Jeffries vs Schmeling who is greater

"It comes down to how you rate the era"

Not exactly. Jeff was much better overall in his era than Max was in his. To rate Max ahead, you must rate his era much superior or make the decision almost entirely on the biggest win, which of course means Buster Douglas rates ahead of Holmes.

"Schmeling beat two champions."

I wouldn't say he beat Sharkey in the sense that Jeff beat Fitz & Corbett.

"Sharkey was better than the Corbett that Jeff fought"

Without film, it is hard to say. You are making much of his age, actually about the same as Walcott when he fought Louis, and being inactive. All this makes sense, but those who saw the fight thought Corbett was terrific. Let's face it. We have nothing with which to dispute their judgement.

**On Corbett and Jack Sharkey. I would take the Corbett of the Fitz film to beat the Sharkey of the 2nd Schmeling film. Much more mobility, and he just looks quicker, but the film is admittedly lousy.

"Schmeling lost to better fighters than Jeff even fought"

Max Dieckmann, Jack Taylor, and Gipsy Daniels are better than any fighter Jeffries ever fought?

I doubt that even about Gains, Hamas, etc. And I would not put any money on Baer and Sharkey against Corbett or Fitz.

"Schmeling was the only one able to give Walker a real beating"

Except for Joe Dundee 143 1/2 lbs (ko 8), Paul Pirrone 159 lbs (ko 11-for the count) and Erich Seelig 163 1/2 lbs (ko 7)--It isn't THAT big a deal that Schmeling was able to stop Walker.

Loughran and Schmeling

1929-Johnny Risko--lost to Loughran
1929-Paulino Uzcudun--lost to Loughran
1930-Jack Sharkey--lost to Loughran
1931-Young Stribling--lost to Loughran
1932-Jack Sharkey--Lost to Loughran
1932-Mickey Walker--Lost to Loughran
1933-Max Baer--Lost to Loughran
1934-Steve Hamas--Lost to Loughran
1934-Paulino Uzcudun-lost to Loughran
1934-Walter Neusel*******did not lose to Loughran
1935-Steve Hamas--Lost to Loughran
1935-Paulino Uzcudun--lost to Loughran

There does seem to be a pattern through 1935, doesn't there.

And there were also Greb, Carpentier, Ernie Shaaf, Braddock, Levinsky, Godoy--Loughran did lose more often than Schmeling, but interestingly was only stopped 3 times in 169 fights to Schmeling's 5 in 70. Schmeling needed his win over Louis to ever rate above Loughran.

"You left out Carnera"

Schmeling beat him?

"Avenged his defeat by Hamas"

So what. He shouldn't have lost to him in the first place. Jeff never lost to that level of opponent.

"There was one that wasn't a defeat"

The 2nd Sharkey fight was actually a close and controversial loss. I wouldn't twist it into a victory for Schmeling. He didn't look all that good in this fight, and Sharkey was clearly eroding. He never won another major fight.

*Off the very little film footage of Jeff, Corbett, and Fitz, and Choynski, they look better to me than others judge them. All had excellent mobility compared to Baer or Schmeling, or even the 1935 Braddock. And Sharkey wasn't all that spry by 1932 either. I take Jeff over all the early thirties champions.

 

Not me. I don't think it's a major thing, but he did tend to fight smaller opponents.
I think Schmeling's wins over Stribling and Walker are overlooked a bit largely because those two were regarded as sub-heavyweight-size fighters. They too were rated the best available.
They seem to be dismiss along with almost every other win on Schmeling's record, barring the Louis win.

The age and form of Jim Corbett I think is a more relevant factor. He was some way past his best in the first fight with Jeff, and totally washed-up in the second.

 

Given fitz's frame, he could carry weight quite well.

There's no good reason for him to campaign as a hw round about the mw limit.

By jeffries he was also inactive as well as older.

Probably a cw for that fight.

 

I think bodhi makes a point though that is where i'd disagree whilst agreeing.

It isn't a huge step to put max above james if you just take every hw today and rank from scratch looking at quality of victories etc.

However if you consider legacy into the equation, and consider chronology, jeffries was already an established great hw by the 30's certainly a top 5 hw. Max didn't do enough in his career to overtake jeff's standing. What he did do was knock out the man who was the best hw pre 1960. So evaluations of his skillset can obviously increase greatly as louis's own greatness did so.

I think max beat's jeff but I can't envision him as greater.

