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

No, you need to watch the fight again. He would bounce and move a couple of times, but when he got caught, he was sitting there in the pocket at range. He did it several times and each time he paid for it. During the first minute, he plants his feet several times. He gets snapped by the jab and hurt to the body by Liston immediately. He moves in a few bursts, but ultimately like a fly settling in the mouth of a venus trap, just sat there in front of Liston's power zone ultimately too many times. Maybe he showed the ostenses of sticking and moving for 20 seconds, but if that's quality boxing, then whatever. Patteron's head was down during the introductions anyway, he knew what time it was. He looked forlorn.

It's on Youtube.

 

I watched it again before my last post. I got nothing more to add besides what I wrote there. Watch the Chuvalo fight. Circling and then setting himself for going off with combos was how Floyd boxed on the back foot. He couldn't box like Ali or Pastrano, or even Ellis. Against Chuvalo it was still good enough, but against Liston it yielded no different result than his usual tactic.

 

Apologies up front for micro managing but you've made a lot of points in single sentences.

I have no idea how on earth you've landed here. I said nothing about Joe Louis needing to be in an era for it to be "non weak." The only reason Louis was mentioned was because he was literally prettyy close (the best of him) to Schmelings era.

Sharkey and Schmeling actually fought for a title that had been vacated by the top dog. There's a break right there, not having to go thru the actual champion himself.

As for strong era's, Liston would have been hell to go thru, then we had Ali, followed by ATG Joe Frazier followed by ATG Ali re-emerging with Foreman in the middle of all that, we then go on to ATG Larry Holmes for years virtually followed immediately by the Tyson juggernaut and then we had a group of ATG's and top fighters in Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis pounding along. ALL of those era's were extremely strong at the top. I'd heavily favor all of them to put Max to the sword.

That's what i am talking about per a weak era. Nothing odd at all and what you imagined was never actually stated.

You'll find Moore has a lot of fans in here during his best years at Heavyweight, some of our best posters over the years to be precise. While you are claiming underrated for Max many have claimed Moore has long been underrated as a heavyweight. He's got an excellent record vs contenders, surprisingly strong. What has very likely escaped you is that Moore was actually 9-5 fave over Patterson.

I think Moore vs Schmeling at their very best would be extremely interesting.

He had one win over a contender. One.

And Ali kept winning and featuring as lineal title holder a whopping 7 1/2 years later. At 36 he was regaining the lineal title. That should put things into perspective.

Schmeling was 32. Ali at 32 was putting a whooping on George Foreman. He then proceeded to defend the title a whopping 10 times.

Why would one not rate Floyd #2?

When exactly did Max come within a inch of winning the title twice? Personally i don't think he was within a inch of beating Joe Louis in the rematch. Maybe i am missing a fight somewhere?

I think bokaj has put forward good cases saying that Patterson may not have avoided people either. It's been claimed forever but seldom concreted.

I'm not sure how many greatness points i can give for fighting Louis twice in his 30's. It's not like Max was making title defenses or anything. Patterson went in against Ali just short of 31yo and also at age 37!!!!! Some serious bonus points there if we are giving them out.

As for Baer, well he can only be as good as he can be whether he wants to punch out a Nazi or other. One of the lesser skilled champs ever.

Also Patterson didn't avoid everybody and did indeed actually fight Sonny Liston not once but TWICE. While we are name dropping he also took on the likes of Lyle, Bonavena, Ellis, Quarry x 2, Machen.......now there's a solid amount of contenders.

I'd agree but it's just one point among dozens really. As i've previously said a helluva lot of things came together for Max that night, including him fighting a wonderful fight, of course.

Yes he wasn't as good as he got at his peak, totally agree. It was still a great win.

The thing is whether or not you guess FOTC Frazier beats that Joe or not i'd wager big money that Schmeling would get walloped by FOTC Frazier anyhow. As has been pointed out Louis - Schmeling was largely down to styles and personal development at that time. I see Frazier as beating that Schmeling down bad, any version TBF. So how Frazier or someone else may have gone against that version of Joe Louis is partly irrelevant.

I respect your point that you see Schmeling underrated even if i don't agree with quite a bit of your reasoning. It's always good to see golden oldies being talked up within reason be they Schmeling, Moore or Patterson.

 

My God what an excellent post!

 

Thanks mate i appreciate it.

 

I think Patterson can be critised for not facing either his nr. 1 or nr. 2 in 1958, but this narrativ that he avoided anyone with a pulse don't hold up.

In fact, SI wrote after the fight with Harris that Harris might well be the best contender at that point. History would prove Machen and Folley to be better fighters, but in 1958 Nome of them seems to have been viewed as particularly outstanding. And Liston was not even in the discussion at that point.

 

Fair enough mate. There's a lot of guys that wouldn't have faced their #1 or #2 in a year.

 

Yes. That's why a reality check of this whole "Floyd fled from anyone with a pulse" is needed.

And as regards Moore, he also seems to get a bad rap in this thread. The outstanding LHW of the 50's and one of the best HWs of the era, when there wasn't a great divide between LHW and HW. Floyd handling him that easy is a very underrated performance I feel.

 

Fair.

