Ezzard Charles vs Max Baer

Schmeling also had losses he shouldn’t have. I will concede it’s not a one-sided fight but I have to favour Charles. Schmeling won’t knock him out & probably won’t put point him either. At least IMO.

 

I agree, especially the losses right after his title was taken from him. He had no business losing to Baer and Hamas but fortunately he got a chance to avenge one of the two.
Though when I measure their qualities in a match up, Schmeling is bigger, hits harder, i.e. brings the same advantages Walcott did but unlike Walcott, Schmeling had great work-rate and I'd favor him to outpoint Charles, possibly even stop him. He had a knack for finishing men who were seemingly impossible to put down.

 

I just don’t understand how you can automatically rate Schmeling above Charles head to head because they both beat the same guy?? Schmeling also got axed by that guy in one round. Styles make fights, does Schmeling’s style match up better vs the rest of the field than Charles?

 

I don’t see how you could possibly argue against Walcott being in his prime in 1949…coming off his two best career performances in 1947 and 1948.

In 1950, He knocked out a hall of famer and a top 10 ranked contender.

In 1951, he won the world championship with a one punch knockout over a hall of fame champion

in 1952, he gave a prime undefeated ATG champion 13 hellacious rounds where he was well ahead on the scorecards.

seems 1949 was smack in the middle of his best years

 

Schmeling did more than simply beat the same guy that Charles did, they both did it at different times, and they both have other accomplishments at heavyweight apart from that. I rate Max higher due to his ability to seemingly stop men who were otherwise insanely durable, as well as being the only man to beat a prime Joe Louis- Not to mention that his one round loss to him was mainly because he turned his back when he got on the ropes and shattered something (I don't remember exactly what it was) in his back. Styles do make fights, but I don't think that there is any substantial downside to Schmeling’s style that would make him have a harder time matching up against most men that Ezzard could face without issue.

 

Schmeling has Sharkey? A DQ victory? Or are you talking about the rematch where Schmeling may have been robbed vs a flabby out of shape aging Sharkey.

You dismiss Walcott cause of age? Charles beat him twice before Walcott won the world championship and before Walcott came close to beating Marciano.

let’s go to the next tier .

Schmeling beat who hamas stribling Uzcuden Neusal Risko Thomas?

Charles beat Archie Moore 3x Joey Maxim 5x Jimmy Bivins 4x Elmer Ray Baksi Satterfield Holman Layne 2x

Charles blows him away here

 

He had his best win in 1950, but his best performances were the Louis fights and his run against Baksi, Oma, Murray, Bivins, Ray and Maxim in 1945-1947. 1950 is 5 years after he "hit his prime" at 32 years old. There's just no way for me to believe Walcott remained just as good until he retired.
Now the first Charles fight happened a whole year after he lost to Louis. Going from 34 to 35 and still be prime despite that inactivity is also a hard sell, perhaps that's why he performed better in the second Charles fight as he got some fights behind him, but he also has that loss to Layne that just looks bad for someone who almost defeated Joe Louis himself.
Walcott aged well but his very best years were 1945-1948. He lost the first two fights with Charles but after fighting the guy for 30 rounds he got enough experience to deal with him better, plus Charles started aging and slowing down, diminishing the advantages he held over Walcott back in '49.

 

This isn't style makes fight though. This is both Max and Ezzard landing right hands repeatedly on the same guy and Max doing a lot better against a better version.
Louis wasn't a one off style by the way, he was as complete a heavyweight gets. He could crowd, counter, out box, you name it. A win over him means that you got a lot of your bases covered.
It's not unreasonable to assume that a yoyng Louis would bust up Charles worse than he did in their actual match or that Max would obliterate the 36 year old with two years of retirement behind him.

 

You included some of his light heavyweight resume here.
At heavyweight Schmeling had
Louis
Sharkey(*2)
Hamas
Uzcudun*2 (3 really)
Risko
Stribling
Neusel

And lighter good guys like Walker and Heuser.

As for Sharkey vs Walcott wins, it's true that the second time around Sharkey was at the edge of his prime, probably a little past it but he had a win over Carnera just before the match. The first Sharkey DQ win was against a prime Sharkey.
Now keep in mind that resume wise Schmeling was snubbed so badly that he was robbed of his title and then unfairly kept from a match with Braddock, which would effectively make Max the first 2 time heavyweight champion.
Charles was treated unfairly and not given a LHW title shot but he got to avenge that by koing Lesnevitch at HW, his standing didn't suffer the same way Max's did.

 

Was he?
They fought June 1936.
From June 1935 Louis knocked out
Primo Carnera
Levinsky
Max Baer
Paulino Uzcudun
Charlie Retzlaff in January.

He fought Schmeling 5 months after his last victory (Retzlaff).
Then in August he had the Sharkey fight and in September knocked out Al Ettore.
For the Schmeling fight Louis came in at an in shape 198 lbs, the same weight he was when he knocked out the guys before that. If he didn't train he certainly had enough time to fatten up in five months, but he came in the same physical condition.
If he was so undertrained why would he fight Sharkey and Ettore 2-3 months after a prolonged break down type knock out. Wouldn't he need extra time to recover and then get in condition?
It was a still green Louis, but how unprepared/out of shape he was is overblown. Schmeling had a track record for figuring out openings and hammering his right.