Norton & Schmeling: Who deserves to be rated higher in heavyweight history?

It's pretty close and very similar careers in many ways, which I suspect is why you choose the comparison BE. Both conquered a general consensus Top 2 ATG HW. Louis was ofcourse younger when Schmelling beat him, some say ill prepared, but no excuses for a great and very dominant knock out win for Schmelling. When Norton beat Ali it was much closer and Ali was past his prime.

However Norton had 3 fights with Ali and arguably won all 3 where as Schmelling was blown out in the Louis rematch. Consistency goes for Norton in this respect and you have to give him props for all 3 fights.

Another point is when he actually fought Louis Schmelling was probably a little past his prime. Like wise Norton was probably past his best against Holmes but still managed a great effort

Both were knocked out in brutal fashion near their prime, Norton to Foreman and Shavers, Schmelling to Baer and Louis. Both have wins outside their prime, Schmelling in his early career and Norton both past his best and inexperienced against Garcia. Not much to separate them

In terms of resume depth Schmelling has clearly beat more top contenders. He has Sharkey x2 (if we grant him the robbery), Uzcudon x2, Hamas, Risko, Mickey Walker, Young Stribbling

Norton's second tier wins are weaker, he has BE's favourite Jimmy Young, Bobbick and Quarry. Then you have fringe contenders like Middleton, Henry Clark, Stander, Garcia

I think it boils down to if you prefer Norton's trilogy with Ali and close losing effort to Holmes or Schmellings deeper resume of second tier wins. Ironically if they switched positions neither man would be able to pull off a win over an ATG, ie Louis KOs Norton and Ali bosses Schmelling

 

Quality post. This is why I can't seperate them.

Probably give Norton the edge for getting the better of the series with his ATG. As you say though, there are reasons either way as to why Schmeling's single win over Louis could be construed as being the better win (via stoppage, Louis not past his best, but a little green) but for me Norton's consistency against Ali, fading but not shot, pushes him just that little bit higher even with a lesser pool of secondary wins to Schmeling.

I reckon Baer would spark Norton as well. I reckon Schmeling would drub Bobick as well. This means little in terms of ranking but does show there are similarities between the two even though they seem polar opposites in every way (apart from having good right hands and being heavyweights)

 

Class.

 

Imagine if Ali retired after Norton 1, which many boxers may have done. It'd be seen as a win over a washed up ex-champ who was exposed anyway when he stepped up, so probably wasn't a top 5 HW

Personally I'd go with Norton's better performances against Holmes/Ali. It does depend on criteria and a good case can be made for Schmelling. I don't personally like Norton's style, but the constant pressuring jab combined with defensive awareness makes him very effective

 

Excellent thread ! Very close to each other in my ratings.

 

wow not sure at all i may lean very slightly toward schmeling but then in a few days may change my mind

 

I lean towards Norton. Not by a long shot by any means, but I think he edges it in terms of resume. More fights at heavy, fewer losses, a few select wins that are slightly better, with Schmeling having slightly better depth. Can't blame someone for going the other way, but this is the way I see it.

 

Not close! Max was a true hwt champion...Norton was not! Not only a true hat champion but a hat champion who defended his title successfully. Add to this his domination as a ranked hwt for over a decade, ko win over a close to prime Joe Louis by ko no less.

 

Schmeling got the KO. Norton got a clear points win in the first and lost two close decisions. On the other hand, Norton doesn't ever get KO'd himself by his ATG heavy. Dang that's close.

 

I would have to say Schmeling.

Both are fighters whose legacy rests in large part on a single incredible win, so when seperating them, you have to look at their second third and fifth best wins.

In this respect, I feel that Schmeling has a bit more depth.

 

And to add to this, Schemling bossed Louis like no one ever had done. Norton edged Ali, but never in a decisive enough manner where there's a consensus on their fights. Max has the depth and his biggest sin is being KOed by Baer. Hardly unforgivable. Norton getting stopped by Shavers is far less excusable in my view. I take Norton as being more problematic to boxers but less consistent of the two. Schemling past his prime getting blasted by the greatest HW hardly compares to Foreman trashing Norton, considering that was right in Norton's prime. I don't really take too much away from Norton for getting blasted by Cooney, which seems more comparable to Schemling's last loss to Louis. And we're talking about Joe frigging Louis here, not Gerry Cooney.

*Edit* Apparently Norton was stopped by Shavers past his prime as well. For some reason I thought that bout occurred earlier. Guess that makes things more interesting. Still go with Schemling.