Better win: Schmeling w Louis or Frazier w Ali?

First, again, I have great respect for Max Schmeling and am not attempting to detract from him in any way.

A favorite winning a clash of titans is still amazing, because he beat a titan!

The Louis flaw is simply perspective, good Bokaj: a style or technical advantage in a fight certainly makes a win easier. Schmeling did not go through hell to win. Again, knowing what we know now, Schmeling had a technical advantage and - more important, an advantage in preparation (regardless of circumstances) and the advantage of mentality and focus. He did not beat the best possible Louis that night.

Frazier, on the other hand - save the left hook - had no stylistic, physical or mental advantage. The Greatest was as determined as hell to win that night, which itself says a mouthful. Frazier had to go through hell to win yet, in the end, won by an unassailable margin, knocking his man down in the 15th round. Stuff of legend.

The exile: Sure it's acknowledged, but perhaps a bit overrated as well. First, the best Ali was gone. Upon returning, he had two tune-ups and was itching to get his title back. It is unrealistic to suppose one or two other fights would have made much difference. In any case, Ali needed to whip himself back into fighting shape over a matter of two or three years and some 10 or 12 fights - as actually happened by the time of the Rumble in the Jungle, when Ali was ready for anything - but, again, this is unrealistic.

So, I'm just choosing a seasoned, determined, still youthful, very skillful and strong, a bit stamina-challenged version of the Greatest over a youthful, not-yet-champion, unfocused, technically-challenged version of the Brown Bomber.

Perhaps the championship factor clinches it for me. Louis as champion - as a whole package - was way more formidable than before the title.

 

Schmeling went through hell in his fight with Louis are people delusional. His face was swollen. He stood in the pocket for twelve rounds against the greatest puncher who ever lived while being a massive underdog. Louis retired at 60-1 before taxes forced him back his lone loss to Max. Goh

 

None of the arguments for Frazier-Ali being better are even remotely convincing.

Like I said before, the only way it could make any sense if for people who believe Muhammad Ali is A LOT greater/better than Joe Louis, by quite a massive degree.

 

I disagree here too.

Some of Louis's best wins/performances occurred before he won the title, and before Schmeling beat him.

That explains why and how he was already beng hailed as "the greatest fighting machine" ever, and being compared to Langford, Dempsey etc.

People talk a lot about a "technical flaw" that Schmeling exploited, and Louis "later corrected", but having watched Louis fights from before AND after 1936, I don't really buy that.

 

It's more like you'd have to believe Ali was a lot greater/better than Frazier, moreso than Louis was greater/better than Schmeling. Ali and Frazier were fairly evenly matched, both undefeated champions, neither had previously beaten a fighter as good as the other, both close to their prime, which is why the fight was so good and competitive.

Louis-Schmeling on the other hand, was more of a mismatch. Louis was close to his prime, Max was thought to be faded, but even in his prime he was a bit up and down, and never was as good or formidable as Louis. And yet Max didn't just eek out a decision, he beat Louis up and KO'd him, to the point where it's remarkable that Louis recovered. No one else ever came close to doing that to Louis before he was completely shot.

So Schmeling beating Louis.

 

"Fightin' is 90% in the skull, and 10% in the body." -Rocky Balboa, quoting Mick

I'm just in awe of anybody turning back the ****y, capable Ali at FOTC.

He was "a caged tiger", set free.

He could not contemplate defeat, but he was made to. This is why I hold Frazier in such high regard.

Louis' focus was hardly equal against Schmeling, though in general terms Louis and Ali are pretty close.