Who performs better against Liston - Sharkey or Schmeling?

If it's prime Liston the both of them last less than 3rds tops.
Better effort?
I think Schmeling. He was better overall.

 

I always say it depends on whether Sharkey shows up in a manic or depressive state, he was that kind of fighter. But all in all Schmeling and I think he could take Sonny to five rounds or so on a good day before he inevitably gets nailed.

 

Sharkey at best wins a decision, Schmeling at best knocks him out or wins a decision, so I'd go with Max.
Sharkey does have very good survivability against punchers proven by his fights with Wills, Godfrey and Schmeling though he lacked Max's power, speed and workrate.

 

Unranked Whitehurst and Marshall make it to the ending bell twice, Sharkey and Schmeling can't make three rounds. lol

 

Schmeling not only survived Louis the first time, but won. So, him.

 

The average Schmeling. The Sharkey from Loughran I and Scott is probably the best version of either though.

 

This argument makes no sense.

Using this logic, Patterson should've performed a lot better than he did.

Also the Marshall fights were very early in Liston's career, they mean little. Making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

Patterson had an aggressive style that wasn't complimented by his chin, add the intimidation factor and the results were all but inevitable.

The difference is Sharkey and Schmeling were much more well rounded defensively, had much better durability than Floyd and their styles didn't force them to come forward as much, they'd have the same option as Machen to defend against Liston in the early rounds and then start scoring in their own ways.

The problem with the Marshall and Whitehurst (and Machen, to an extend) fights is that those were the select few times Sonny could prove he could knock out a defensively able fighter, and he couldn't deliver consistently. This isn't even including the first Ali fight where he managed to get beaten worse than Chuvalo, Jones and Folley were.
I am expected to believe he'd crush defensive masters like Schmeling and Sharkey with proven feats against punchers.
Schmeling's genuine achievement against Louis is brushed aside when he is matched against a slower fighter with worse tendency to deliver against top opposition.
For all I know, Schmeling starts timing Liston's jabs and delivers a stream of crosses that take an accumulative toll and stops Sonny in the late rounds.

 

Schmeling was the better fighter, perhaps primarily based on commitment and consistency.

However, as to their likely complexions and outcomes in the face of Liston, I think it is as much a muchness. Mid fight KOs/stoppages for Sonny.

 

It's the reason I didn't respond.
Some don't get it how certain fighters match-up against each other is
just as important.
By the logic some use ,there shouldn't be any upsets or surprises
in the sport. Or how fighter "A" gave fighter "B" hell, but fighter "C"
destroyed fighter "A" easily.
By that logic because Conn avoided and out fought Louis in their
1st fight until the 13th round means he'd be capable of doing the
same against, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson or Lewis.
Certain styles match-up well against certain fighters.
Also, it can end up disastrous against certain fighters.
Look no further than Ali vs Norton and Frazier,
Foreman vs Norton and Frazier,
Ali vs Foreman for proof of this.
Liston matches up well against Schmeling and Sharkey.
They really didn't have much to make him respect them,
I can easily see Liston duplicating what Louis did against
Schmeling (2nd fight) and Sharkey in 1936,
prime vs prime.

 

How well did Machen do? He lost all but two rounds, and was rendered ineffective.

Marshall was very early in his career. He was being thrown to the wolves who were much more experienced than him. Those fights mean very little.

Liston still hadn't yet quite hit his prime against Whitehurst, and still won 19 of the 20 rounds. The fact that he didn't get a knock out means very little regarding Schmeling, and Walcott's chances of winning. Only going the distance. You'd have a much better argument if Liston was befuddled or struggling like Lyle-Young.

He'd fought less than 6 minutes in three years and went into the bout with a recorded injury.

Even so, it's also untrue, that Chuvalo and Folley did better. The only metric Chuvalo did better was lasting the distance. He still lost all but two rounds. Folley lasted about a minute longer but was behind on two cards and a draw on another. Liston was ahead on one card, behind in another, and a dead heat on the last.
I am expected to believe he'd crush defensive masters like Schmeling and Sharkey with proven feats against punchers.

Because he capitalized on a green, undertrained prospect's critical flaw (failing to keep his left hand up). Once Louis fixed that, Schmeling had no chance. There's zero reason to believe Schmeling beats Liston based on your argument that Liston was slower and had a "worse tendency to deliver against top opponents." Using this logic, Schmeling should've wiped the floor with the limited Baer.

You seem to believe, Schmeling's performance would've worked on anyone, as opposed to a gameplan that was made for (that version of) Louis specifically.

 

Excellent post.
"By the logic some use ,there shouldn't be any upsets or surprises
in the sport. Or how fighter "A" gave fighter "B" hell, but fighter "C"
destroyed fighter "A" easily.
By that logic because Conn avoided and out fought Louis in their
1st fight until the 13th round means he'd be capable of doing the
same against, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson or Lewis."
If Schmeling's performance against Louis is indicative of what he would've done to Liston, he should've wiped the floor with Baer.

 

While Max Schmeling seems to be the proper answer, I think the best version of Jack Sharkey might actually do better here.