Why Schmeling is rarely mentioned with guys like Walcott/Charles/Patterson?

A lot of people often view Charles, Patterson and Walcott as the next tier top skilled HWs after the first tier. I wonder - why Schmeling isn't among them? I usually see him being mentioned with lower level champions which I find indefensible.

Is it because he fought even earlier than Walcott? Is it because his style isn't appealing to most? Or maybe he wasn't good enough?

 

I’m not sure why. I can see him being ranked near Patterson and Walcott but I have Ezzard a little higher than those other three

 

He's the only guy to beat a prime Louis. Especially noteworthy because the other ex champs failed miserably and he put on a master class performance. He obviously had top tier skill.

 

He should be rated over Patterson. Right there with the other 2.

 

I think Walcott should be ranked clearly last among these.

 

I wouldn't rank him beneath Patterson. Floyd held the title longer than Walcott but he wasn't a better champion.

 

He has a better non-champion career though. Walcott has been incredibly inconsistent throughout his career and I think some people overrate him based on his effort vs Rocky and his series against Louis and Charles.

 

Cosign.

Schmeling was at least even with Sharkey and beat Louis. Lost to Baer, but not as badly as Frazier lost to Foreman. Schmeling's in the same ballpark as Joe Frazier in terms of resume, IMO.

 

Are you talking about rankings in terms of skills, ranking in terms of head-to-head abilities, or rankings in terms of greatness/legacy?

 

I thought I'm the only one who has Max in similar tier with Frazier (slightly lower, but still). I'm glad to see few people being quite high on him.

 

Basically all of them. Would you break down each category for me in Schmeling's case? I know you're not the fan of him.

 

The Louis win is roughly as good as the Ali win. Neither of them had the title, but were elite talent and would go on to dominate the division.

You could compare (in terms of ability and resume):

Ellis to Sharkey

Mathis to Stribling

Bonavena to Uzcudin

Chuvalo to Risko

Foster to Walker

The Foreman losses to the Baer loss.

Do you think this works? Do their resumes somewhat overlap?

 

My opinion is that Schmeling was a bit better than Walcott and Charles, and they were perhaps a bit better than Patterson.

Max battered a green Joe Louis, albeit one that had taken out every other top fighter of the era, like they were literally the trash!

Now Walcott could not do to a shot Joe Louis, what Schmeling did to that version!

Charles at best, established marginal superiority over Walcott.

Was Schmeling better than Walcott and Charles?

Yes I personally think that he was.

 

Interesting. I'd put Sharkey at the same level as prime-ish Patterson, a notch above Ellis (who was a very good contender; don't get me wrong.) Schmeling has more losses than Frazier, but his high points are as good or slightly better than Frazier's, so it sort of balances out.

 

I think Schmeling's top wins are easily comparable, but his losses are worse. However, Schmeling does have one thing over Frazier and that's longevity. He was very effective and had some good wins even after the thrashing Louis and Baer gave him while Frazier didn't do much outside of rematches with Ellis and Quarry after his own losses. Schmeling was also past his prime for several of those losses.