 

There is a break between Tunney and Sharkey/Schmeling, yes. Just like there was between Marciano and Patterson/Moore.

Difference being, Sharkey is better than Moore.

Direct comparisons start breaking down when you bring the later 80s and 90s into the discussion, IMO.

Schmeling's era doesn't have to be stronger than the 80s or 90s for Schmeling to be better than Patterson. Patterson didn't have to go through Liston or Ali to win the title, and never fought Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, or Lewis. We know how Patterson would have done against Liston and Ali. His chances arent any better against the 80s and 90s guys.

That's good, then. I think the waters Max swam in were about average, as these things go. Boxing in the 20s and 30s were a mess organizationally, but the fighters were fine by historical standards. The division improved as his career continued.

The comparison was between Moore and Sharkey. Are you saying Moore was as good as Sharkey?

Even with Classic's high regard for Moore, I don't think that would be a typical view.

Huh. My memory was playing tricks on me. You're right; his other wins did not occur as title defenses. Just Stribling.

Do you remember where the thread was where some enterprising poster tallied up the win/loss record against Ring ranked guys for each champion? We could compare Floyd, Frazier, and Schmeling's numbers directly with that. I looked for it, but couldn't find it.

Ali is better than Schmeling. We knew that already.

Ali also gets credit for performing really well while older. So should Schmeling. Older Schmeling didn't accomplish as much as older Ali, but if Ali gets bonus points for age, so should Schmeling. Even scales. That was why I brought age up.

Depending what part of the timeline we're talking about, Ingo beat Floyd once. I don't know that Floyd was clearly the best fighter in the world leading up to a fight that he was about to lose. At least with hindsight, which is also what we're doing when we say that Liston was better than Floyd.

As an aside, I don't think Patterson ever proved clear superiority over Ingo at his best in a head to head sense. First bout Patterson lost. Second one, Ingo may or may not have been partying and unfocused, depending on whether you believe the excuses. (Generally I tend not to, as a policy, but Ingo has a reputation that supports that.) For the sake of argument, though, Floyd beat Ingo just as decisively in fight 2. Fight 3, Floyd won, but it was a close-run shootout.

Beats Louis. Braddock gives a shot to Louis instead, for the extremely understandable and legitimate reason that he doesn't want the Nazis to get the title. On the rare occasions it's discussed on here, the take seems to be that Schmeling would have beaten Braddock if he'd been given the chance.

Indeed, I bumped the relevant thread as I was thinking about it.

Fair. But I give a heck of a lot more greatness points for beating Louis, which Floyd couldn't do.

A motivated Baer was very good, despite being a horror show as a technician. An unmotivated Baer, not so much. Schmeling -- lucky guy -- got the motivated one.

His post-reign willingness to mix it up cannot be faulted. Floyd's reputation for not facing people came from his management during the title reign, not afterward, and were not his fault on a personal level. On this, we agree.

EDIT: More speculatively -- Floyd's post title reign career seems like reaching his level. Someone who hangs around in the top 2-3 fighters in the world. Floyd was young when he got the title. Some people believe he improved a bit after losing it. At any rate, he wasn't an old man when it happened. But he couldn't grab the title again. He didn't get through Liston or Ali. On his last viable attempt, he got stalled at the Ellis layer before reaching Frazier. Although he was getting old by the final one. I agree with you (I think) that the division strengthened between the time Floyd won the title and the time he lost it.

The ability to beat an arguable GOAT heavyweight, not on a fluke punch or decision, but by smashing the guy to bits en route to a knockout, isn't just "one point among dozens," IMO.

Floyd couldn't do anything like that, is my point. Not to Louis. Not to Ali. Not even if Floyd got the greener Liston 1 or Cooper Ali. Not to Liston. Not to Foreman, or Holmes, or anybody else you care to mention in your top 5. Floyd can study all the film in the world. He can see whatever openings he pleases, and he still ain't pulling that off.

Matching Schmeling against FOTC Ali, Frazier against Schmeling, and Louis against Frazier are all equally speculative. None of them are any more or less relevant than the others.

In the real world, Schmeling beat Louis.

One of your responses to this was, essentially, "Yeah, that's fine, but let's see Max beat FOTC Ali, too." This hardly seems fair to Max. You are demanding that he pull off a second virtuoso performance against a guy ranked higher than either Schmeling or Frazier.

So part of my reply was a mirror image. I tried to hold Frazier to the same standard. "Yeah, beating FOTC Ali is fine, but let's see Frazier beat the Louis that Schmeling defeated." I don't think Frazier pulls that off either, frankly. He's not exploiting the flaw Max did. Frazier would be walking into the Louis buzzsaw, and while I've seen arguments that he could uncomfortably crowd Louis, I don't think he's beating him.

Likewise.

 

Was he tho? Sharkey lost at all points of his career and was one punched by Primo Carnera of all people. He also drew with a middleweight which is not a great recommendation. The only heavyweights Moore really lost to near his best were Marciano and Patterson and at one point he rolled the second best heavyweight in the world, among other heavyweight victories.

Also, Patterson actually beat Moore and didn't have to rely on a dubious and controversial disqualification after losing every previous round of the fight.

