Lewis is an automatic top 5. I have him at no. 3 all time. My point was he should clearly rank above Holyfield.
Because he has significantly better resume than half of these boxers mentioned here. People only acknowledge that Schmeling was the guy who got lucky against Louis (which is false), but he has a deep resume and was the best fighter in the world at some point. He beat quite a few top level fighters and even without Louis win, he'd be a candidate for top 20. For those who like eye test, Schmeling was a very prolific counter puncher with powerful right hand and sound defense. There is no reason to underrate him to this degree.
Ali,Louis and Holmes have been my numbers 1- 3 for many years now. All other spots in my top 20 continue to switch around.
There are surprisingly few things that are very off from me here. I'm actually quite surprised how much I identify with your post.
The era in which he boxed was significantly weaker than modern ones, thus he's nowhere near the top 20.
Agree with all that except Wlad, he would not make a top 10, for me. He was extremely frustrating to watch, part of it due to being a very good boxer with a fine skill set, a guy that looked carved out of rock, with great power, a great sportsman with a solid work ethic & overall a fine example of a great HW.......and then the bell rings. He fought completely opposite of what he appeared, considerably timid for such an imposing figure. The clutching was not only often, but he would look terrible while doing it, looking so desperate. - that is not how an ATG HW carries himself in the ring. If he had his brother's fearlessness in there.....THAT would be pretty scary. Are you saying Schmelling is not a top 30 HW?
That's not an argument, that's your opinion you can't prove. As I said, you can make any list based on your ideas of hypothetical results. If you want to do this objectively, then you should look at the actual resume and accomplishements. Schmeling is a clear choice for top 20 in these regards.
That's not my opinion, but a fact. In any sport, modern athletes are better. Most sportsmen from the turn of the century can't hold a candle to their modern counterparts. Sports evolved bigtime from the late 60s onwards.
Hi Buddy. Agreed most sports/sportsmen have evolved immensely over the last 115 years or so, the strange anomaly in our sport is the fighters of today only fight about 2/3 times a year, all through the weight divisions, all we hear is " going into camp for 10/12 weeks " really !!!!!. Where as the fighters of yesteryear, would think nothing of having 15/25 ( and in some cases Greb, Britton, Newsboy Brown 30/45) fights per year, I know some will cite the tax implications, but that doesn't really hold water when you see the millions they are being paid . For me, the fighter that can and does fight into double figures, is palpably a much fitter and better conditioned athlete than the 2/3 times a year fighter. stay safe amigo.
You can't call it a fact if you can't prove it. There are some sports where you can objectively measure the improvement, like T&F (though, you have to keep in mind that there were differences in circumstances that were not attached to athletes), but not in boxing. You can make an educated guess of who is a better boxer, but you can't prove it. Anyway, Schmeling is a clear top 20 fighter based on what actually happened, not your opinions that can't be falsified. Why do you believe that the boxing didn't change from the 1990s to 2022 by the way? If Schmeling who fought in 1935 wouldn't be able to compete in 1965 by your opinion, then why should we still talk about Mike Tyson who fought 35 years ago? Do you arbitrary decide when the boxing stopped evolving?
