Does this momentum coincide with an obsession with size, and a lack of understanding of basic boxing styles? I have literally had to explain to people, including some very active posters, the four basic styles of boxer! Reading between the lines, they didn't really know!
Boxing matches aren't set piece battles. Styles are fluid and relative to opponents. Hamfisted Style A beats Style B arguments are the figment of some lame ****'s imagination. Keep up the input. I do enjoy your posts.
A lot of them certainly look like crap compared to HWs from the 70s onwards. Undersized, crude bar-room brawlers with terrible athleticism fighting other bar room brawlers on a similar level of awfulness as themselves feted as greats by blind, biased nostalgia queens rubbing the backs of other blind, biased nostalgia queens in an endless circle jerk of B&W hero worship. Schmeling was more technical than most in his era, but that doesn't mean he'd be a technical prodigy in any other era, or have a corresponding level of success with those skills. He'd do well up until the 60s, IMO. Then he gets trashed.
No they are not,, styles make fights Marco Antonio beats Erik Morales ,,Pacman beats the hell out of Marco Antonio. Morales rakes Manny over the coals and busts him up. Frazier beats Ali, Foreman destroys Frazier, Foreman beat Ali? No, why Styles
He would lose against a lot of them i think that even guys like pinklon thomas and berbick would have a strong chance
Because of what? He has single best win in heavyweight division history. He beat very good heavyweights at their peaks - Sharkey, Uzcudun, Risko, Hamas, Stribling, Foord and Walter Neusel. He stopped very durable fighters in Hamas, Stribling, Risko and Louis. He got robbed in second Sharkey fight and got robbed of title fight against Braddock. His draw with Paulino in Spain is also questionable at best. In his prime he only lost to Baer (his worst performance, not shame in that) and Hamas (he brutally avenged that loss). He didn't draw a color line and fought bigger opponents.
Actually his reputation is built with his win over a young Louis who destroyed him in a one sided beating very early. Buster douglas stopped a young undefeated Mike Tyson too. Schmelling was very beatable and he was small for a hw. The Louis fans of course will make him look better than actually he was and deserves
The difference between Douglas and Schmeling is that Max was a great fighter even without Louis fight, while Douglas accomplished nothing outside of this one win. If Schmeling was so beatable, then why he was so tough to beat in his prime? I'm actually Schmeling fan, not Louis fan.
I said that he was beatable not "so beatable". Tough to beat? Max lost against guys that he should have not lost. Plus the guys on this list are from different eras. I say that Douglas in his peak would beat schmeling
