IMHO Schmeling is n. 11.... I rate his win over Louis really Highly ! And that is better IMO than anything Jim did, because I´m not comfortable rating his wins against smaller guys too high.... Obviously is not only because of that win.... Wins over Uzcudun 2x, Sharkey (we can say twice against Sharkey), and some top fighters like Hamas complete his great resume IMO.... Walter Neusel (and others) was a ranked fighter too......but I can´t say how good he was.....do you think was a great win against Neusel ??
I think rating someone like Jeffries or some of the old school fighters (accept johnson who was a class above)in your top 10 is kind of a hipster thing to do.
That Louis had already destroyed such durable, true heavies as Baer, Levinsky, Carnera and Uzcudun. Jeffries had play the attrition game against a 34 year old featherfisted, lightheavy dandy and allowed a sawed-off dockworker to take him a combined 45 rounds. Louis, even at that age, would make mincemeat of Jeffries' face before the 8th.
"1934 was the loss to Baer." The old Ring Record Book listed this fight as being on June 8, 1933, when Schmeling was still short of his 28th birthday. Of course, I wasn't there. Everything seems to be in dispute these days. Where is Burt? Was he at ringside? Even if it had been (or was) 1934, I still think Schmeling was in his prime. "Schmeling fought in a tougher era" When Carnera and Braddock were champions, and champion Jack Sharkey fought a draw with Walker pre-title, and lost back to back to back to Carnera, Loughran, and Levinsky? And Baer was totally in and out. Whatever one thinks of Jeff's era, the early thirties were hardly the glory years of the heavyweight division. I wouldn't put a great deal of money on any of these champs against Fitz, for example. "He didn't lose to Sharkey." His "victory" over Sharkey was won with Schmeling writhing about the canvas screaming foul. He was dominated until he got lucky. The second Sharkey fight he lost by decision. It is true the majority of ringside reporters voted for him, but there were those who thought Sharkey won, and more importantly, so did the judges. I don't know about declaring a fighter the victor in a fight he lost.
If Baer can overpower Schmeling, then Jeffries can too. Baer was not exactly what I would call a mountain of skill, nor was he bigger or stronger than Jeffries. He was a big strong guy who could take a punch and get physical and dish one, and Jeff was every bit that and more.
"sawed-off dockworker" Who probably brought more punching power to the table than anyone Schmeling fought save Louis and Baer, and both of them stopped Max. I think the aggressive Sharkey might have been a nightmare for Schmeling. Just the wrong sort for a lay back and pick his spots counterpuncher. Jack Blackburn noticed studying film that Schmeling did not fight well if you put him on the defensive. Sharkey might well have been able to do that from the first bell.
"Schmeling beat some number one and two contenders as impressively or even more as Jeffries did, see Stribling and Walker for example." Walker--interesting that this 5' 7" former welter champion is viewed as a better scalp than Fitzsimmons. Walker was coming off a loss to Johnny Risko a couple of fights earlier. Within a few months he was bested by the 161 lb Lou Brouillard. In contrast, other than the fluke foul loss to Sharkey, Fitz didn't lose to anyone except Jeffries between 1890 and 1905. Stribling--I wouldn't get that excited about a guy who had a lot of smelly fights and couldn't beat Sharkey. He was good, but nothing outstanding. Uzcudun and Risko--lost to Walker. Other than Louis, Schmeling's victims really aren't that impressive a group, and he failed to score a clean win over Sharkey and lost outright to Baer. I think one could argue that Schmeling's legacy boils down to one great fight which really seems totally beyond the rest of his career.
My take Legacy--totally Jeffries. Not even close. Jeff cleaned out the division between 1898 and 1903, and I think one could fairly say the black side of it also, with wins over Jackson, Armstrong, and Griffin. Not defending against Johnson in 1904 or 1905 is a stain on his record, and knocks him down a few notches. But had he beaten Johnson in 1904, he would have a strong case for being the #1 all-time heavy. As is, he has a strong case for the top ten and I put him there. Last ratings I did, I ranked him #7. A lot of posters are claiming Schmeling has a better legacy. Well, Louis is a bigger scalp than anyone Jeffries has or could have had. But DeJesus beating Duran doesn't make him greater than Carlos Ortiz or Ike Williams to me. One has to look at the total picture, and Schmeling has a whole lot of bad defeats. Baer bested him in his prime. So did Steve Hamas. He never scored a clean win over Sharkey. He was blown out in one round by Gypsy Daniels. In contrast, Jeff has no embarressing fights. He managed to last 15 rounds with Johnson when he was 35 and had been off six years. That is the worst he did. h2h--Not only does Jeff have the better record, he potentially is totally wrong for Schmeling. If he fights Max like he does Ruhlin on film, I think he takes him easily. The only way I can see Max having a good chance is if Jeff gets into a fencing match at long range and so allows Max to counterpunch him. If he pressures Max, I don't think Max can time enough rights to make a difference. Max couldn't wear down Baer, and I think Jeff is just a bigger, stronger, more athletic Baer, although perhaps not quite as hard a puncher. *Schmeling also seems to have trouble with bigger men, and the 220 lb Jeff is bigger than any good man Max fought. **As for Jeff and Louis. I think Louis would win easily. Styles again.
I understand the arguments if you're creating your list from scratch. But working on the assumption that jeffries was a very great champion who just about eclipsed john l, I don't really seen schmelling having done enough to overtake him. H2h max pushes his **** all the way in.