Between Tunney and Louis

[Ambling Alp]

Between Gene Tunney's retirement (1928)and Joe Louis winning the title (1937), there was a lot of parity in the heavyweight division.
There were 5 champions, and only 3 successful title defenses.
Head to head, no one really stands out:

Schmeling was 1-2 against the other four;1-1 against Sharkey, 0-1 against Baer.
Baer was 2-1; beating Schmeling and Carnera, losing to Braddock
Sharkey was 2-2; 1-1 against both Schmeling and Carnera
Braddock was 1-0; beating Baer
Carnera was 1-2; 1-1 against Sharkey and losing to Baer.

There were atleast 3 other contenders who were major players during the late 1920's and early 1930's.
Tommy Loughran beat Baer and Braddock, lost to Carnera. He was 3-2 against Johnny Risko and 2-2 against Ernie Schaaf.

Johnny Risko was 1-1 against both Baer and Sharkey, lost to Schmeling, as mentioned 2-3 against Loughran, and 1-1 against Ernie Schaaf.

Ernie Schaaf was 1-1 against Baer, beat Braddock,lost to Carnera, was 1-1 against Risko, and 2-2 against Loughran.

I have some questions:

1.Usually, Schmeling is rated the best, then Baer, then Sharkey, then Braddock, and lastly Carnera. (Occasionally you see Baer or Sharkey rated higher than Schmeling, and occasionally Carnera ahead of Braddock.)

Does that seem fair? Schmeling is the only to beat Louis, and he was the most consistent against other competition. Is that enough?
2.What about the top contenders? Do Loughran,Risko, and Schaaf deserve top be rated higher than any of the champions?

3.What about the era itself? How good an era was this, in the heavyweight division? (Average, below average, better than average)

4. Is it good to have several different good/very good fighters that are roughly even instead of 1 or 2 great fighters dominating?

(I'm sort of on the fence with these questions myself.)

[I Feel Fine]

Well most thought that the Schmeling-Sharkey rematch was a robbery and that Schmeling was the clear winner. I'm sure he would have beaten Braddock if Braddock had given him the title shot over Louis. But you can make the argument that because Baer beat him and Carnera that Baer is the best of the four, even though he lost to Braddock. It is one of those situations like De La Hoya-Mosley-Forrest-Mayorga where everyone has a loss to someone. One guy has to be on top even though he lost to someone below him. I would probably agree that Schmeling is the best of the four. A big part of that is because he was able to get the win over Louis, though that's not the only reason. I think that Schmeling was the only one among the four who I would not hesitate to call a great fighter.

I would probably say that this era is average, maybe a little below average at most. As for the fourth question, I think that either is good; I like seeing a competitive division or a division that is dominanted by one or two guys. Either one can be interesting to watch.

[Robinson]

Thanks for this Alp.

My opinion on this era is that it was one of the most colourful
and historically rich eras. It was a time when the HW division was
perhaps at its most relevant outside of the boxing and sporting
realm.

Where boxing really stepped up and went global and in some
ways reflected the tragedy and excitement of this period.

As for how talent rich an era was it, well for me it was one of
those gateway periods, where boxing truely developed. It also
seems to be a natural continuation of where Dempsey left of,
generating momentum, especially for heavyweights for generations
thereafter.

It was an era of rivalries, of back and forth shoot outs and blow
outs fought between differing styles and nationalities of fighters.
It would be an era better appreciated by those that lived it, as
opposed to us that only get to look back at it.

Personally I think that those HW had tremendous character,
heart and while they were talented. I honestly do not feel or
think that for the most part that they were 'better' skilled or
athletically than those HW's that would follow them.

Thats my opinion in any case.

[dempseyfire]

I think Sharkey at hist best may have been the best of that whole group, but the problem was his head was never screwed on right to be consistant.

Baer had the most natural talent (athletic, one-punch KO power, iron jaw) but his career faltered for a time post-Campbell.

Based on results you'd have to go with Schmeling.

Any discussion of that era would have to include the very talented but sometimes 'cuffed' black HWs of that period; George Godfrey, Tiger Jack Fox, Larry Gaines, Obie Walker etc.

[Robinson]

Tiger Jack Fox and Godfrey you always here good things about.
Is there any film of them ?

[Ezzard]

Sharkey, Schmeling and Baer were all very capable fighters who all possibly had the potential to become great champions.

All three seemed to suffer mentally and emotionally at points in their careers. Sharkey was an erratic performer. Baer was probably not as dedicated as he could have been. Schmeling went into a deep hole but then pulled himself out of it.

Schmeling has a win over Louis which immediately elevates him. I also think he'd have been the first HW to regain the title had he been allowed to get to Braddock first. The 1 round KO loss to Louis is a harsh fight when looking back historically. Joe put in a great performance. It was something special but with the world as it was Max fighting in USA was at a serious disadvantage.

All 3 guys are probably underrated due to many just looking at the number of losses they had. Many don't look beyond this, but all were top fighters.

