Joe Frazier's resume is underrated

Lmao if you really believe that.

 

I totally disagree. Schmeling may have deserved the win in the rematch but he lost every round in the first fight. At a minimum these two fighters are near equals. He has mostly German unknowns on his resume who probably weren't very good considering the difference in popularity of boxing as opposed to America at the time. Schmeling was absolutely brutalized in his fight with rather limited Max Baer. Schmeling wasn't a bad fighter, like I said him and Sharkey are on the same level but put a gun to my head and I'd say Sharkey was better.

Fulton
Morris
Willard
Brennan
Gibbons
Miske
Gunboat Smith

Those are some of the names. What's so impressive about Dempsey wasn't his quality of opponents. He fought plenty of game fighters. It was the brutal fashion that he ripped through them. Name a single heavyweight that fought 21 times in one year (recorded, probably more) winning 17 by knockout (12 in the first round) 8 of those fights against highly regarded fighters. There weren't organized rankings back in those days like today. You had to make a name for yourself to be considered a contender. All of the fighters I mentioned were commonly known names in a time when people found out information by newspaper and word of mouth.

Tony Galento managed to give Louis a rough time and even knocked him down. Dempsey applies much more intelligent and effective pressure. Not to mention was a better puncher with both hands.

Arturo Godoy is another one. "Louis won sloppily against a bruising, mauling and rushing fighter who knew no fear or retreat." Goes on to read that the crowd booed the decision. So by that rate then Godoy beat Louis since you say Schmeling beat Sharkey?

Louis was a special fighter and it would have taken an elite pressure fighter to stop him at his best.

Louis was an exceptional fighter. Truly magnificent but the record goes to show that he was caught when fighting on the back foot.

It certainly would. Louis would have to knock him down to be able to take advantage of that. Dempsey technically touched the canvas against Firpo in an absolute firefight. Didn't show any problems with his opponent maintaining pressure.

To me it isn't an easy fight to choose. In a way it's 50/50 but I think Dempsey's chances of winning are highest at the beginning of the fight as opposed to Louis's whose chances go up as the fight goes on. We never saw Dempsey knocked out on film and he wasn't stopped for 10 years in his career. Rather he was stopped only 1 time and many consider it a fixed fight.

 

They fought 3 full rounds until DQ. I wouldn't use it as a good example of who was better. Schmeling outclassed Sharkey in rematch.

He also has Stribling, Risko, Hamas, Uzcudun and Neusel on his resume. He was proven at the highest level.

Limited Baer beat quite a few good fighters. Besides, it's the worst filmed Schmeling performance.

Based on what? Sharkey lost more fights, won fewer ones and has worse record against the same competition.

I'd add Sharkey to that, but these names are not better than Schmeling's best wins.

I agree, the problem is that Dempsey wasn't active for most of his career. Had he fought at least half as actively as he did that one year, he could be ranked much higher. He wasn't though.

No, he scored a flashy knockdown and got destroyed quickly. Galento didn't trouble Louis at all.

Godoy struggled Louis with his low crouch and mauling tactics, but he didn't score much and he did everything to smother Louis job. I doubt Dempsey would try the same tactic. By the way, Louis stopped Godoy in second fight.

No, because I've seen both (granted, incomplete) films and Schmeling clearly won while Godoy didn't.

I'd pick mobile boxers over pressure fighter against Louis.

Firstly you picked Galento as an example of Louis struggling, but now you ignore Firpo bout? That's double standards at its best. By the way, I don't think either fight tells us much.

Louis was stopped only twice, once in his last fight when he was beyond shot against murderous puncher.

 

In that full 3 rounds it was recorded that Sharkey had won it all the way. Don't you think if Schmeling truly was better than Sharkey at his best then he would have at least one a single round?

Sharkey has Carnera, Loughran, Scott, Stribling, Delaney, Maloney, Wills, Godfrey, Gorman, Risko, and Renault on his resume. That's practically a who's who of the 1920s heavyweight division in itself and blows Schmeling's resume out of the water. Not only did Sharkey consistently fight at a higher level of competition but he was fighting at a high level of competition very early into his career.

Schmeling nearly had his soul taken in that fight.

A win/loss record tells half the story. Sharkey fought at a higher level for longer, he literally fought two different generations of champions (Dempsey and Louis). Something not many fighters can say they did. Certainly not Schmeling. It just goes to show Sharkey was game and willing to fight whoever was the best. Both turned pro in the same year. While Sharkey was busy fighting Dempsey and the best that the division had to offer, Schmeling was fighting guys with the same wins as losses, sometimes more!

I think they certainly are.

That's his manager and promoters fault. Not his. Dempsey's inactivity was partially caused by Harry Wills as well. He tried to make the fight happen but everyone else wouldn't let it happen.

So it doesn't say anything to you that Galento was even able to score a flashy knockdown over Louis? It definitely wasn't an accident.

And who does that sound like???

Those at ringside disagree. I would tend to hold their opinion in high regard considering the footage we have is 20 minutes of a 45 minute fight that shows Godoy giving Louis a tough go of it.

