Here are two Schmeling fights you can watch that show his ability. Check for his timing, counter punching and crouching style. vs Ben Foord This content is protected vs Joe Louis This content is protected Galento was defeated by contemporary fighters, he wasn't dominating the division but his power and durability did allow him to beat some good contenders. Power goes a long way in the heavyweight division, you should know, you brought Wilder into the discussion. The problem as I previously stated is that you question Louis' opposition by using Carnera and Galento as the key representatives of his era when there were very skilled fighters around like Tommy Farr, Billy Conn, Bob Pastor, Jimmy Bivins and many more. But there is very limited footage so you'll watch Galento and Carnera fight Baer and come to the conclusion that they were all slow and plodding. I could easily make the same argument using Wilder as an example for todays era while ignoring that Usyk and Joshua are around.
I use baseball analogies here a lot because I love that sport too, but Marciano acolytes are about as bad and about as irrational and about as impossible to talk to as people who will literally fight you that Nolan Ryan was the GOAT pitcher.
THE RING IS NOT OFFICIAL RATINGS. They are someone's opinion. Valdes was not #1 after he beat Charles. At first you were mistaken, now you are pushing a fiction. Wallace was ranked contender in '53 according to real ratings.
It's completely irrelevant. The newspapers all said Walcott won, A STANDARD WHICH YOU HAVE USED BEFORE. Again, your obvious double standards. By the way, Louis said Walcott won, and he started to leave the ring before the decision was announced in shame. I actually meant Schaff. My bad on that one.
I watched it, thank you, very good quality. I don't know if I understand correctly - is this fight proof of how great Shmelling was or that the era was great? if so, ok... but let me stick to my opinion. As for Wilder, I still think he's a league above Carnera. I don't know what the hate for Wilder is about. He doesn't know much, it's true, he has terrible footwork but he moves quite agile, he throws punches that border on foul but they are surprisingly effective - he can fight in reverse gear, he has great range, great dynamics, very good timing, very good mentality, it seems much faster than Carnera, has very good cardio, and a surprisingly strong jaw. That's a lot. He's not a stylist. But compared to Galento or Carnera, I definitely put him higher. Moreover, I absolutely do not claim that Wilder is a representative of the great era of HW. I think that the current era, like the Joe Louis era, is relatively weak, but still much better.
I think this idea that the NBA ratings were the one and only "official" ratings needs addressing. The National Boxing Association - as the name suggests - was a purely US institution which held sway in the majority of US states, but not in New York where Marciano-Charles actually happened, and certainly not internationally. It wasn't the unchallenged final arbiter of who was champion and who deserved a title shot. The Ring was a genuinely international publication and its ratings were accorded a quasi-official status, which is why they were routinely and prominently reported in the media. https://ibb.co/yyf183z Having said that, I don't disagree that Charles was a perfectly reasonable choice for the first title shot of 1954. Whether you consider him #1 or #2, he was highly rated, by far the best known available contender, and had been the undisputed #1 when he was passed over in favour of Roland LaStarza the previous year. But Valdes should have had the second shot of 54, and failing that he should have had the first shot of 55. He wasn't some invincible monster, and he likely wouldn't have beaten Marciano, but he did enough to deserve the chance to try.
Lol this would make sense but then your realize Joe Louis opponents were considered bum even back doing that time frame. Which is why they were called the bum of hte month club. Just because you name name doesn't change that fact. Bob Pastor was a 180 pound guy. Billy Conn was a 170 pound guy. Tom Farr, Tommy Loughram, Lou Nova, Jimmy Bivens were either not heavyweights by modern standards or considered lower tier fighters even doing their life times. Heck do you think even a fighter like Buster Douglas would of lost to any of the fighters Louis beat? Louis looked good because he faced . It is like just looking at Deontay Wilder's record and being impressed without looking at the fighters he faced
But after that epic first Charles fight, people wanted to see a rematch. It makes sense money wise to give Charles other crack at the title after the epic first fight. After the 2nd match, Marciano did split his nose in 2, so we can not really hold a test run against a lower contenter like Cockell against him.
Lol and Tony Tucker was champion when Mike Tyson fought him. You can spend it anyway you want but it won't change that Tony Tucker was champion
This re-enforces my opinion of Marciano, gutty ,punched hard ,was determined and in condition. Plus he was clumsy, slow afoot and easy to hit. Head to head he's no where near the top 10 heavyweights of all time, Archie Moore said the only thing he couldn't do to Rocky was hurt him. There's plenty of all time greats who could.
They weren't. The bum of the month was a period from December 1940 to June 1941 where Louis defended his title every month. In that time period he fought Al Mccoy, Red Burman, Gus Dorazio, Abe Simon, Tony Musto, Buddy Baer and Billy Conn. Obviously any opponent of Louis outside this range does not fall into the bum of the month tour. As for the opponents who do fall inside that time period: Mccoy was not ranked in the top 10 although during his career he had defeated 4 contenders. Burman was ranked in 1938, 1939 and 1940. Dorazio was ranked in 1938. Simon was ranked in 1940 and in 1941. Musto was ranked in 1942. B. Baer was ranked in 1940 and 1941. Billy Conn was ranked in 1941 and 1945. Out of all these men, only McCoy was never ranked and could be considered a "bum" even though he held wins over Tommy Loughran, Natie Brown and Nathan Mann. Taking the appellation at face value means that Billy Conn, the number 1 contender and an ATG at LHW, was a bum even though he beat all the heavyweights he faced on his way to Louis. You compare this to Deontay Wilder who has beaten Luis Ortiz, Chris Arreola and Helenius, the only victories worth anything during his career. Ortiz and Arreola were in their late 30s. In other words, in the 7 months of his "Bum of the Month" period, Louis amassed a better list of wins than Deontay Wilder did in his boxing career from its inception to its end. Tommy Farr and Lou Nova were both 6"2 and 205 lbs. Up until the 1980s that would be a fine weight range for a heavyweight to be in. Pastor, Bivins, Loughran and Conn were light but they were allowed to compete with the heavier men and as it happens, they were beating them. Conn almost beat the best heavyweight of all time so he must have been alright. Yes.
