Max Schmeling vs. Evander Holyfield

sorry

 

When Schmeling beat Louis, Louis was in better shape than Schmeling was, when Louis beat Schmeling. Bit of a tongue twister

 

I'd say Holyfield was bigger and stronger largely because he was more roided up. That's the thing that bothers me most about all these comparisons between modern-day fighters and past fighters. Looking at before and after photos and the trajectory of his career, Holyfield is a fighter whose performance and size was most obviously affected by his use of steroids IMO. Consequently, I view any comparisons between Schmeling and Holyfield inherently unfair. Even so, I have to agree with the assessments that the roided up Holyfield we have all come to know and love would defeat Schmeling. But, there should be a Mark McGuire asterisk *** alongside this assessment.

This is why I generally try to limit my comment in threads to observations about history rather than comparisons of fighters from different eras. Same thing with all-time great lists. Pound-for-pound comparisons don't really ring true for me either. How can you compare fighters pound-for-pound when the percentage of muscle mass and other things like reflexes and visual acuity change so dramatically for athletes using steroids. It's like comparing apples and zebras.

 

Louis played golf and laid willing young bimbos.Baer had destroyed Schmeling ,and he had destroyed Baer ,where was the danger? It was the only time he did not listen to Blackburn.

 

I can see where you are with this but,as its not an ideal world ,and never likely to be one ,I've adopted a pragmatic approach.I take fighters as they were.

 

You're right. I think I do too. We have pretty much the same approach here, I think, but as they say the devil's in the details.

 

I agree with most of what you wrote. Take the relatively skinny, weak, and slow Schmeling (compared to modern fighters) exactly as he was, put him in the ring with Holyfield and it would probably be the easiest fight of Holyfield's career. There would be such a gulf in strength, speed, power, quickness, reflexes, etc. that it would be a massacre. I don't believe it when some claim they don't see the video difference in fighters of different eras. I have no idea when or if any particular fighters used PEDs, but as you mentioned, before and after photos and people who gain 30-40 pounds without gaining body fat, or losing speed make me more than suspicious.

Some think that PEDs only make boxers look like "bodybuilders." In actuality, PEDs allow athletes to train more often, longer, and harder and to recover quicker, they make fighters leaner, stronger, quicker, and with that comes better reflexes etc. I read somewhere that if a guy who changed tires for a living took PEDs he'd be a better tire changer. No argument from me. Schmeling would be better if he took PEDs, but there is no way to know how much better. We have to take the fighters as they actually were, not how they "might" be.