexes and heavy output. Something that is generally gone by age 35.

3. Taking a few years off from the game during the war years helped his body to rest but also dulled his skills..

 

When you say "Joe Louis" you don't pronounce the "s" on the end.

My dad taught me that. It's a French name.

 

It seems biased to pick only Moore and Walcott as both men were noted for their longevity. Tons of guys born in the same decade as Louis were done about the same time he was.

Jimmy Bivins was 5 years younger, yet was finished as a top contender within a year of louis. Billy Conn was 3 years younger and retired the same year as Louis ( the first time). Charley Burley; same age as Conn retired 1950. Tony Zale was a year older and he retired in 1948. Holman Williams a Louis sparring partner, last fight 1948. John Henry Lewis was born the same year and he stopped way, way earlier.

So really the question does not make sense. You shouldn't be asking why Louis was done early but rather why Moore and Walcott lasted so long (and I know Walcott didn't last that much longer but he's still rather unique).

 

I think Joe Louis pronounced the "s".

 

Fact is every human ages differently, Louis looked an old man in his late 30's.

 

Yeah, he only held the title for 12 years.

 

If it wasn't for Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis might have been able to regain the title. Walcott-Louis in 1951 or '52 would be a 50-50 fight. As for Ezzard Charles, he was slipping already, and he probably beat the worst version of Louis so a rematch between those two wouldn't be a foregone conclusion either.

Of course, Archie Moore and Jersey Joe Walcott had much greater motivation to excel in their late 30s.

Years of massive celebrity and pugilistic success is a major factor. Golf, gambling, girls were Louis's weaknesses. Nobody stays a hungry fighter forever, unless they are literally hungry and under-rewarded (as well as intensely self-motivated).
What Joe Louis had done was unprecedented.

 

no. he was finished once it was knowledge that he could last 15 rounds anymore, despite having way superior skills to rocky, you could always outgass him.

 

Louis was one of those fighters who matured quickly and aged a little sooner than most. Joe depended on speed to generate his power. Hand speed diminishes with age and really drops off in the late 30’s. Once his hand speed went, he wasn't the same fighter. I still think he was a decent fighter past his 35th birthday.

 

Louis had a fairly lengthy prime, actually.