Was reading a WWII book today and this matchup popped into my head. 15 rds MSG a fighters ref like a Cappuccino for example. Who you got.
I dont dislike anyone. I just dont begin to come close to understand why you post alot of your matchup
I didn't get a single answer when I asked: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/sultan-ibragimov-vs-max-schmeling.647297/ Max Schmeling had the big power in the right, and is well known for the studied counter-punching that earned him a legendary win against Joe Louis, as well as the controversial fights against Sharkey, and wins against Hamas, Uzuden, Neusal, Risko, Stribling and Walker. He was 6'1 and fought at 192 for this all-time win against the bomber. Finished 56 (39)-10, and of course we would be remiss if we did not mention that Baer beat him pretty badly and Louis almost killed him in the second fight. Sultan Ibragimov was an Olympic silver medalist who finished 22 (17)-1-1, with goods wins over Lance Whitiker, Shannon Briggs, Zuri Lawrence, Friday Ahunanya, Al Cole, and an aging Evander Holyfield. He had fast hands (much admired by Mike Tyson), a southpaw stance, power, and was an intelligent boxer. His weaknesses were that he was too small for his era (no problem here), and that he never really combined the later cerebral boxer persona with the earlier swarming puncher. Despite a good career, is widely regarded as having put on a stinker against Wlad Klitschko, and soon thereafter retired. He was billed at 6'2", and 221 for his WBO title win against Briggs, but had to build himself up from 205, so there would not necessarily be a big weight difference here. Two of my favorite second-tier guys. Schmeling's title reign was a bit of a disgrace, but he compensated by beating the Bomber, and should have gotten the shot against Braddock. Ibragimov easily could have lost twenty pounds and had a second career as a cruiser, or hung around a lousy division and picked up a few wins until he got a shot at Vitali.
His title reign was a disgrace. He redeemed himself in history by beating the Bomber, but he was not a great champion. It is largely semantics, so I don't intend to argue it.
I know Schmeling would have been considered small in Ibragimovs time. But I think he was the better fighter. Sultan’s signature wins were decisions over throughly washed up renditions of Holyfield and Briggs. He then fought Klitschko and basically ran and avoided him all night then retired with less than 25 bouts. I can’t favor someone like that to beat the guy who battered Joe Louis
His title win was highly dubious, but he followed up with a solid win over Stribling, and probably deserved to win the rematch with Sharkey. Calling his title reign a disgrace is a massive overstatement.
I agree. Schmeling was robbed in some fights. He also should have been first in line to fight Braddock for the title before Joe Louis
Schmeling would have to be a strong favorite, based upon there respective accomplishments. However there are two wild cards. 1. Ibragimov was better than his record suggests, or perhaps than he was allowed to demonstrate? 2. How would Schmeling deal with a southpaw? The second question is more interesting. Schmeling was an orthodox fighter, who worked like a southpaw in some ways!
I am speaking if the history. It was considered a disgrace at the time. He was virtually disowned in Germany for a time. Want to repeat, because I do not want to go back and forth about it: I am not talking about a personal opinion, yours or mine. I am talking about how it was perceived by those who lived through it. I am talking about an objective thing.