Well i had to explain my position on what constitutes a strong era after you went off on a tangent. Do you not think those era's are strong at the top as i claimed?

Also, there's every chance Patterson could have picked up a strap in the 80's on the WBA merry go round. Perhaps he could have been competitive against Holmes when he was ready to be taken.

The division was pretty weak for mine. Sharkey was oft beaten at the end of Dempsey's era and only came thru once Dempsey, Tunney and and co were gone. It was a lull between strong era's at the top, Dempsey/Tunney until prime Joe Louis. Max was only champ for the proverbial 5 minutes. It's not like he ruled for years, he ruled for one fight after winning the title, again, via dubious DQ. He was beaten in rapid succession by Baer and Hamas and drew Uzcudun just after losing the title, still in his prime. If he wasn't still capable he wouldn't have beaten Louis 2 years later.

If he wasn't in the actual ring he would have been bugger all behind him. I've seen them ranked extremely closely on historical lists as well. Neither are top 30 heavyweights at any rate.

Pretty handy to know what title defenses a guy has made when arguing at length historical standing. Yes, you asked for that LOL

Older Schmeling isn't a pimple on older Ali's arse, really.

We could speculate, but they didn't fight for another 3 1/4 years. Personally i would agree Liston was ahead of everyone when Ingo beat Patterson, in hindsight. Absolutely. Ingo was only above Patterson for again, the proverbial 5 minutes tho and Patterson proved over a series of fights he was better than Ingo.

So if we bring hindsight into rating Liston above Patterson, we really should be bringing it in rating Patterson above Ingo as well.

Of course he did. It was obviously close but Patterson stopped him in two out of three fights. Ingo surely knew, if partying for the second, that partying would not get it done for the third installment. He had ever chance to atone excuses or no excuses.

Patterson absolutely defined himself as the better man, albeit narrowly against each other.

That's fantasy and miles off "within an inch". It's one thing to grant him an imaginary title shot but another thing altogether to proclaim he wins it as well.

For me, and Blackburn i dare say it was the worst version of Louis to get in the ring for many many years. I'll grant it was brilliant strategy, which i outlined in here a few months ago, to still get it done. Absolutely.

But if you are handing out such enormous points for one win how about others? Douglas beat Tyson when he was considered invincible and actually held the title. McCall beat Lewis when he held the actual title. He also defended against old Holmes who you probably rate highly. So he had as many title defenses as Schmeling. He probably beat a couple of contenders as well. How highly do you rate him? Buster beat contenders as well. If you have Max so high up on one win these guys would have to figure quite well as you rate big wins like that extremely importantly.

Yes and Baer pumped him. From memory Schmeling was the A side too.

Absolutely.

It was a stronger era, absolutely. Patterson and Schmeling both benefited from weak era's let's be honest. Patterson wasn't going to be champ once Liston and Ali came along and nor would Max have been at that time. Schmeling would have been a middling contender.

What need be said is that 6 out of 8 ringside reporters scored Patterson the winner as did the Associated Press. There are cards both ways on EOTR with Ellis winning by a few.

But Louis simply wasn't the GOAT, arguable or not at that point. The man wasn't even champ. He was the unfinished article, both technically and dedication wise. Now it's still a great accomplishment but he simply didn't beat the GOAT heavyweight. This is obvious.

 

If Frazier got the undertrained Louis into the latter rounds he could well smoke him down. Eddie Futch - a fighter that hasn't trained properly is one who can't withstand punishment as well as he normally would. I'd take Louis peak for peak but i wouldn't count out Frazier vs "The Bronx" Joe Louis.

Now we are aligned on title defenses lets dig deeper.

After 22 fights Schmeling had 3 losses and 3 draws. Do you take these into account? How much weight do you put on them? In his 19th fight he was KO'd by Larry Gains.

Patterson had no such losses except to Maxim (much higher quality loss and disputed) well prior to Patterson even fighting at heavyweight.

In his 42nd fight he was ko'd in one round by Gipsy Daniels. Daniels had lost his previous 2, one being to Maximillion. Gipsy was not ranked in the top 15 heavyweights in the world. Do you take that loss into account or is it another freebie?

He then entered his best run with a couple of contenders mixed in and Sharkey then Stribling. It was a mixed bag then, losing to some contenders, and beating some including Louis.

The early losses and bad KO loss to Daniels have to figure. Patterson had no such losses. The win over Louis does not elevate Schmeling's record vs Pattersons to where "they aren't close", not remotely.

We're going around in circles a bit so i will let you have the last say, within reason, to close the show. I don't think I have too much more to add.

 

First time I've had to split posts for going too long in years

If there's a few minor grammar mistakes forgive me CT, i haven't got time to proofread yet.

 

I'm fine with you having the last word, so feel free to respond to this post if you want. I'll be quick.

Fighters in general in the 30s and 40s seem to have losses randomly dotted at various points in their careers. Fighters in the 50s/60s onward were more protected. So it's not exactly a freebie, but Max's losses earlier in his career aren't that unusual in context. (Except Louis, who destroyed everybody aside from Max, and barely lost to anyone.)

 

No worries. It's a hassle.