Very surprised. Hasn't anyone noticed that Schmeling was "chinny"? Guy got stopped too many times for me to pick him over a guy known for an iron jaw, great condition, a heavy punch, and plenty of physical strength and size. Schmeling was stopped three times before he even fought for the title. After he lost the crown controversially, he got KO'd by a 203-pound Baer, which was well before the first Louis fight. The win over Louis was a great win, but let's face it, a more prime and sharp motivated Louis blew through him in 1 round like he was nothing. Isn't it possible that his win over Louis was an anomaly, that Louis was overconfident and less than prepared given how easily he had been blowing through top contenders and ex-champions like Baer and Carnera, and Joe had noted that Baer, a guy he stopped in 4, had stopped Schmeling? Schmeling weighed around 190 at his best, so he wasn't much bigger than Tom Sharkey, who was in the 180s, and he didn't have a swarming clinching wrestler's style, nor was he a runner and grabber like Corbett, and he was smaller than Ruhlin, who weighed 200-210 in top shape. His style was probably most similar to Ruhlin's. Fitzsimmons was notorious about lying about his weight, and was probably closer to 180 when he fought Jeff, maybe even more. When he did an exhibition tour with Jeff, he said he was weighing around 200, and from the photos, Fitz wears the weight very well. And Bob got stopped by no one other than Jeff, at least not until he was over 40 years old. Corbett was at least 190. Munroe was over 200. Jeffries never got decked, not from the start of his career in the early to mid 1890s, all the way through his final championship fight in 1904. Even after six years of inactivity, at age 35, and under the hot July Nevada desert sun at altitude, he still lasted 15 rounds with a Johnson who was over 200 pounds and bigger and cleverer than Schmeling, and went out from exhaustion more than anything. If this were an actual fight and I had to wager my hard earned cash, I would breathe easier knowing it was on Jeff rather than Schmeling. The Schmeling wagerers will have to endure a great deal of nervousness throughout the bout, because Jeff is a guy who can take it and dish it and can turn up the heat at any point in the fight, and Max is a guy who can get hit on the jaw and go out at any time.
I think he can be forgiven for getting KO'd by Baer and an absolutely peak and motivated Louis. Getting knocked out "colder than a pawnbrokers heart" by Gypsy Daniels is a bit of an issue, tho.
In the thread from 2008 with Jeffries/Schmeling (The only one I found on ESB), some posters thought their was a significant difference if the fight was scheduled for 15 or 20 rds...Does that factor in at all in the potential outcome, or not????
When Neusel and Schmeling fought for the first time Neusel was ranked number 3 and Schmeling 4 according to a book on German boxing history. So, I´d say that was a very good win, probably better than the one over Hamas. Not as good as the ones over Louis, Sharkey, Stribling and Walker though. The fight was originally thought to establish an "European World Heavyweight Championship" btw. True, checked it again. Schmeling had three "negative" fights in a row from Baer to Uzcudun and two of them were in 1934 that´s why I mixed it up. Yeah, I´d say that bunch is more skilled and overall better. Schmeling´s Top5 wins are at least as good as Jeff´s. First fight, the low blow is on film, it´s on youtube, go check it out if you haven´t seen it. That was not declaring foul, that was a foul. And yeah, after not even four rounds we can talk about dominating. You think Dawson "dominated" Hopkins in their fight? Yes, there are plenty of fights I have turned over myself when I thought there was enough evidence for that. Incidently, Schmeling-Sharkey II (or some parts of it) are on youtube. If you haven´t seen it, go watch it and see what it indicates.
First Sharkey fight--I have seen the whole fight. Schmeling lost the first three rounds and was losing the fourth when Sharkey fouled him. I do not dispute that there was a foul blow. I just don't see why this is much of a feather in Schmeling's cap. Any mediocre fighter might have "won" a fight from Sharkey in that manner. *It is true that because Schmeling was losing badly through four rounds does not mean he automatically would have lost the fight. We don't know that. It just isn't impressive. "Schmeling's top 5 wins are at least as good as Jeff's" His top win is much better. After that, his next wins are better only if you argue contenders are better than champions. But really, if Schmeling had not fought Louis in 1936, where would he rate all time? I think he would have trouble making the top fifty. What's his next most impressive win? Walker? A puffed up middleweight (much shorter than Choynski or Fitz & probably lighter if in shape) whom Schmeling beat sandwiched between Walker's losses to Risko and Brouillard. Stribling? Hamas? His resume doesn't compare with Tommy Loughran who defeated Baer, Sharkey, Braddock, Walker, Greb, Schaaf, Hamas, Godoy, Risko, Uzcudun, etc, etc, etc. I think had he not beaten Louis, Schmeling biggest wins would not even match Rex Layne (Walcott, Charles, Satterfield, Thompson, Brion), Elmer Ray, Jerry Quarry or a lot of other mere contenders. As for Jeffries, I think he beat everyone pretty decisively after the Choynski bout. Yes, he went a long way with Sharkey but won. Schmeling never knocked out Uzcudun in three tries either. The length of some of Jeff's fights might be somewhat misleading as he was pacing himself for the long haul. And if comparing these two, it is relevant that Jeff consistently defeated everyone he fought after Choynski until the comeback with Johnson. His record is not speckled with defeats as Schmeling's is. ****Great skills of the 1930's fighters. I have to rewatch that Fitz-Corbett fight. I just don't see these men being as unskilled as many seem to. They show a great deal of foot and head movement compared to the stuck in one place Schmeling. I'll rewatch the film.
