In my view, the outcome depends entirely on ruleset. Both were at the top of the HW division in their eras. While Jeffries was pretty much dominant through the entirety of his career, Schmeling was more often a victim of circumstance as to why he didn't stay on top for so long (second Sharkey fight, using the old film of the Lougran fight as the basis for Baer, denied a deserved title shot against Braddock, etc.). All this in mind, I strongly believe these two were refined enough at their respective sports to make this a tossup, based on the rules presented. If Schmeling was to fight under the rules of Jeffries, he would be out of his depth. For all of his technical prowess, he would find himself in a world of grappling, more lenient officiating, and far longer, rougher fights. Jeffries was the king of the game, and knew how to nullify the technical boxers of his day using his lethal combination of grappling, power, and stamina to wear his man down. Admittedly, it did take some time to break down a smaller, aging Corbett, but he got the job done no less, and Corbett, while past his best, was well accustomed to the game of the day, unlike Max. How would Schmeling cope? Could he maintain his energy, avoid the clinches, and outpoint his man for 20, 30, or possibly even more rounds? I doubt it. 70/30 in favor of the boilermaker, probably by knockout between the 20th and 30th rounds. If the rounds were lesser, Schmeling's chances of outpointing Jeffries are considirably higher, though he would have no answer for Jeffries grappling skills. I’ll say 60/40 still in favor of Jeffries in a 10-15 rounder. If Jeffries were to meet Schmeling in the thirties, I see somewhat similar odds in favor of Max. Jeffries would be unable to use perhaps his most refined skillset in grappling. Slower on his feet, unable to shoot off nearly as refined combinations, nor displaying such advanced movement as Max, he has but a punchers chance in a 10 or 15 rounder against Max. His chin and power make him a dangerous opponent, however, but he was generally a slower starter, and lacked the tenacity of Baer or Louis. With much of the skillset that made him so formidable being nullified by the rules of the day, I’ll say 85/15 in favor of the Black Uhlan.
Schmeling under practically any rule set. He took tremendous punishment from far less scientific fighters and he hit harder than all of them with only Fitz being in the same league.
Would Schmeling hit that much harder than Choynski, Ruhlin, Sharkey in terms of raw power? From what I’ve read Munroe seems to have been regarded as a heavy puncher himself (at least according to Sharkey), plus it seems like Max usually needed to beat his man down over time before taking him out.
Probably but I don't care about the "raw power" of some stevedore or coal miner throwing from the rafters. I care about power that gets applied to the opponent. Schmeling was great at getting his punches to the target in actual fights.
True, but fighters that likely had equatable power to Max were able to get their punches to the target in Jeffries, plenty of times and over an extended course of time like 10-20 rounds. There’s a good chance Jeffries is just a brick wall Max can’t hurt, in the same way Baer ran through Schmeling’s punches.
I think it would fundamentally resemble Schmeling's fight w/ Baer, w/ Schmeling outworking/outskilling Jeffries for stretches, but Jeffries gradually wearing him down w/ his superior size & power before stopping him late.
If it is prime vs prime, I am putting my money on Schemeling. The focused and skilled Schmeling who sucessfully outboxed and counterpunched Louis is way above anything Jeffries ever faced. Sure Jeffries is a live dog and keeps the fight interesting; but the outcome is clear: Schmeling by UD.
Height and reach differentials are negligible,Jeff has a good 25lbs on Max. Film of Jeffries v Ruhlin show Jeff open to right hands,Schmeling's best punch. I doubt Max could ko Jeff,but over 15 rds ,but he might tko him, depending on the rule set. Pretty much a 50/50 fight ,imo.
I am skeptical when it comes to boxing during the word war two-ish era in general. The decade leading into the war and the decade following it, obviously, including the actual duration of the war. So, in HW champion terms, Schmeling to Marciano. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say I dislike or refuse to respect the obvious talent captured on camera, and outside of colorline issues during times when that would apply, I don't have alternative greats to point out. It's just a bit of grain of salt. Like the colorline but less often discussed. Not taking anything away from Dempsey or Jeffries or Sully if you point out folks are right to keep in mind the racism and limitations during that time frame. Anyway, here's the deal. Fascism became popular in Europe. The IBU was a democratic institution who voted on ranking. Member states that were fascist began to outnumber the republics, monarchies, and socialists, and for the only time in boxing history they happened to become prominent high ranking heavyweights. It's fair to say Germany would have other good HWs. Spain too. Italy has had some decent dudes since Primo as well. But the three at once? Once in human history and it just happened to happen when they controlled the vote. So Max, maybe shouldn't have even been there. Maybe Joe Louis was more of a plant. Maybe Marciano is a post-war propaganda piece. Just like how maybe Jeffries benefitted from racism and wouldn't have been champion if not for the colorline and colored title. That said, I lean Jeff. Maybe it's stupid but I kind of like a palooka. Both have a decent legacy, both have valid reasons to not be so impressed by their legacy. So, to me, it comes down to whose fighting style I like more and I like a caveman. All else being equal, having a brain to lose can be your deficit in this sport.
