Who wins this fight of the underrated?? Bobo is rather lightly regarded cause he shared and era with Robinson and archie moore. he is often regarded as a straight Forward brawler who won by wearing his opponents down with bodypunches. personally, i think this is not accurate. Bobo had an awkwardness About him that made him alot harder to hit clean than most People think. his jab was Pretty effective and his work on the inside very clever. he didnt have that outstanding eyecatching Talent like one Punch power or Lightning Speed.....but he was hard to beat. scholz is one of the greatest fighters Germany ever produced. he finished his Career with a mark of 88-2 with six draws. one of his defeats came vs Harold Johnson in the first ever world Championship on german soil. it was via close decision when bubi was close to retirement and came at light Heavyweight. bubi was never more than a middleweight. the other defeat came against the great frenchman charles humez in paris on Points....and was generally regarded as controversial. he beat humez by vicous ko in the rematch to win the euro belt. he was a clever southpaw with a solid Punch.....a real technician. the rep against him was that he mostly fought in Germany, where he was a big star. but he beat several great german and european fighters, like the aforementioned humez and Peter müller. so who wins?? the caretaker champ vs one of the best fighters never to hold a world title. unitas, Today at 1:39 PM Edit Report
Olson was a class above Scholz prime for prime. Scholz put on a good performance in his own backyard against Johnson but who was the best fighter he ever beat? Im gonna go with Humez. It took Scholz two tries to beat Humez. The first time around he got his ass kicked royally. He was in his prime and Humez was past his. I don't see Olson losing to any version of Humez much less the 1958 version. The older Olson got the more competitive the fight would be but I doubt Id ever make Scholz a favorite. Maybe a pick em against an older Olson.
i tend to agree with you. scholz was a faded force when he faced humez. in fact in 1955 scholz had contracted tuberculosis and needed surgery. he was told he would never be able to do Sports again. but he produced a Miracle when he returned. humez was at the top of his game. the Johnson fight came even later. and scholz was just way to small…..yet he produced a close fight against one of the greatest of all time. however, i also go with Olson. i think he would simply outwork scholz. yes, Olson has a far better resume…….but head to head, in the ring, it would be much Closer. scholz was a serious Talent and his style would Trouble Olson more than the other way around. close fightl.
Scholz was 28 when he faced Humez and was not robbed. That ascertion is laughable. He was bounced off the canvas like a yoyo. If he was past his prime in 1958 because he contracted TB in 1955, at age 25, then exactly when was his prime that he could be considered in the same breath as Olson? Prior to 1955 he hadnt faced anything but fringe contenders.
contracting TB in 55 was often a death sentence. coming back from that certainly could have made him a spend force, as Reports indicate. even at 28. and the first humez fight was considered controversial. but again, who cares?? the fought again a few months later……….and humez took such a beating that he was forced to retire. but this is not About comparing resumes. as i said, it´s About who takes it head to head. Olson wasnt a guy that blew anyone out of the water. when he was at the top of his game, he fought the likes of Paddy Young and rocky castellani, and while he got the win each time, he had to go to war to get them. he beat those guys on workrate……..but he was outclassing no one. it s not like he was a Level above or anything. he was Right there on their Level. and did scholz prove he was on a Level with a Paddy Young or castellani?? hell yes! so mr Olsons resume may blow scholz away, his actual Talent and ability certainly dont. in fact i believe scholz had more natural Talent than Olson. still i pick Olson who´s better infighting and workrate would have likely given him the Edge. but would he have to struggle for the win. defenetly.
There was nothing controversial about Scholz losing to Humez. I have the entire fight. He got his ass kicked. If you are going to post nonsense like that you must be some german apologist for Scholz. Humez wasn't forced to retire, he was 31, ten years into a career, and had over 100 fights. Youre acting like he gave Humez this horrible beating and he didnt. The fight was fairly even until the last couple of rounds when Humez left eye began bothering him. Humez had pressed the fight throughout and landed more punches. Scholz was content to counterpunch and use his reach advantage. You obviously havent seen either fight so why speak as if you have?? Olson not only beat Young and Castellani but he beat them by a wide margin. Trying to say he was on their level when he defeated both men by something like 11 rounds to 4 is ridiculous. Nevermind that both Castellani and Young fought MUCH tougher competition on a consistent basis than Scholz did. As far as resume is concerned and showings against opponents thats all we have to judge on since this is a mythical matchup. I have 30 of Scholz fights on film and every fight known to exist on Bobo Olson as well as training footage of both and plethora of footage on their opponents. Im as well placed to judge their merits as anyone alive and I dont see Scjolz winning this fight. You agree so why argue, especially since your argument is based on fights you havent seen?