[Cap]

Canada's Larry Gains beat both Schmeling and Carnera. He was offered fights with Sharkey and Jimmy Maloney if he agreed to lose but turned them down.

Cap

[My2Sense]

I have some questions:

1.Usually, Schmeling is rated the best, then Baer, then Sharkey, then Braddock, and lastly Carnera. (Occasionally you see Baer or Sharkey rated higher than Schmeling, and occasionally Carnera ahead of Braddock.)

Does that seem fair? Schmeling is the only to beat Louis, and he was the most consistent against other competition. Is that enough?
2.What about the top contenders? Do Loughran,Risko, and Schaaf deserve top be rated higher than any of the champions?

3.What about the era itself? How good an era was this, in the heavyweight division? (Average, below average, better than average)

4. Is it good to have several different good/very good fighters that are roughly even instead of 1 or 2 great fighters dominating?

(I'm sort of on the fence with these questions myself.)

1. I think so. As someone else pointed out, Schmeling's loss to Sharkey was very questionable. Then there's the fact that Braddock (Baer's conqueror) blatantly ducked him. It's possible Baer may have had his number, but even then, Baer had to come from behind to put him away. Baer may have had the potential to be the best, but he never fully lived up to that potential. Schmeling also KO'd Mickey Walker, who had been running amuck in the division and causing trouble for a lot of other contenders.

2. I think they all just fall short. Loughran might have the best case, as he had good wins over Baer and Braddock, and it could be argued that Carnera simply had his number because of the extreme size disadvantage (the biggest in boxing history, I believe). However, the devastating KO loss to Sharkey may be a damaging blemish on his record at heavyweight.

3. A little above average IMO. Not bad, just decent.

4. Neither. It's best to have a lot of great fighters in a division.

It's funny, people will sometimes underrate a division when no one fighter is able to distinguish himself from the pack. I believe that's a bit unfair. It's possible that the division may have so many quality fighters that everyone is evenly matched (the middleweight division in the '30s was very similar to that IMO). It's also possible that when one fighter stands out or dominates a division, it's because the rest of the division is weak.

[Ambling Alp]

It is too bad that Braddock-Schmeling never happened.
I have leaned toward Schmeling as being the best of these guys, but I'm not 100% sold.
I think his win over Sharkey was just as questionable as his loss to Sharkey. I also think he deserves more criticism for his performance in his loss to Louis. Of course it's no embarrassment to lose to Louis, but Schemling looked clueless in this fight. After he got hurt, he just kept walking right into Louis.

Still, he did beat Louis the first time, something the rest of these guys couldn't come close to doing. And he was the most consistent; the rest of these guys lost to lesser fighters much more often.

I think you could make a case for Carnera being ahead of Braddock. He beat better fighters than Braddock and lost less often. Of course Braddock did much better against Baer and Louis than Carnera did.

Loughran, Schaaf, and Risko probably should be behind Braddock and Carnera, but not by a lot.
I always sort of felt bad for Schaaf; you wonder if he could have won the title if he hadn't died.

Of course it's best when you have a lot of great fighters in a division at the same time.
Unfortuntely, that seldom happens.

Is it better when one great fighter dominates? I think at first its ok when this happens. You don't know right away that the guy will dominate. and it's usually interesting to watch a great fighter, even when he is fighting a lesser opponent. However, after a while it does get boring.

During this period (late 1920's to mid 1930's) there did seem to be a lot of interest in the heavyweight division. There were huge crowds at some of these fights. This is especially impressive when you consider that this was during the Great Depression.

There were a lot of good fights during this era. Of course being a boxing fan, I'm greedy and wish there were even more. As mentioned Braddock-Schmeling didn't happen.

A long time ago I think there was a thread about Sharkey vs Baer. ( I think opinion was pretty divided.)
But what about Schmeling and Sharkey a third time?
Schmeling vs Schaaf?
How about Carnera vs Braddock?

In some ways this was a pretty intersting time period in boxing and we don't talk about it a whole lot.

[My2Sense]

It is too bad that Braddock-Schmeling never happened.
I have leaned toward Schmeling as being the best of these guys, but I'm not 100% sold.
I think his win over Sharkey was just as questionable as his loss to Sharkey. I also think he deserves more criticism for his performance in his loss to Louis. Of course it's no embarrassment to lose to Louis, but Schemling looked clueless in this fight. After he got hurt, he just kept walking right into Louis.

Still, he did beat Louis the first time, something the rest of these guys couldn't come close to doing. And he was the most consistent; the rest of these guys lost to lesser fighters much more often.

I think you could make a case for Carnera being ahead of Braddock. He beat better fighters than Braddock and lost less often. Of course Braddock did much better against Baer and Louis than Carnera did.

Loughran, Schaaf, and Risko probably should be behind Braddock and Carnera, but not by a lot.
I always sort of felt bad for Schaaf; you wonder if he could have won the title if he hadn't died.

Of course it's best when you have a lot of great fighters in a division at the same time.
Unfortuntely, that seldom happens.

