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

Simple answer is all fighters age differently. Some are shot by age 30, some actually seem to get better in their 30s. Not everyone can be a Fitzsimmons, Moore, Walcott, Hopkins, but there are cases where fighters are still highly effective later in life, and some even better with increased experience. I'd argue that Walcott was better in his 30s than he was in his 20s. Vlad Klitscko was a more effective, smarter, better balanced fighter in his late 20s and early 30s than he was in earlier years. Possibly Lennox Lewis as well. Conversely there are skyrockets who are tremendous when they are young, like Tyson, but don't age so well, in part owing to inactivity.

From watching the films, I'd say pre-war Louis was an absolute phenom, but post-war, after that lengthy inactivity from real fights (about four years), it is obvious that he had slipped badly. He's still a heck of a fighter because he started off so great, but far diminished from what he once was. Mentally and physically, Louis wanted to be done after the Walcott rematch, but financial troubles with the IRS forced him to continue a sport in which he no longer wanted to patriciate, fighting Charles two years after he retired.

 

Walcott and Patterson are IMO on the short list of the “best old heavyweights.”

 

Did see the fight and the press and crowd in main agree with me and even the legendary referee Ruby Goldstein agrees cause he scored the fight for Walcott making it a split decision.
Louis didn’t lose a split decision to Charles he was whipped decisively.
Would the 1938 Louis have beaten them very possibly but one thing is sure they would have been the 2 toughest opponents Louis ever faced.
Louis was always tougher the second time you fought him. The second fight version of Louis shows up then my money heavily on him but if the first fight Louis shows up esp for Charles and him its close to pickem. Remember Conn ahead and lasting into 13th round. Charles was quicker and better overall than Conn.
Before WW ll few black fighters were developed to full potential as there was little chance of a title shot. Suddenly the ham and eggers and uncrowned champs like Archie Moore Walcott Ray Robinson became the champions and dominated after the war.

 

Neither Charles or Walcott were as fast as Conn.
Goldstein scored it 6-7-2 for Walcott, basically gave him the fight by one round. That's called a close fight.

 

All I know is Walcott strolling toward Charles with supreme, almost nonchalant coolness and then pole axing him with that hook is one of the greatest boxing highlights ever.

 

Definitely one of the highlights in boxing history, Foreman would replicate that same KO years later if my memory serves correctly, also when he was old!

 

Charles wasn’t faster and better than Conn?? Now who needs to study film my friend. These guys were held down till after WW ll and like all major sports boxing had a lowering of its version of the color line. If this is a surprise maybe you want to do some study on the obstacles black boxers faced pre WW ll.

 

I have seen Charles and Conn fight multiple times. Conn was faster, Charles hit harder, had they fought it would have been 50/50 at their best. What held black fighters back was a guy called Bob Pastor, they just could not get through him.

 

Because Louis had been retired for two years and showed up at a career high weight