Is Schmelling the most underrated HW?

Not many men can be expected to beat dempsey between 1918 and 1923 over 15 rounds but not many men could beat a prime joe louis neither.

I don't care what anyone tells me, max is one of the best h2h heavyweights around which he proved by scoring the greatest victory in heavyweight history. Compound this with him being a top 5 heavyweight for the better part of a decade and the fact that politics denied him a very good chance at reclaiming his crown.

When drunk last night I rated this man highly and in the cold light of sobriety I feel exactly then same.

I'm not convince that he should be remembered as greater than baer but h2h this man is a nightmare for anyone. Methodical, powerful, skillful this man had all the tools and whilst I refuse to dismiss his loss to baer as a fluke, he proved his worth over his career.

 

No willams was not, I have the magazines and the ratings. willams did not make the ratings until much later. 1961, EVEN THEN IT WAS #8.


It is revisionstic to alude to any notion that the big cat was anything other than a local atraction on the west coast (later texas) who tended to lose when ever he stepped up in class. Even with careful matchmaking big cat had been found out a few times before finaly cracking the ratings after 10 years as a pro.


by 1957 bob satterfeild was the only name on his record and williams best wins before facing liston were unrated 31-13 frankie daniels or 27-16 john holman both on worrying losing streaks. there was nothing there that warranted an official eliminator or title shot.


valdes actualy was beaten up by a young alonzo johnson in his last bout before taking on Liston losing on points and a fight but one before was up and down like a yoyo before geting KO'd by 19-3-2 charlie powel who I think was really a football player in the NFL that took up boxing to become a journeyman.
Its still a good win for liston but valdes was prety much on the skids then.

 

I don't know, Ahmed Abdin was pretty good. And Howie Turner never gets the credit he deserved. And Roger "the Dodger" Rischer. And a PRIME Bernardo Mercado was something else. As was Sinan Samil Sam, at his best.

 

sorry but I cant sit with a straight face because Carl williams was a top 5 heavyweight .....in the 1980s. untill Kod by mike weaver, tommy morrison and frank bruno that is... have another drink!

 

What Bowe did to a prime Holyfield what Tyson could not do to a faded one. Wish it was always that simple, though.

But you and others might be right. Maybe an underrated win... maybe the best win in HW history. I just like Walcott's depth, even if he never officially beat Louis.

 

The thread is asking if Schmeling is an all time under rated heavyweighjt champion, not was he a good heavyweight. Inconsistent, absolutely .. he is stopped multiple times on the way to his first title shot including a one round KO loss to Daniels. He looks like cr-p in the first Sharkey fight. Even if he gets a bum decision in the rematch he is far from decisive. He then gets destroyed by Baer who is not top thirty as an all time heavyweight champion based on accomplishment. You ask how was Baer dominating him ? Have you seen the fight .. Baer gets off first and handles him easy till Baer becomes Baer and loses interest and then comes back and destroys Schmeling, hitting flush time and again with terribly telegraphed punches most amateurs could avoid. However this same man had the mental and physical skills to take out a physically prime if emotionally immature Joe Louis ... that's inconsistent to me ...

I'm not saying Schmeling was not a talented and tricky fighter. I'm just saying he is no where near my top ten, likely not top twenty ...

 

he, well said. I cannot reconcile the fact that the Max Schmeling who
kod Joe Louis in 1936,was the same person who looked so terrible being kod by Max Baer in 1933. They seemed two different fighters. Schmeling had so many opportunities to throw his laser right hand onto Baer's
welcoming jaw, but he never seems to pull the trigger. Odd I think...

 

Oh man, PP, you are at it again. Lucky enough chocklab already took care of you.

You could have it 5-5 or 5-4-1 for Baer going into the 11th. It was a close fight and I don´t get where people get that "Baer dominated" or "Schmeling looked terrible" come from.

Well, I would rate him Top2 in that era when it comes to "beeing a badass" if that makes you happy. On any other list ... not so much. Oh, well, there is one other, he is in the Top5 of the most overrated hws of ESB classic list.

The Baer fight wasn´t a fluke. Max (Baer) at his best was that good. Sadly, he only rarely showed it. Would they have fought another times, Schmeling would have won them all. IMO Max (Schmeling) is clearly greater than Baer due to his better consistency, the Louis win and overall slightly better resume.

Walcott´s resume isn´t deeper than Schmeling´s though.

During the time he arrived in America until WW2 - his hw career and that´s the one we are ranking here, remember?, not p4p or his lhw career, so Daniels falls of, sorry for you - he officially lost once to Sharkey, a fight which most had him winning, and from what I´ve seen of that fight, he really won it, was getting beaten by Baer in a fight which was even up to the stoppage - and no Baer is not losing interest, yeah Baer had a good start, then Schmeling figured him out and had Baer even on the verge of going according to Baer himself until Baer landed the big one - and then lost in an seemingly off night to Hamas - which he gave a career ending beating afterwards and then there is the second Louis fight. So, in 10 years when he was ranked in the Top5 he was actually beaten three times, two of those fighters he also beat. You think that´s inconsistent? Really? Was Lewis although an inconsistent fighter? Or Ali? Really?

 

No. Fraziers win over Ali is more impressive than Schmelings win over Louis.

 

I could not disagree more.

We're talking a prime joe louis win dominated either side of this loss.

Not only had ali had 3 years off, he failed to impress in his fights leading up to frazier and he had some inconsistent performances after.

I used to rate frazier over ali as the greatest victory in boxing but now I don't even see it as the greatest victory in the heavyweight division.

 

Are we to conclude that Louis did not improve at all post-Schmeling? That he learned absolutely nothing? The first fight was no fluke, but neither was the rematch.

As to what win is better, Frazier-Ali or Schmeling-Louis, a lot has to be considered, but on level of opponent, I would be 100% confident in picking FOTC Ali over Louis of Schmeling I. No doubt whatsoever.

 

I think your argument is tailored and weak. Getting stopped three times prior to a title shot is no testament to anyones skills. If he was stopped as a light heavyweight as you seem to claim although weights are hard to verify it lessens his stature not graduates it. You choose to leave out the terrible beating he was getting from Sharkey until the foul. He lost every round badly in that one .. say what you choose about the Baer fight but he was destroyed by him, again no feather in his cap. Then you try to compare him to Lewis or Ali ? Get real. I'm all for a fine debate but you're just surgically misusing details. Does not add up.

 

I´m misusing details? You bring up non relevant stuff - fights under the limit we are talking about here - and make stuff up - Baer dominated Schmeling, Baer lost interest and so on - yeah right.

Lhw fights mean sh*t when assesing ones hw career. Do you count Charles lhw resume for his hw ranking? If so,do you rank him in the Top5? ´Cause that´s where he would belong then. Ridiculous.

Yeah, Sharkey beat him until that foul. So? He won. And Sharkey at his best is up there with anyone anyway. Baer did not destroy him. He knocked him out in an even fight. That´s not destroying someone. But yeah, according to you this is dominating too ... :roll:

I´m not comparing Schmeling to Lewis and Ali. Don´t twist things around. I compared Schmeling getting beaten three times in 10 years to Ali or Lewis getting beaten even similarly often in an equally amount of time. And I ask you if you´d call those two inconsistent too?

You are creating arguments that don´t exist, make up stuff and twist things I wrote around. I understand something different under a finde debate.