I agree, I can see a lot of action being at midrange. Having two similary good fighters against each other, you need to keep in mind all possible advantages. I view Schmeling as a bit more versatile inside fighter, but Walcott was very strong physically. That could give him edge, although Walcott didn't like fighting inside from what I've seen.
Tricky one to call that we didn't really see any of them do much inside fighting. I think it's a tactical chess match.
How? Schmeling was stopped only twice at HW - by Baer and Louis. You don't think that Max was stronger puncher? He stopped quite a few very durable contenders, what makes you believe that Walcott was that powerful? I also don't see how Walcott could have better jab than Schmeling. Max counter right is among best ever.
Walcott was only really stopped by Louis and Rocky at his best tbh. Walcott dropped or stopped almost everyone he fought including Louis, Marciano and Charles. Walcott had an ATG jab, his low output and lead hooks/straights disguise the fact but when he jabbed he was excellent at it. I think Max had a good counter right, but Walcotts was better.
"At his best" is a bit nitpicking, but fair enough. He dropped Louis and Charles but both took these punches well and they finished fights strong. Charles was dropped and stopped once in 4 tries. Doesn't change the fact that he underused his jab. Schmeling jabbed on even terms with Sharkey who had clearly better jab than Walcott. Fair enough, it's probably matter of preferences. Joe Louis certainly took Walcott counters better than Max's.
So is saying as a HW. Charles finished the fight on his back, certainly no strong finish there. I really don't rate Sharkey, Walcott beating Charles to the jab has much more credibility imo. I don't think there's a lot in it tbh, I just think Walcott has an athletic advantage that makes him a bit quicker of hand, foot and head.
It's an interesting match up, two very distinct and different styles, both held their own at the elite level of the sport. Both were Ko'd by great fighters and sometimes not so great fighters. Schmeling for me but cases can be made for both sides.
Louis liked to soften opponents up for a few rounds before dispatching them, but in some cases he decided that it was safer to get them out of there quickly.
Louis had his dander up with something to prove in the second fight. By then, he was familiar with Max's style and had no need to feel him out. Louis wasn't out to give the fans a show. He was out for revenge. Also, taking it slow hadn't worked in the first fight, so he chose to surprise Schmeling and take him by storm before he had a chance to show his firepower. Max was always an analytical fighter who took his time so why give him a chance to get his bearings? Also, consider the fact that Louis was unable to kayo Schmeling at all in the first fight. And Nathan Mann looked to be a capable fighter against Louis. It's an entertaining bout.
At his best he lost to Dempsey, Risko, Schmelling, Carnera, Levinsky and Loughran. His two best victories are Wills and Schmelling. One was over a very faded fighter, the other has been touted as one of the worst robberies in history He is a good scalp, but I don't rate him as high as I rate many other champions.
