Joe Louis decline ? Or was Walcott and Charles that good ?

He was def in decline by then. That’s not a knock on Charles or Walcott though. Anyone who can hang w an 80 percent Louis is a solid fighter in my book. He went on and fought successfully for many years after so although not 100 percent he was still a hell of a fighter

 

The wheels were falling off. He was always susceptible to certain styles but when the physical assets started to deterioate that window of opportunity for his opponents only opened wider. And in the final couple/few years he was only in it to shovel out of debt.

 

Louis was in decline for sure but how good must Walcott have been at 28 ? When you look at the trouble Billy Conn gave Louis in the first fight, that style was the one that Joe struggled with. Charles was a class act through and through. It is to Louis's great credit that he found a way to win although the verdict in the first Walcott fight is highly debateable.

 

A little bit of both imo. Charles and Walcott always give Louis trouble, what ever the time frame. But by the first Walcott fight, Louis was sliding.

 

Yeah, I'm with Fergs, it was probably a lovely little blend of both. Louis was definitely over the hill for Walcott, no surprise though. It's what 50 fights and 24 title fights will do to you. Then the time out and coming back vs Charles, he was definitely past it. However, the success can be extrapolated and say that both Walcott and Charles have decent amount of success vs Louis in his prime. I'd honestly pick prime Louis in 4 round vs either, but if Charles kept it long and did a Billy Conn, I wouldn't be shocked. Likewise, if Walcott got himself a KD and won a bag of rounds.

Charles' movement to the left and classy infighting would hinder Louis at any point, but when Louis can't fully use his right hand: it's much easier, obviously. Charles' ring IQ and ability to gauge and manipulate range is what really troubles Louis though, Charles could win rounds and stay safe vs any Louis but is just a matter of time. Walcott's randomness(for lack of a better word), gives a methodical boxer-puncher issues always, but of Louis had his speed again I'd say he gets the job done quick on both.

 

A peak 1937 Louis would destroy both

 

Louis was older but to compound that he had alot of fights. Ring miles at the Championship level.

Joe had said the last time he really had felt like himself in the ring was 1946.

 

After Charles he didn't fight many years, he fought only one year (13 months) but an unusually high number of fights even for an active lower weight fighter let alone a heavyweight. I'm not certain of it, but I feel every fight from Charles to Marciano was due to financial issues.
Again, IMO he was definitely in decline. In his prime he would need to figure them out but once he did he would blast both out of there mid rounds

 

I agree.

 

Joe may have been slipping but would always have problems with a Walcott or a Charles who could box very well and punch very hard and were very fit fighters, so I would say a little of both. Joe Louis was the master of the rematch and he proved it vs Walcott in fight 2 when JJW got cocky and walked into a trap - JL was not prime when he fought Charles but still dangerous and the ATGest at heavyweight

 

I don't think Walcott walked into a trap. He was doing some kind of bizarre showboating and Louis hit him.

Louis, the all-time greatest heavyweight... Do you mean the greatest up until that point?

 

Charles perhaps but I don't think he would have destroyed Walcott at any stage of his career..

 

Both.

 

With Walcott it was definitely a mix of stylistic issues and decline.

Let's not forget he won both fights, even of the first win was from a generous decision, the KO in the second was legit.

With Charles I think it was a mix of Charles being pretty good and his decline, though let's not forget the state of Charles' face at the end