Louis V Schmeling 1 ,a question?

I don't even think Joe was undertrained or it was a stylistic thing. I think Louis had a habit of keeping his lead hand low, Schmeling saw it and took advantage.

I don't think a well trained Max could ever beat a focused Louis like the Louis in the rematch.

But Louis wasn't always as focused as he was in the Schmeling rematch. Joe was prone to the early flash knockdown. He was sometimes complacent.

Peak Max vs Peak determined angry Joe = Louis by mid round stoppage. Schmeling is great but he neither has the movement nor the power to threaten this version of Louis.

Peak Max vs prime not angry somewhat complacent Joe = Joe by late stoppage or decision in a competitive fight with Joe perhaps surviving an early knockdown.

 

The rematch answers this question pretty clearly. I believe if Braddock or Farr had encountered Louis at this time they could have done the same thing and timing was the biggest reason for Schmelings win. Louis had never dealt with adversity and had already beaten Max Baer and Carnera easily.

The ability to brush off a knockdown like nothing had happened is perhaps the single most dangerous thing about champ Louis and at this point Louis didn't have that. Schmeling was able to get the momentum by knocking Louis down and carry it to victory. A few years later that doesn't happen. Fans score on boxer rec says Louis was shutting Schmeling out before the knockdown.

 

According to his autobiography, and it’s admittedly an autobiography that has to be taken with multiple grains of salt in some cases, Joe was full of himself and thought Schmeling had nothing for him so he dogged it in training and played a lot of golf instead and also was screwing half of Harlem and Hollywood (he specifically mentioned Sonja Henie in the book), and he painfully learned something that I have stated multiple times on this forum: Max Schmeling at his best was a very competent if not near great/elite prize fighter who would not be an easy assignment for anyone.

 

Yes and Yes.
Max was always going to be troubles for Louis, and Louis underestimate Max.

Both things can be true and doesn"t exclude or cancel each other.

 

It was a case of a guy- Schmeling- fighting a very disciplined, deliberate, purposeful fight. It is one of my favorite fights to watch, and I am a huge Joe Louis fan. Fans get so caught up in name guys that they assume that everything that goes on in the ring is because of what that guy does or doesn't do, his poor preparation, etc...They overlook the fact that the other guy has skills, physical fitness and a will to win.

A lot of Louis 'dropping his left' in that fight had a ton to do with what Schmeling was doing. Watch his positioning, where his feet are, the angle of his body. He did a lot to make Louis reach with his jab and, when you reach, you get countered. Schmeling ate a lot of jabs, but he did an insane job of keeping the fight between the Louis jab and his own right hand. He tied up or fell in to avoid combinations. His defense was brilliant. Louis was looking to counter the Schmeling right with a roll and a right uppercut; Max always had his right glove there to catch the uppercut, his left hand caught the hook to the body. Brilliant cross arm defense.
That night Louis fought a skilled professional that came to the ring well prepared, committed to a plan, and determined to win. Schmeling fought the fight of his life and Louis lost.

 

In the Joe Louis documentary that came out over a decade ago, it was said that Schmeling found a stylistic flaw in film which Louis had. He would lower his guard when throwing a punch and Schmeling capitalized on this. Also I think Louis grossly underestimated him. After easily destroying Baer and Carnera he likely thought he was going to walk right over Schmeling.

 

Schmeling was an astute counter puncher, defensive master and a pressure fighter, he could utilize a multitude of styles and as such was the complete package.
He used the right gameplan for Louis, which mainly was to bait him into the right range and counter Louis's jabs and hooks with his cross and then use right uppercuts with left hooks when he closed in to infight.
Louis did mess around a bit before the training camp but that chiefly affected the rate at which he lost the weight. Otherwise, he was destroying his sparring partners as usual and had plenty of confidence which is a crucial component for performing under stress.
He did not listen to Blackburn though and opened up with left hooks too early, allowing Max to not have to second guess between distinguishing hooks and jabs which let him carry out his plan countering each punch earlier than he otherwise would be able to.
By the fifth round Schmeling was able to retaliate against (some of) the jabs and also intercept the hooks with his own cross before Louis even managed to launch them, an incredible feat of skill.
However, Louis was still landing the jab hard and still managed to get through powerful body blows and the occasional cross or hook to the jaw which Max absorbed without a hitch.
To answer the question of whether or not Max would always give Louis problems, well, it depends.
If it's an absolutely primed and readied Louis then he should be able to rush Max straight out the gate and damage him severely which will either lead to an early KO or a mid round stoppage.
However, should Louis come in even slightly compromised such as trying to take him on as a challenger in a succession of defenses one too close to the other (like he did Farr and Conn) then Max will have a chance to either stop him or get a decision win.
Needless to say, any version of Louis past 1942 loses to Schmeling.

