Why is Liston given credit for being a harder puncher than Joe Louis?

Yes true. Louis has some serious technical deficiencies going on and Maximillion just happened to be skilful enough with the right tools to take severe advantage of it. Louis shored these up quite noticeably and Max was never going to repeat the feat. There were technical weaknesses and he dogged it in training and that was actually on record via his trainer before Max hammered him. Blackburn was just as vocal the other way prior to the rematch saying Louis had trained hard and he was extremely confident he would win.

Frazier has a helluva lot more on his record than Max Schmeling and is vastly higher on ATG lists as well. We were also talking H2H i thought. At any rate i rate Patterson a little ahead of Schmeling via greatness. Patterson frequently gets underrated and cast aside.

Some do actually rate Frazier over Holmes, McGrain being one of them. Guaranteed the Ali win would be the overwhelming reason.

 

It's true that Schmeling managed to punch Louis because Louis had openings. That's the same for every time somebody gets punched, though.

Frazier exploited Ali's openings to repeatedly punch Ali with the left hook. But unlike everybody else Ali had fought up to that time, Frazier did it often and hard enough to beat Ali. Same with Schmeling and Louis.

Demolishing one of the two greatest heavyweights of all time is surely relevant to both "head-to-head" and "greatness." The fact that it's a cherry on top of an already productive career is another point in Max's favor. If Patterson had beaten, say, pre-Liston 1 Ali, it would be a lot closer.

 

I will readily admit that my boxing knowledge is mainly from the 70s - present but from what I've seen and heard of both, is he not?

 

"Outlook Cloudy; Ask Again Later"

 

Openings he didn't have in the rematch, it seems.

At any rate Louis came back to destroy Schmeing and Ali avenged Frazier not once, but twice.

Louis was still 8 fights short of even holding the heavyweight title when he lost to Schmeling. He was a long way from being regarded the greatest heavyweight in history up until that point and indeed until the mid 70's Ali era. Sure Louis had been immensely impressive but he most certainly wasn't yet "there".

Schmeling was the first heavyweight ever to win the title on a foul in a fight he was getting comfortably outboxed in. To say his win was dubious and controversial would be an understatement.

The thing is these two are way too close for you to simply state "Schmeling was better than Patterson". It goes against everything you've been preaching regarding lists, ratings, accepted standings and the rest of it.

 

Pattersons biggest issue against Liston was he couldn't control his fear.
He had the skill level to at least make both those fights interesting.

 

Schmeling was probably past his best by fight 2.

That said, sure, Louis got better. But he was close enough to his prime for our purposes, having wiped out a bunch of guys prior to Schmeling getting him. Just like FOTC Ali had lost a step, but still counts as one of the best scalps ever.

Schmeling's record was a lot better than winning the title on a foul. That's kind of the thing I'm getting at; Schmeling gets defined by his lowest moments, rather unfairly, in my opinion. IIRC, someone who tallied it up in one of the threads on Schmeling had the overall breakdown of rounds won/lost against Sharkey about even across their two controversial fights. Sharkey was the nearest competitor Schmeling had at the time. He beat Louis. He defended his title well. Probably missed out on becoming a two time champion because Braddock avoided him for (understandable) political reasons. Remained a viable heavyweight for quite a long time.

Patterson always struck me as an excellent contender who got lucky. Grabbed the title at a very vulnerable time post-Marciano, avoided a lot of opposition, had a great deal of longevity. Frankly, he reminds me a little of Norton, though the analogy is rough. If Ingo had been the clear nearest competitor to Patterson like Sharkey had been with Schmeling, I would probably rate him higher. But even during Floyd's close trilogy with Ingo, Liston was better than both of them.

Now, am I an expert on either Patterson or Schmeling? No. But as long as we're trading lay opinions about such things on Classic, with list-making and such, I'll say that Schmeling was better.

EDIT: On the wider issue of subjectivity in boxing lists, which I assume the last bit is getting at -- I'm not saying my opinion is a scientific fact. It is my opinion that Schmeling was better. It's also my opinion Schmeling could beat a wider variety of guys than Patterson, if we are asking about head to head, although that's murkier epistemologically, albeit theoretically "objective."

 

Agreed on all counts. Ali was also still a bit rusty.

I'd say Schmeling grabbed the title at a vulnerable time too as Louis was short of his best and no way can i see any Max beating him by the time of the rematch.

We'll agree to disagree, with it being close. As was my whole point Schmeling is not remotely a lay down misere over Patterson and i'd suspect the minor majority might even go for Patterson in the greatness stakes. H2H is also close i would bet.

 

Surely the relevant comparison point would be Sharkey; not Louis? Schmeling was very much the older veteran by the time Louis was relevant. Sharkey and Schmeling were both in their primes when they tangled.

If Schmeling had gotten the title a second time (which I think you're getting at?), he would have done it by beating a weak champion in Braddock, but also having outfought a head to head monster in Louis. His road to the title was way harder than going through Archie Moore.

I agree to agree to disagree.

My view is that the two aren't close. Herr Max is very much an "underrated" heavyweight. Whether others agree with me, I dunno. Presumably not, or Max wouldn't be "underrated."

Patterson didn't have it in him to beat someone of young Louis's caliber, or FOTC Ali's (or, while we're at it, even the Liston of the Ali fights.) Schmeling and Frazier are better because they proved they did.

 

I'd personally favor Patterson H2H.

Superior ATG.... hmm that's very tricky. Gun to my head, give me Patterson. As you say, Schmeling won the title on a technicality which takes a lot of luster off it. His greatest win was against a pre-prime Louis who elected to play golf rather than train. He also suffered a very brutal and ridiculously quick KO loss in the rematch.

 

When Louis set his mind to do so, he often did, though. Compare the rematches against Schmeling and Buddy Baer to the the first meetings, for example.

His default setting was a bit more cautious than Liston's, but when he decided to go all out it rarely lasted long.

 

I can see Floyd giving a good account of himself in the first fight before being KO'd, and Louis deciding to get it over quick in the second.

 

That's a bold statement. I think Patterson is greater, and I wouldn't make Max any more than at best equal in terms of better at their respective best.

Both are hard to say, of course. The latter even more so.

 

He tried to box him in the rematch. Different strategy same result.

 

What i am getting at is that if 38 vintage Louis was about in 30 Max never would have won the title, IMO. He, like Patterson, benefitted from a weak era. As it is his win still has an * to it. A lot of people could win the title by getting hit in the nads accidently and being awarded a DQ win tho there were no prior warnings. some might find that a teeny bit rich. By contrast Patterson beat Moore quite impressively and i also bear in mind Moore was highly enough considered to be a 9-5 favorite.

No I've elaborated above.

Ok so you don't just think Schmeling is better but you think they "aren't close". On that i very strongly disagree. For me there's no chance Schmeling is comfortably or widely above Patterson.

Yeah FOTC Ali would have pumped poor Max too for mine. Liston would have buried him too IMO. I'd favor the undertrained Louis over Patterson as styles come into it and Max at that point in time matched up to and exploited Louis' obvious weakness beautifully. It's still not enough for me to put Max comfortably ahead tho, for mine. Schmeling has some interesting losses too, including getting ko'd in 1 round by a guy coming off a loss and only 12 months off having 8 losses in a row.

It's great to see you having a dig yourself tho and putting yourself out there, ratings wise.