Champions with one great win, where would they rank without it?

Why? Imo he has a better resume than either Carnera or Braddock. Can´t see that.

 

liston without patterson wins??

 

Braddock defeated Baer and John Henry Lewis. One could certainly make a case that these are better wins than any of Schmeling's outside of Louis.

Carnera defeated Sharkey via an impressive KO while Schmeling has only a foul win. Loughran could also be viewed as a better win for Carnera than any Schmeling had except for Louis. Schmeling did win more impressively against Stribling, but Carnera was green when he fought Stribling. Carnera certainly has more depth beating second-tier guys.

 

Well, like in the other thread said, many wins of Carnera against second tier guys are a bit dubious, especially the Stribling wins. Well, Carnera KOed Sharkey while Schmeling won by DQ but you ignore that Schmeling should have got the nod in the second fight against Sharkey. And Loughran? On paper yes but Loughran was how old already? 34? And how many pounds had Carnera on him? 80? Looks not so good anymore.
Didn´t Braddock beat Lewis at lhw? If so, this win does nothing for his hw standing and outside of Baer he did not much. Schmeling has a clearly superior record.
Like I wrote Schmeling would drop but he still had a record that was as good as Baer´s or Sharkey´s and better as Braddock´s or Carnera´s.

 

johnsons win over patterson is his only claim to fame

 

The bottom line with Braddock is that Schmeling would have the better career record without Louis but would have lost badly to Baer while Braddock beat Baer, as well as Lewis and Farr. I think most would judge that Braddock at his best from 1934 to 1937 was probably a bit better.

Carnera would have had 80 or so lbs on Schmeling also. What is the relevance of bringing up his size advantage in the context of heavyweight boxing? Carnera was big. That is a fact. And it is not something to criticize him for or to belittle his victories because of.

 

That´s the first time I ever see someone writing Braddock beeing better than Schmeling. Sorry, don´t see it. Braddock was better than many make him out to be but not that good. Have to disagree here.

True. Still the fact stands that Loughran was pretty old, past it and a former lhw. A good win but not good enough to rank Carnera above Schmeling.

 

Carnera's win over Sharkey is to this day viewed with suspicion,he never showed that power before or after.The Stribling fights are seen as fixes.Bottom line Schmeling was a real dangerous fighter who could hit, a cool calculating puncher whose resume does not tell the full story,Baer and Walker spoke very highly of him .In contrast Carnera's resume suggests a power puncher,which he emphatically was not,which leads you to the conclusion that? Imo ,Schmeling would have handed Primo a painful beating.

 

No one would say Braddock is better than Schmeling because of Schmeling's win over Louis. But take that fight away and Schmeling is stopped by Baer and blown away in one by Louis. Braddock defeats Baer and goes 8 with Louis, knocking Louis down. He also defeats Lewis and Farr and whom did Schmeling defeat who was better than those two? Everyone would agree that Braddock was a journeyman for a while in his career, but like Walcott, they would have to admit he turned it around and at his best accomplished more than Schmeling did if one takes the first Louis fight off the table.

Loughran in fact had won six of seven and was ranked the #2 contender right behind Baer. These six wins included Sharkey, Levinsky, and Steve Hamas, and Hamas would go on to defeat Schmeling in early 1934.

Former lightheavyweight? So were Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling, Braddock, Charles, Patterson, etc. What is the relevance of this criticism?

Loughran was 31 and on the cusp of a career decline, but going into the Carnera fight he was a worthy contender.

 

You have an argument there but you ignore Schmeling´s wins over Risko, Sharkey, Uzcudun, Stribling, Walker, Neusel, Hamas. Some of them better than Farr or Lewis.

Hamas got beaten easily in the rematch proving the first fight a fluke - when we take the rest of Schmeling´s career into account.
Loughran was a deserving contender but he was also on the decline.
Well, neither Dempsey nor Schmeling or Patterson were career lhws, they fought there early in their careers but built their career at hw. There were lhws who had a good/great career at hw but those are not the norm. And while Loughran had a good career at hw he fell short at the very top, proving he was somehow part of the norm - when it comes to this.

 

If Braddock had honoured his SIGNED contract to meet and defend against Schmeling ,the German would have been the first TWO TIME HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION! imo.

 

How about Ingemar Johansson without Floyd Patterson I ?

 

Times those fighters were ranked from '30 to '39:
Schmeling: 9
Carnera: 6
Baer: 6
Braddock: 2
Sharkey: 3

Imo those rankings show that Schmeling was the most consistent of these and even without the win over Louis he would have been at least on par with Carnera and Baer ranking wise.