Who is the most underrated heavyweight Champion between 1920-1970?

I agree wholeheartedly with this. He not alone beat Machen but flattened the best in Europe including Cooper who held his own with the best non-champion Americans, he also beat every fighter he ever met and is the only champion to never face a losing record opponent. Quarry, Moore, even Cleveland Williams are routinely rated over Ingo but the record points otherwise.

 

If we are talking skllis, Schmeling or Charles. If we are talking who the most under rated in his place in history, I'd go with Liston.

 

Actually, Schmeling is a good choice. Not because people think he's bad, but because he deserves a really high ranking.

He should be about where Frazier is.

 

Similar number of RING top 10 contenders beaten (plus what should have been a win over Sharkey), similar length of title reign.

Just as importantly, Schmeling also beat a near-prime claimant to the GOAT heavyweight title just like Frazier did with Ali. Only unlike Frazier's victory over Ali, Schmeling didn't just win a decision -- he clobbered Louis throughout and KO'd him.

It's debatable on several points, but I think they're roughly comparable.

 

Yeah, Schmeling's one of the more ignored champions. He's not American, he was viewed in the later 1930s as a Nazi (which he wasn't), and he's not particularly exciting in the ring. Just an awkward-looking, highly competent counterpuncher.

Compared to somebody like Frazier, Schmeling lacks big time in the PR department.

 

Schmeling's record does not support him being rated that high .He was ko'd by Baer who does not figure in anyone with brains top ten.
Max's best win is over a complacent young Louis ,and it took him a steady 12 rds of bombardment to do it,overconfidence ,and lack of training was Louis's downfall,he had destroyed the man who had kod Schmeling and figured all he had to do was show up.
Schmeling won the title on a debatable foul , in a fight he was losing.
Drew with moderate Uzcudun.Shared a win and loss to Hamas.A very good fighter but short of the top echelon imo.

 

Baer had a stylistic advantage over Schmeling, and was a former heavyweight champ. Not in Foreman's league, but a great fighter nonetheless.

Baer was basically Foreman Lite, and most on ESB would give him a good shot against the version of Frazier that Foreman blew out.

That young Joe Louis was -- as your post shows -- already a wrecking ball. He'd beaten most of the division's top fighters. Young Louis blitzes through almost any period in history.

Schmeling only managed his "steady bombardment" against that version of Louis because Schemling was good enough to hit Louis over and over again. It was a comprehensive beating that was far more dominant than Ali/Frazier I.

I agree. I usually throw out Sharkey #1 because of the mess. Either Schmeling won legitimately on a foul, or he was behind and the fight ended dubiously before a conclusion could be reached.

The second fight was a better test, and Schmeling should have won it.

And yet his overall win record against Ring ranked fighters is comparable with Frazier's. A couple more losses on his record, but that was typical for the time period.

It really depends on how heavily you weight everything, but I think the results are similar enough that there's no major difference between them.

 

Comparing Schmeling's status to Frazier's is illogical .Frazier is borderline top ten for me, and his resume is nothing special apart from one great win that's it. What stylistic advantage did Baer have over Schmeling? Schmeling was a better boxer, had better defence and had power, not on a par ,but more accurate and very decent.

 

Similar win numbers against Ring contenders, similarly short title reigns, and similar great wins over the consensus #1 and #2 heavyweights of all time. Schmeling's was the more dominant great win of the two, although his win/loss record overall is slightly worse. Plus the win Schmeling should have held over Sharkey when they actually fought a complete fight.

How is that not comparable? Perhaps Schmeling should be borderline top 10 in your list too.

Baer was a physically large, very hard-hitting, unorthodox puncher who was almost impervious to punishment. And Baer could rough-house to his heart's content without much ref intervention.

Schmeling was a small, largely stationary counterpuncher without the power to keep Baer off.

It's not as bad as Frazier bobbing straight into Foreman's uppercuts, but it's bad.

 

This era is a little before my time but I can't believe no one has mentioned Walcott. This guy is criminally underrated.

 

This over simplication won't fly. Schmeling was comparable in size to the rest of his contemporaries several of whom beat Baer .Schmeling was winning the Baer fight in the early rounds until Baer caught fire and gave his career best performance.

 

Also Max was on the up and Sharkey on the down when they met, to me in their first fight Sharkey was boxing Max's ears off.

 

Max had such an inconsistent career .. putting aside his early career defeats, he looked terrible in the first Sharkey bout, got jobbed a bit i the rematch , got destroyed, inexplicably by Max Baer, a fighter no great fighter should have lost to but goes on to upset a very young Louis .. all and all Frazier would have crushed him in my opinion in about seven or eight rounds .. just not strong enough or busy enough ..

 

I forget about how well Charles did as champion, do to the Marciano fights, though you could say he was his toughest opponent.

:deal

 

This content is protected