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

People give Schmeling a lot of credit for the first Louis win. Which they should. But he got absolutely stomped the second time around. I put him around the area of Patterson and Walcott. But I do put him below them because minus the Louis win I’m not so impressed with his resume compared to the others. Plus his style I don’t think would translate as well today as the others.

 

You think a shrewd counter puncher like Schmeling's style would translate worse today than a peak a boo infighter like Patterson who had a weak chin?

 

He wasn't as good as them, that's why

 

Walcott was very slick. Unfortunately for him, he lacked the power and size.

 

He didn't hit as hard as other HWs his size, like Marciano, Frazier, Shavers, etc

 

Always seemed very flat footed to me. Not a lot of movement. Maybe dependent on his power to much? Besides Louis his next best win was a DQ over Sharkey…which Sharkey avenged. Other then that not much to his record that pops.
I do put Charles, Walcott, and Patterson
above Max but I don’t think that’s an insult to Max the others were awesome fighters as Max was. I put Max and Norton in the same area. Both are real top heavy in the wind department but lacked that real depth that maybe their peers had.

 

He may not have hit as hard as Shavers but he had more quality KOs then he did. Walcott def didn’t lack power.

 

Schmeling was extremely flat footed and lacked a lot of head movement and body movement that modern counter punchers have in their arsenal today. Patterson’s style can work today he just probably wouldn’t be a hw or even cruiser.
I will be fair to Max here and say although I’ve seen a decent amount of his fights I haven’t really studied them. So if you think I’m off on my remarks I will take another closer look.

 

I fully concur with your thoughts. Indeed, Schmeling was a bit better than Walcott and Charles. Schmeling has that one signature win over Louis which is above everything Walcott and Charles have at heavyweight. Charles has a lot of title defenses but Walcott aside, there are no good names (Louis was washed up at this point). Schmeling also had greater longevity as somebody else noted, and was one of the few champions to beat a younger boxer who would go on to become the undisputed champion of the world.

There is one place where I would disagree with you - that Walcott and Charles were a bit better than Patterson. In my opinion, they were a lot better than him. Patterson - who could have been an excellent light heavyweight - wasn't even a good heavyweight champion. Look at his successful defenses - Tommy 'Hurricane' Jackson, Pete Rademacher in his first fight as a professional, Roy Harris, Brian London, Ingemar Johansson and Tom McNeeley. I fail to see another undisputed champion defending against so many below the bar contenders. Liston, Williams and Folley were definitely better contenders. Even Machen and Cooper (who Patterson later beat) were better than most of the names in that list. Even if you talk about Patterson's post-title career, I don't see any exceptional wins there. Apart from the two guys I already mentioned, there are Chuvalo and Bonavena, neither of whom can be described HOF material.