Not really going to argue with this point anymore. The second Schmeling-Sharkey fight wasn't anything eventful with neither fighter producing much or looking effected by the other. Sharkey did a good job of defending against Schmeling's pressure while Schmeling let Sharkey land almost at will but pushed the fight.

Louis beat every mobile fighter he fought. 2/3 losses and many of his difficult fights were against pressure fighters. It took him longer to catch mobile fighters but he never was in danger of losing except for Billy Conn.

I specifically stated that Dempsey-Firpo was a firefight. That implies it was a difficult fight.

And once during his absolute prime against a 30 year old in the later stages of his career. He wasn't starving, he wasn't down and out, he wasn't homeless. Dempsey was.

 

Marciano at 1

 

I must if he thinks that, i can watch film of fights same as anyone if you watch Dempsey and see someone who can hold a candle to Fraizer you should quit watching boxing and take up ping pong that or to believe it you would have to have a ridiculous bias towards the mythological Dempsey who beat no one.

Fraizer was greater in all respects H2H, all round, P4P? legacy wise, and hid behind no colour line and took on the two best fighters of his generation who also are two of the best fighters ever...

look who beat Jack and look who beat Fraizer they aren't the same.

 

Joe Frazier is usually ranked #10 in my Top 10 ATG ranking. Besides Ali his 2nd best win may be over Quarry. But man, both Frazier-Quarry brawls are both in my Top 10 BloodBaths fought in a phone booth.

All Time Great fighter, Smokin Joe is.

1.) Louis
2.) Ali
3.) Holmes
4.) Johnson
5.) Marciano
6.) Tyson
7.) Lewis
8.) Foreman
9.) Dempsey
10.) Frazier
11.) Holyfield
12.) Wlad
13.) Liston

 

Joe was a punk. He would rather get out on stage and shake it for the ladies then man up and defend his title against the best challengers. They say he was sick but I figure he was just plain Yella.

 

Liston gets respected as a fighter for his pre title cleaning out of the Heavyweight Division ,deservedly so. Frazier did similar work but doesn't get acknowledged for it. He was a steamroller.
Joe Frazier was like Marciano but in a good way.

 

no11

 

I've been watching boxing for 60 years, practised it for around 20,I guess I'll get there in the end.
NB
I've already managed to express my opinion without insulting those who disagree with me,that's got to be an encouraging sign.

 

Nope, after FOTC he was full of confidence that no man could beat him and did not train as hard, he became more assertive in camp, his dedication to boxing and his trust for,and deference to,Durham,and Futch disappeared.I believe that was the main reason for his decline.Durham protected him by giving him two mismatch defences but ultimately ,two years of this exacerbated things .Two years trying to get an abortive rock group established and facing only token opposition I his 2 defences ,eroded his skills, timing ,and conditioning. Partial sight in on eye did not help ,nor did the hypertension he suffered after FOTC,but the main reason for his decline was complacency and a lack of hunger.imo.He had climbed the mountain and now was descending, though it wasn't apparent to the public at the time, both Durham and Futch noticed the difference.

 

3 rounds is not much in 15 rounder. Schmeling could have adjusted and have won next rounds. He was certainly better conditioned fighter than Sharkey.
I don't know why do you come with such a strong conclusion after only 3 rounds...

The problem is that he also lost against Carnera, Scott was past his prime, he lost to Gorman and Risko. Wills is a great name, but he also wasn't at his best. He also had that poor effort against Mickey Walker, when Schmeling dominated Walker.

Schmeling was more of an early 1930s fighter. It's true that Sharkey faced better competition early on, but his resume is not better than Schmeling.

It was even fight until Baer connected with huge shot. It's far from what Louis did to Sharkey for example. Or his Carnera rematch. Not to mention that Sharkey should have lost the title to middleweight Mickey Walker, who Schmeling dominated.

He lost to both champions, so why should I praise him for that? Dempsey wasn't even a champion at that point, Sharkey lost to past prime Dempsey.
Schmeling didn't fight poor competition. When he became a heavyweight, he fought at the highest level for basically 10 years. It didn't help that Braddock ducked him as a champion.

Who is better than Sharkey or Louis? The rest is comparable at least.

It's true, but we have to judge results. Dempsey's title reign was weak, I'm not saying it's his fault but it is what it is.

It was a flash knockdown and Louis dominated Galento throughout short fight. It's not any more important than Firpo knockdown.

Dempsey would try to do more on offense, that's for sure.

Most reports said that Godoy gave a good fight, which was unexpected, but Louis won close decision fairly.

I don't think you've seen this fight then. Schmeling landed on Sharkey a lot and Jack didn't find Max with anything meaningful, outside of few jabs (which Schmeling slipped well for most of the fight).

He lost to Marciano when he was beyond shot, Charles and Schmeling were not pressure fighters. Walcott troubled Louis more than Godoy (although it's fair to say that he faced worse version of Louis than Arturo) and Walcott is not a pressure fighter either. We had this discussion before, Louis stopped most pressure fighters early.

Against better fighter than anyone Dempsey fought, maybe outside of Tunney.

 

Wow you've been wrong a very long time...