Was Max Schmeling just a crude bar room brawler?

I don't see this option on phone. Will try to edit poll on laptop later.

 

This was your attempt of making another size debate which I'm not interested in. Rate Schmeling within his size, have you seen him being taken over other great 190 lbs fighters?

Much worse than Schmeling.

So another two who lost to worse fighters.

Ali also lost to Norton who was arguably worse than Schmeling. He also lost to Leon Spinks (MUCH worse fighter) but I understand that you don't want to use this fight because Ali was past his best, which is fair to me.

Young is worse fighter than Schmeling by any measure.

Spinks is arguably worse HW than Schmeling. He has no reasume at that weight.

Douglas is definitely worse fighter than Schmeling. I understand that the rest of his losses are not counted here, fair enough.

Moorer is not better fighter than Schmeling.

As you see, most fighters have their share of losses worse than Schmeling loss.

 

So your guys would beat Joe Louis? You are ridiculous

 

I can see him winning at least one fight against Evander. These fights would be amazing to watch.

Over this version of Holmes? Why not? He would counter slowed down Holmes jab with his excellent rights and he had good enough head movement to avoid most damage from Larry.

I agree here, prime Tyson is a bad matchup for Schmeling. It doesn't make Douglas better fighter though. Douglas literally has one good win, Schmeling has deep resume.

 

That's what I'm talking about - Schmeling was better fighter than Walcott or especially Machen. People rate Patterson much higher for no reason. Schmeling is among the best fighter ever at his size, but he gets no credit for what he did (outside of one Louis fight that's often called a fluke).

Young lost almost half of his fights, a lot of them to journeymen. No, he's not better fighter than Schmeling. What other great wins he has?

Why not? Schmeling was close to his size (Spinks was at his best at LHW), he's just as good of a puncher and he had unorthodox style that could make Spinks a lot of troubles. Sure, Spinks was good enough that he could beat him, but the difference is that you don't give Schmeling any chance, which is ridiculous.

Yes, Schmeling beat quite a few hard punching fighters. Not to mention that Moorer as a southpaw was good at beating orthodox fighters rythm, Schmeling was not orthodox and he didn't use jab in a way that would give Moorer advantage.

Schmeling wasn't a light hitter, I wouldn't eject his power that easily. I don't know how he would fare against someone much taller than him, we don't have enough proofs for that but I don't see him getting dominated.

Norton is great and I think he should have been the champion at one point. I'm not sure he had right style to beat Schmeling though. Max would time him with right hands and he wouldn't try to outjab him like Ali did.

Schmeling was past his prime in second Louis fight. It's arguable whether he was in his prime in their first meeting, but 1939 is definitely way past his best.

 

As I said, I don't care about size debate in this thread. That said, Schmeling managed to beat some good fighters who were above 200 lbs. Jack Sharkey, Joe Louis, Paulino Uzcudun, Ben Foord were not small, even by 1980s standards (even if they weighed a bit less than 210 lbs).

 

Because it's not thread about Schmeling vs large HWs of last 30 years, it's about Schmeling being skilled (or not) fighter. Just answer the question and leave your size fetish alone. Compare him to fighters within his size.

I don't think that Foord was on Young level either, but Schmeling beat better fighters than Young.

I don't put him in their shoes here, it's you who mentioned them.

This is not the point of this thread. Bump the old one if you want to continue this old debate.

I would add one thing - Schmeling dominated Foord. He didn't stop him, but that doesn't mean that he put up weak performance. You can see parts of this fight on YT, Schmeling dominated him.