 

I'm yet to see any proof that he was a "cruiserweight" when he fought Jeffries.

apollack says that reporters suspected he was heavier than he was.
But reporters also generally remarked on his freakish build, the upper body of a heavyweight, the legs of a lightweight. Hence, it's difficult to guess his weight.
Reporters also generally remarked that Jeffries was 30 - 50 pounds heavier than him.

Reporters of the time seemed to think a lot of men were heavier than they were. I'm not sure of the "expertise" of these men when it comes to guessing a fighter's weight.

Anyway, I repeat, it does not matter what Fitz weighed, Jeffries WAS a lot bigger than him.
Fitz DID weigh inside 158 pounds at age 31, it seems. That's something I'm sure Max Schmeling would have found impossible.


P.S. If Fitzsimmons was so damn heavier that he said he was, I'll have to stop regarding him as a candidate for 'pound-for-pound king', which would be a shame. :good

 

There's no proof he weighed within any divisional limit, that's kinda the point.

I'm not interested how much bigger james was regarding this discussion.

Fitz will always be in my top 3 unless someone comes along that can match his legendary achievements (armstrong from fw-mw comes close but it was more concentrated).

 

Surely he weighed inside 158 for his middleweight fights.

Maybe we should never discuss the weight of heavyweights fighters who didn't need to weigh in, they might be completely wrong every time - but people do tend to take an interest in such things.

Well, it's a Jeffries/Schmeling thread. Anyway.

I tend to give him a lot of pound-for-pound credit for beating a good amount of heavyweight contenders in the 180 - 200 pound range, guys who outweighed him 15, 20 or 30 pounds.
So, if he was a full-blown cruiser/ heavyweight all along who weighed in that ballpark, I don't see as being nearly as special.

 

I'm on about his defence v james.

Yeah very difficult to be accurate without weigh-ins, the point is kinda moot as you say.

It is but I was responding to the comments about fitz.

Ah that's not really something I care too much about. His 13 year stint as p4p king is.

 

What makes him 'p4p king' for 13 years (!...?) if not beating men much bigger than himself ?

 

His absolute twatting of non pareil saw him considered the best out there.

It could be argued his come from behind losses to jeffries end his stint as top boxer in the world but i'm not sure it affected how he was seen too.

If floyd lost a come from behind fight to martinez I wouldn't hold it against him p4p.

For me p4p just means regardless of division. So greatest p4p is just a measure of greatest regardless of division imo.

Seems you define it differently.

 

"Fitz looked to be about 170 pounds in weight, while Jeffries was easily 206"

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9nEnAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LgQGAAAAIBAJ&pg=5946,5735042&dq=jim+jeffries+bob+fitzsimmons&hl=en[/url]



I think 170 is probably around what Fitz weighed in his optimal heavyweight shape.
A guy that managed 158 at age 31, who was already muscularly developed in the upper body, who did ordinary old school boxing training, about 40 years before steroids were even invented ... at age 36 in shape, I think a lean 170 is very plausible, more so than 185 or whatever.

 

Maybe he was. Doesn't really change anything though does it, the fight happened over a hundred years ago, i'm not bothered what he weighed.

I just think it's likely a guy his size was about 180 or something.

Them extra ten pounds don't lead me to drop him from my top 3 though.

 

'Pound-for-pound' ought to be self-explantory.
A pound of gold is worth more than a pound of silver.
An amount of gold less than 1 lb might 'beat' an amount of silver more than 1 lb in the 'battlefield' of the metal markets.
It's no different with fighters.


I'm not sure I understand your definition though. Since Fitzsimmons was fighting in the same division as Jeffries, the only thing that could make him greater than Jeffries 'regardless of weight division' must be his bodyweight, because he sure as hell didn't prove superior head-to-head.

 

You seem confused here.

The long and short of it is I agree with everything you say here despite your disagreeing tone.

Jeffries did out weigh him, noone disputes that do they?

Today I think floyd is a better fighter than martinez, noone has to beat people significantly bigger than them to prove that point.

If it somehow transpires that fitz didn't give away 40 pounds every time he stepped foot in the ring, I won't hold him in any less regard.

 

OK.

It's possible. But no more likely than 170.
He was known for having a very 'unlikely' build, people couldn't quite fathom him.
The fact is, he weighed 154 and 158 as a middleweight, and look freakish already.

Well, if he weighed MORE than all of Corbett and Sharkey and Maher, it would certainly impact on his greatness, imo.