What if Max Schmeling had been awarded the decision in the second Jack Sharkey fight?

I believe Schmeling should have been given the decision without any doubt (Sharkey did nothing), then again I felt Sharkey was getting the better of the first fight when Max seemingly acted his way out of it, although it wasn't me that was hit by that low blow...

Either way he would have still lost to Max Baer soon after. Carnera? He would have had a chance of scoring an upset much like he did over a disinterested Sharkey. I believe the two were actually about to face each other in the very early 1930's although the bout never came off.

 

Assuming Schmeling fought Carnera in his next defense as Sharkey did, I'd favor Schmeling to beat him.

If Baer got his shot after that, then he'd win and we'd be back on the historical track.

 

I have to agree with the majority here. I don't think that Schmeling was ever going to beat Max Baer, and weather or not he would have taken Carnera is subject to debate. Even though I consider Schmeling to be among the best of that early 30's crop, he simply was not destined to have a long extended reign...

 

I disagree with these statements a bit. Their actual fight was about even before the KO. This beeing a one-sided trashing is a myth. So, with some adjustements I can see Schmeling beating Baer quite clearly.

If Schmeling would have gotten the decision against Sharkey, like he would have deserved it, he would beat Carnera but would have to take on Baer some time in the futere. He would lose that one. There wouldn´t be a rematch due to Baer losing the title to Braddock. And then the history panning out like it did.
The only difference would be that neither Sharkey nor Carnera would have been champs and Schmeling would have had a longer reing - and a slightly better resume I suppose. In the end Schmeling would have an argument to rank a bit higher all-time-wise but over all there would be no big changes.

 

The problem with this statement is that it speculates on Schmeling beating Carnera. In any case, we are talking about a reign that when all is said and done, would have amounted to perhaps 2 years, starting from the time that he beat Sharkey to the point where Baer would have contended for the title, with perhaps 3 or 4 defenses in between. Hardly, what I'd call an extended reign.

 

I never said he would have an extended reign. I actually said there wouldn't be much difference in history compared to how it really happened. The only difference would be that Carnera and Sharkey would never be champs and Schmeling might have a slightly better record and longer reign and so would rank slightly higher.

 

I agree. I am certain that Max will not lose.

 

Well, that´s where we differ then. I think the information we have on the career of both fighters and the film of their actual fight provides us with enough information to assume that Schmeling´s scientific workethic and Baer´s inconsistency would lead to a win for Schmeling in a second fight. Baer´s performance against Schmeling was his career best, he never did so well before or after only his win against Carnera comes somewhat close. On the other hand Schmeling´s performance against Baer was okay but he had better ones - Stribling, Walker, Louis, Neusel and so on. I don´t think Baer would repeat this performance while you can expect Schmeling to do so. That would spell trouble for Baer.