I stole that from a newspaper report on the fight, couldn't pass up on repeating it. God, I miss good writing.
I meant to say pre-prime for Baer and post prime for Louis but people don't realize that Max had some rough years in Germany before the 2nd Louis fight. In the Baer fight (it was one of the best Max Baers I have seen, focused) He had another loss to Steve Hamas and a draw with Paolino Uzcudun then some good wins over Walter Neusel, revenge KO over Hamas and Uzcudun, Then the KO of Joe Louis (which was his best fight) Schmeling had an erratic career but he fought tougher than Jeffires. Max had a good run before the Baer fight beating Stribling and Johnny Risko and Mickey Walker and some feel he won both the Sharkey fights but mentally he primed and put it all together in the first Louis fight while the Baer fight he was at a low in the from 6/21/32 till 5/13/34 where he only won 1 out of 5 fights
Schmeling greater than Jeffries? Some things should not be entertained. It's not dissimilar to arguing Ezzard Charles over Rocky Marciano. Sure you can put his case forward, but a noticeable gap remains. As good as whipping Louis was it simply cannot hope to surmount Jeff's compact body of work. Two wins over Corbett, Fitzsimmons and Sharkey made Jeffries into a great champion. Schmeling was more gifted than great, one who could rise to the challenge, had plenty of tools, but also weaknesses that the very best would (and did) exploit. Nor in legacy or in a hypothetical match could Ted Spoon envisage Schmeling trumping boxing's nimble iron man. Let's try to keep things above the belt.
Schmeling wasn't "chinny". He took a punch well. I'd tend to say his 1938 fight with Louis was LESS representative of his true abilities, rather than his first fight. He was certainly past his prime and had become even more of a slow starter. Interesting stuff about Fitzsimmons. How do you know he lied about his weight ? He was contesting the middleweight title 158-pound limit as late as 1894, when he was apparently 31 years of age. Was this legit ? I cannot imagine him putting on much more than a few more pounds good weight in his mid-30s.
Funny how people try to write Joe Louis off as "not prime" when he fought Schmeling, but the people of the time were already rating him alongside the Dempseys and Langfords on pure ability, and the fact that he was overwhelmingly considered the best heavyweight in the world, and the best to come along since Tunney at least, or Dempsey, or Johnson, and some said the best ever. Obviously some of that was hype, but it always is. As an analogy, it's like splitting hairs and saying Tyson wasn't prime against Berbick or Thomas because he was only prime in 1988. Schmeling beat a prime Joe Louis. It could be said more reasonably that Jeffries beat a load of over-the-hill has-beens and little guys.
"go watch it and see what it indicates" A tough fight to score, off the six rounds on youtube. Schmeling is aggressive, but I question his effectiveness. He plods ahead and Sharkey retreats and Sharkey throws jabs, and Max eats them. You could see his head popping back from Sharkey's jab. Max's own jab seems to be more a pawing. If you are into carrying the fight to the other guy, perhaps you give this to Max. If you score on clean punches, I think Sharkey takes it with his jab. Of course, ALL the fight is not available on youtube.
I said Fitz was a notorious liar about his weight because he kept making claims about his weight being low, but all the news reporters took one look at his body and laughed at him and said, "Prove it," but then Fitz was never willing to step on a scale to prove he was as light as he was claiming. If you really are what you say you are, you aren't bashful about stepping on the scale. They usually thought he was around 175, give or take, during the 1890s up to 1900. Hell I weigh myself all the time and don't have anything to hide. Lots of reporters said Fitz liked to claim he was small so he could have an excuse if he lost, or could seem even greater if he beat much bigger guys. He had no weight to make in heavyweight fights, so he never actually had to step on the scale. There were no official weigh ins at that time for anything over 158. Weights were often self reported or reported by managers or trainers, so the veracity could be dubious. Hence heavyweight weight records are for the most part either estimates or self-reported, not verified. Could Fitz go up and down in weight? Sure. But was he going to do so if he did not have to do so? Hell no. He could James Toney it if he didn't have to make weight. Fitz did make middleweight in September 1894, but that was the last time he stepped on a scale for an official weigh in until November 1903, when he had to work very hard to get down to 168 to fight George Gardner, who knew Fitz was around 190, so George was not willing to sign to fight him unless Fitz agreed to make weight at 168. Sort of like Roy Jones, Jr. looking strong and fit at 200 for Ruiz but then draining himself back down to 175 to fight Tarver. Fitz had to do so much road work to make weight for that fight that his feet were blistered and sore and some wondered if he would be too drained to be effective, saying he did not look as muscular as he had earlier. That suggests that he was much bigger than that to start. So I do not believe he tried to get down in weight at all when he was fighting a big dude like Jeffries who weighed over 200 pounds. Certainly not for their rematch.