Schmeling v. Holyfield

Holyfield probably wins.

 

Neither is an ideal analogue but if we are judging how his chin would hold up then Sharkey is a better comparison.

 

The only problem with comparing Sharkey to Holyfield is that Sharkey couldn't beat Schmeling within 5 rounds or less.

 

I think the number of fighters that could have beaten a prime Schmeling in five rounds or less could be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Joe Louis is one of them (given two runs at it) but Max Baer is not.

 

I honestly don't see any similarities between Holyfield or Sharkey, other than the mere fact that they both held the title at one point. Sharkey only stopped 13 of his 38 victoms and almost none of them were over 200 Lbs. He lost 14 of his matches and was stopped on 4 occasions. He lost regularly to journeyman early in his career while Holyfield dominated an entire division with less than 16 fights under his belt.

 

I am comparing them as all round punching packages on paper.

I have acknowledged that it is not an ideal comparison but it is better than comparing Holyfield to Baer or Louis.

On the superheavyweight front Sharkey dismantled:

Harry Wills 214 lbs

George Godfrey (not listed but arond 230 lbs)

Primo Carnera 261 lbs

 

At the end of the day Holyfield beats Schmeling without any real difficulty, regardless of whatever efforts one makes to try and stretch a comparison between Holy and Sharkey or anyone else. Schmeling's battles with Sharkey, Baer, Stribling and an ill prepared Louis are no real indication that he'd have what it takes to do battle with Evander. For my money, Holyfield has actually beaten fighters who would have held titles in Schmeling's era. The same can't be said in reverse. From 1989-1993 the division consisted of Mike Tyson, Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Michael Moorer, Razor Ruddock, George Foreman, Ray Mercer, Tim Witherspoon and several others. Schmeling, Baer, Carnera, Stribling, Sharkey, Braddock, etc would all have a hell of a time trying to get a rated seat among that crowd. I just think this is a mismatch in every sense of the term, weather we're talking legacy or head to head. Just plain mismatch.

 

I think the 42 year old Foreman actually had very good stamina, in fact, one of the best for a 260lbs man. He looked (and was) fat, sure, but his punch output was pretty steady and often over 40 heavy punches a round.

 

While Louis may have destroyed Schmeling faster than Holyfield could, Evander is still leagues above and beyond Max's number two and three conquerors. Baer had raw power.....That's it...... Holyfield had a punch that I think would have been amplified in a division of smaller men, and strength to over power people in the clinches. He was a hell of a lot more skilled than Baer was who swung with wide open shots like a kid trying to reclaim his lunch money from a bully.

If you consider Young Stribling, Paulino Uzcadan and Jack Sharkey legitimate comparables to Holyfield, then that's your perogative. Frankly, I wouldn't draw that comparison on a cold day in hell. As for his victory over Louis, I agree. There are no excuses here. Louis was a 27-0 professional with wins over the division's top men. He came into the pros with 55 amateur fights and a solid team of men willing to handle all of his professional affairs - a rareity in those days. Fact however is this, he did not train to fight Schmeling. He was busy playing golf and spending money at night clubs ( at least according to the highly acclaimed documentary that came out earlier this year. ) Does it give him an excuse? My answer is absolutely not, but then look at what happened in the rematch when Louis DID train.

Agreed, but with all due respect, I mentioned nothing about Louis in that sentence. The men I essentially targeted were Baer, Braddock, Carnera, Schmeling, Sharkey, and Stribling. These were the fighters who took over after Dempsey's reign and before Louis's, and I have always considered them to be more of a lost generation of fighters myself. If you think anyone of those men could have dethroned Holyfield, Tyson or Bowe during their haydays, then I'd really like to see your reasoning. As for Louis, how many trinckets would he have to chose from? From 1987 -1993, the titles were unified and their guardians were once again Tyson, Holyfield and Bowe. While Louis would certianly have a shot at winning the crown, he'd still have his hands full against anyone of those men, and frankly I don't think its a forgone conclusion that he'd just blindly walk right into Atlantic city and take the lineal title.

How about the simple fact that pressure fighters who loved to brawl were basically his achilles heel? Although a respectable boxer, Holyfield usually opted to fight in close, or at least where he could. During the prime of his career, which I guess stretched from the late 80's to early 90's, he was putting big heavies to sleep and sporting a solid chin in the process. I think he would work both the body and head of Schmeling at nail him with jabs, hooks, crosses, uppers, the works. And what the hell would Schmeling be able to do about it? Do you seriously think that he can lazily walk around the ring and keep Holy on the end of his reach that way that Holmes did? Do you think he has the physical toughness to out muscle him like Big Daddy? Personally, I think Schmeling would get killed, and I have yet to see a different argument that supports the contrary other than " he beat hall of famers. " Or " the only man who stopped him early was Louis ".

 

I'm not going to go through the whole post and respond to every comment Mcgrain, but let me address one last thing that you said which was this:

I believe this to be true, but I still think there is a hell of a void between the fully galvenized Louis who proleaxed Schmeling and the rest of the guys who beat him. Holyfield in my opnion is leagues above those other men, and frankly I think that includes Baer, due to the fact that his accuracy, conditioning, skill and strength would prove to be more devastating to Schmeling than Baer's single punch abilities.

And this:

In all fairness, you're accusing me of ignoring pertinant facts when you're not even accurately quoting things that I said. I specifically listed a group of men from Schmeling's era, yes Schmeling's era who I felt could not compete in Holyfield's. You opted to go digging for the extreme example, when in fact Louis was not really a part of that group until a bit later. Hell, is it not you who are saying that Schmeling was past his prime when he finally met Louis? Therefore, by definition can we say that technically Louis was not truly a part of that post Dempsey group?