Is Schmelling the most underrated HW?

I have never regarded the Louis win as a fluke.

In reality he won all three fights against Uzcdun, including one with his right hand out of action.

Another win that gets undersold is the Steve Hamas win. Hamas was a 28 year old #1 ranked contender, and Schmeling beat him up so badly that he was forced to retire. That should have given the young Louis a clue what he was up against.

While I am verry impressed by Schmeling, I think that he probably falls outside the top 10 because he dropped the ball at a couple of key moments. I also feel that the cards did not fall in his favour in many cases.

 

Schmeling is up there with the greats. I think he gets underrated.
He beat a prime Joe Louis - no excuses.
I'd definitely put him above Walcott and Charles, Patterson etc.

 

Not only did he beat a prime joe louis, but if you look at his run up to that fight and after it, it's no wonder louis claimed he wouldn't be a true champ until he beat max because for them few years he was the best hw in the world imo it was just a promoter's decision granting louis an undeserved shot at braddock.

Wouldn't say top ten but he's certainly a top 25 by any criteria. I'll find the resume research I did on him.

 

Nat Fleischer was emphatic that Schmeling was indeed the most underrated HW of his lifetime. His televised first round knockout of Heuser (available on youtube) a year after the Louis rematch, and three post war wins at age 42 suggest that he would have added to his resume considerably if not for that conflict. Had he remained active, he could have retained his EBU HW Title for close to a decade after Heuser. (And he did it before 70,000 fans in Berlin, demonstrating resilient credibility after Louis II.)

 

He has a better resume than a guy like Joe Frazier(yes, that's right), and one better than Charles and Walcott for sure IMO. He would have beaten Braddock up as well.

 

Throw in Neusel, he was at least as good as Stribling, Hamas, Risko, Uzcudun and ranked 3 at the time while Schmeling was ranked 4 by ring magazine (monthly rankings according to "Schmeling 1905-2005: Ein Jahrhundertdeutscher").

I´m his biggest fan on here and I think Top10 stretches it a bit. I rank him at 14, tied with Charles. I have Frazier (10), Foreman and Patterson (both 11) above and Liston (16), Dempsey and Wills (both 17), Walcott (22), Bowe (24) and Norton (32) behind him. Remember I don´t use criterias like "ability", "talent" or "h2h" when ranking fighters.

Thanks for making this thread. :thumbsup

 

Max Schemlling 9-6-1 (6)

Gains, Risko, Uzcudun (x3), Sharkey (x2), Stribling, Walker, Baer, Hamas (x2), Neusel (x2), Louis (x2) (10)

Plus a couple of decisions could have gone his way. Very respectable.

 

Gene Tunney, not Max Schmeling, is the most underrated heavyweight, and the threads and posts in this forum prove that all the time.

 

Yes, I've always thought that he would have counterpunched Braddock to death with that right hand..and that same calculating, patient style of his..probably he would have used a special strategy for Braddock like did with Louis.

 

Johnny du Plooy is the most underrated heavy of all time.

 

He has a case. Always found him a great heavyweight, with a brilliant right hand, one of the best I've seen and a difficult style to solve. He was a very smart man in the ring who made few mistakes and did have that toughness about him regardless of how the Louis rematch went.

Overall I'd say he proved out to be the best of the early 1930's heavyweights, though there's room for debate. Along with the win over Louis, he's up there with the very best heavyweights of all time, though top 10 might be a stretch.

Wish the proposed fight with Primo Carnera had taken place, if only to see how he would have done against that big of a man. Probably he would have found a way to deal with the Ambling Alp, and send those pin-point accurate right hands home. We missed out on a fight with Braddock too.

 

Yeah, I do. I think he beat Quarry both times and Ellis and that pushes him up quite a bit and of course beeing the first hw to regain his title and the youngest champ - yeah, I know some misguided people think it´s Tyson. Well, he isn´t. I still rank him higher, at 7. - push him up that far I guess. I was surprised with a few results myself. Patterson and Schmeling for example. Or Tyson above Holy. Johnson at 3. Foreman not inside the Top10. Wlad at 13. Walcott not Top20 but Fitz and Langford (both 17). That´s what happens if you just give "grades" to your criterias and let Excel do the actual list-making. I quite like it though.