Why did Louis decline faster than his contemporaries?

Not like he was Feroz.

 

Yeah agreed. It is what it is. Joe generally stayed in shape, but he was no saint either.
He used to vanish for several days after a fight, with not a single soul knowing where he was. He liked the good life as much as anyone ...

 

He had considerable longevity, and a very extensive "prime".

Moore and Walcott were exceptional, and of course had plenty of motive to excel at a late age, since they were still chasing titles and big money, whereas Joe Louis had sustained success, fame and celebrity for his entire career.

 

Joe Louis was the best or one of the best heavyweights over a span of about 15 years, a lengthy period of time at the top or near the top for a professional boxer. Compared to other top heavyweights who were active before 1950, Louis was a top fighter for a longer period of time than most of them.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Good point. I dont' think that a decline should be measured by age alone. Louis turned pro and fought 35 times within his first two years in the sport, beating several top contenders and past world champions. By the time he lost to Marciano he had been fighting professionally for 17 years, was a reigning champion for 12 years, had nearly 70 pro bouts and had spent about 80% of his career fighting quality opponents.. That's a lot of wear and tear. And 37 was hardly young in boxing, especially for the 1950's.

 

I don't think he declined quickly. Moore and Walcott were the exceptions rather than the norm. Dempsey, Marciano and Frazier were long since retired at that age and Ali was only a shell of what he had been. Can't come to think of a single HW that beat world class opponents already in his early 20's and lasted longer.

 

the women, definitely the women.