I'll finish by saying that Louis' perceived weakness against right hands has been exaggerated. Many people criticized his boxing stance and said he'd be an easy target for their right hands but failed miserably when they actually fought him.
Baer didn't even get through many right hands and neither did Nova.
Walcott had success but he was nowhere close to stopping Joe.
Schmeling was simply a cut above the rest. Just because he could do, it doesn't mean others would too.

 

For me sometimes it’s hard to appreciate certain things with context, it’s easier to just say “this fight means nothing, no names just hands” Toney vs Holyfield which you put me onto is one such fight… “oh just two shot fighters” blah blah blah why does it matter? The movements are the same, the set ups, the skills the difference in “class” - sometimes the old past there best fights are the best to learn from, it’s the height of there boxing knowledge they know the most, more then they’ve ever had access to and they’re choosing certain moves over others and you can learn even if it’s just because they aren’t what they used to be.

 

Louis vs Schmeling 1

As far as I remember, Louis mentioned in his autobiography that Schmeling did not suit his style and was awkward to fight. He simply offered little target area and was a dangerous counterpuncher.

Louis took the fight a tad too easy, but just a tad... (also according to Louis' book)
All this: Louis was arrogant... only played golf and did not train properly (e.g. according to Bert Sugar) or he wasn't prime... is a myth and excuse, IMHO.
I mean, he weighed 198 pounds, like he did against Max Baer, what Louis described as his best fight.

Summarized
1. Louis was still a bit inexperienced and overconfident.
2. A bit of an off night (didn't fight his best fight, single punches can be decisive...)
3. Truly a masterful performance by Schmeling who systematically exploited Louis' flaw (dropping the left hand)


Louis vs Schmeling 2

1. Super motivated Louis who was better prepared and more experienced.
2. He took advantage of Schmeling's weakness now (slow starter)
3. It wasn't Schmeling's fight, who was already an inconsistent boxer (the hostile spectators got under his skin, already a little old)
4. Now Schmeling had some bad luck (one punch that broke two vertebrae in Schmeling's back)

All in all, some likely mythical matchup scenarios... if they could fight each other countless times (prime vs. prime):
1. Louis wins early as Schmeling was a slow starter
2. A cautiously fighting Louis wins with patience in a longer fight especially because of his jab.

Everything between 1 and 2 can be dangerous for Louis. Schmeling was no Bob Pastor who was a good fighter but couldn't crack an egg and he was no Buddy Baer who punched hard but telegraphed. He was better.
I think he was at least as good as Walcott but younger with a difficult style (if in shape) ... and therefore not a walk in the park.

Maybe that was hard to grasp/accept for Louis in the first fight... he couldn't dominate Schmeling the way he was used to (keyword: overconfident). For instance, young unbeaten Foreman also thought he was practically invincible (pre Ali).

 

Doesn’t the rematch answer your question? Schmeling was only 32 and in terrific shape for the rematch.

 

This is your answer @Fergy

 

Max was completely focused, prepared and ready. He was mentally and physically razor sharp. He had fought three times in the seven months before the bout, had extreme confidence from his prior win and all the pressure was on Joe who was thought by many to be an overhyped, unintelligent hype job. The merciless way the media treated him after the Farr fight was brutal. He was a said to be listless on camp and reprimanded independently by both Dempsey and Tunney who came to see his poor camp for themselves. These are the facts.