Why did Walcott beat Charles by going at him at 37, but Louis couldn’t at 36?

Walcott at 37 was better than Louis at 36.

 

INACTIVITY.

 

Certainly. & not just by a little, either. Louis was years past his best by that age.

 

Well they’re both completely different fighters and one of them was worn out form the (one of?) longest title defence streaks in history, Walcott was a guy who was just surviving until he got his break he was making a living for his family so when he got it all together there would’ve been a lot left in the tank. His tricks, his defence etc are all built from a career of just trying to live, winning where you can because you need to be healthy enough to take the next fight.

 

Walcott was a very hungry fighter and to be fair it took three tries for Walcott to beat Charles, so it still didn’t come easy. Walcott knew that third fight against Charles was his last chance.

Louis was never as desperate to win during his comeback like Walcott was that night in Pittsburgh against Charles.

 

Both were different, Louis had already worn out a ton before with his busy schedule, Walcott was just making a living before until he got better nutrition and uses his experience fully.

 

Motivation is clearly an issue here.
At 36 Louis was already back from everything and just going thorugh the motions for the money. Walcott still had some fire in him.

Also Louis declined faster than Walcott, who at 37 was still a force to be reckoned with.

 

Louis declined at an earlier age than Walcott but he was not quite as great as everyone thought either. He looked like Superman against white only opponents but once the color line came down after WW ll he lost to the first 2 black fighters he fought (Should have against Walcott in first one). Maybe different in his prime but Charles and Walcott were both better than Conn.

 

Unless you have seen the first Walcott v Louis full fight,and you haven't,you cannot give a definitive opinion on who won the first Walcott v Louis fight.
Louis lost to Charles because he was ;
1.Well past his best.
2.Had been retired for 2 1/2years.

 

Uppercut from down under.

 

First off Walcott got more chances this his 5th title shot and 3rd chance against Charles. Louis got the one chance against Charles. Walcott got Charles with a rare one punch KO against a top opponent. He'd KO'd Ray in 1937 when Ray wasn't a top opponent. Though Walcott likely wins without the KO he had a history before and after of choking close fights were he hurt but didn't finish his opponent. To be fair to Walcott knockdowns weren't 10-8s yet and he'd have beaten Louis under todays rules but the point is his best opponents typically came back from his big shots in some capacity.

While post war Louis was still very good his power seems to have left him after the Mauriello fight. This despite Louis being heavier and his opponents being much smaller. They say "power is the last thing to go". Here it was the first thing to go. Louis could stop fighters very quickly before the war even if they had hurt him down or were winning. For whatever reason that was gone by late 1947. If Louis's power was still there Marciano would not have beaten him regardless of age and conditoning IMO.

 

Every fighter, every person, is different. Physical age is too relative to use as any kind of dependable yardstick.

 

Ezzard Charles won against 37years old Walcott, a few months before losing to him.
He also had a win over 35 years-old Walcott.

 

I don't think motivation/desire was an issue - not being able to pull the trigger is a classic symptom of physical wear/age. Louis @36 hadn't performed @his best in close to a decade (before the war), whereas Walcott's prime didn't even begin until sometime after that.

Also, I think it's questionable whether Charles was still @his own best by the time of the 3rd Walcott fight. @ the very least, I think he was jaded from a hectic title defense schedule.