Is it better when one great fighter dominates? I think at first its ok when this happens. You don't know right away that the guy will dominate. and it's usually interesting to watch a great fighter, even when he is fighting a lesser opponent. However, after a while it does get boring.

During this period (late 1920's to mid 1930's) there did seem to be a lot of interest in the heavyweight division. There were huge crowds at some of these fights. This is especially impressive when you consider that this was during the Great Depression.

There were a lot of good fights during this era. Of course being a boxing fan, I'm greedy and wish there were even more. As mentioned Braddock-Schmeling didn't happen.

A long time ago I think there was a thread about Sharkey vs Baer. ( I think opinion was pretty divided.)
But what about Schmeling and Sharkey a third time?
Schmeling vs Schaaf?
How about Carnera vs Braddock?

In some ways this was a pretty intersting time period in boxing and we don't talk about it a whole lot.

I thought Sharkey was almost outclassing Schmeling in their first fight until the DQ happened. However, Schmeling appeared to have adjusted to his style in the rematch.

There's definitely cause for criticizing Schmeling. The way he won the title was dubious to say the least, and even in the Sharkey rematch, both fighters were guilty of unconvincing performances. However, his big wins over Uzcudun, Risko, Stribling, Walker, and of course Louis redeem him IMO.

If I had to rate "the big five", it would probably look like this:
1) Schmeling
2) Baer
3) Sharkey
4) Carnera
5) Braddock
...with Baer and Sharkey possibly being interchangeable.

It's true that Schmeling did fare the worst of any of the five in his loss to Louis, but keep in mind that he was already past his prime going into the first fight with Louis, which made his win such a shocking upset. The second fight was not until at least two years after that, when Louis had improved even more and Schmeling was basically used up.

In the end, they all got completely slaughtered by Louis at some point. The only difference is how many rounds they managed to drag out the fight, but none of them were particularly competitive in their losses, so I don't think there really is all that much to choose between them in that regard. Braddock did score a flash knockdown in the first round, but Louis began slaughtering him almost as soon as rising.

I think Schmeling would've beaten Sharkey again if they fought a third time. Sharkey started his decline after their 2nd fight, and possibly was already on the decline going into it.

Good points about the huge crowds. Recent historians (ie: Bert Sugar) have tried to portray this era as some sort of "failure", but Schmeling and Baer were both very popular fighters. The first Schmeling-Sharkey fight was highly anticipated, as was Schmeling-Stribling (which was sort of the Holmes-Cooney of its day, except with the issue of nationality substituting for race). Even Carnera was an attraction, though probably for his freakish size more than his fighting ability (a la Valuev).

Personally, I've always felt that constant upsets and title changes make a division much more interesting and unpredictable. Looking back at contemporary accounts, it seems many of the fans at that time shared that sentiment.

Sharkey vs. Baer is a tough fight to pick, because of both fighter's unpredictability. Sharkey could probably beat Baer if he put his mind to it, but a motivated Baer could be hard to hold off, as the Schmeling fight proved.

I think Carnera could probably have beaten Braddock using his big edge in natural size, the way he did to Loughran.

A pre-Baer Schmeling would beat Schaaf IMO.

[I Feel Fine]

Sharkey definitely had the better of it the first time. But it was only four rounds, who can tell, the second fight was a full fight, and I tend to put more stock in rematches anyway. The second fight definitely means more, and by all accounts Schmeling was the clear winner. I'm certain that he would have won a rubber match. And while Schmeling looked clueless in the Louis rematch, Baer and Sharkey didn't look much better, and I would assume Carnera didn't do much either. Braddock dropped him, but was dominated the rest of the way. Schemling had by far the most success against Louis, even counting the rematch. The thing about the rematch, also, is that was the best version of Louis that any of these men encountered.

[HomicideHenry]

The era is generally under-rated, but it was a booming time for heavies, though they were not of the caliber of some earlier and later time periods such as the turn of the 20th century and the 1970's and 1990's. You not only had Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock and Schmeling romaing the scene as the top men, but you also had the Risko's and the Schaaf's and the Louhgran's, then throw in guys just on the cusp, the fringe guys such as KO Christner and other division jumpers like John Henry Lewis and the Toy Bulldog Mickey Walker. It was a rather talented and deep division, for there always seemed to be a new prospect or some new comeback story in what was a very poverty stricken time.

For my money, the man with the most potential was Sharkey, but Schmeling proved to be the best over all, though one can argue that Baer could have been the greatest of that era had he been a tad bit more serious...but who really cared? It was a pretty exciting time.

[Robinson]

I guess in a way the lost generation of 80s Heavyweights
is similar to this era. ABC's aside/

You really think that the late 19th century guys were better
than the guys Alp mentioned Henry ?

I think considering the era and over all circumstances
(Great Depression) of the period that these men
fared well, and showed skills that while rudimentary
were solid. It is the attributes that these men
possesed to me that make them exciting.

[dempseyfire]

I guess in a way the lost generation of 80s Heavyweights
is similar to this era. ABC's aside/

You really think that the late 19th century guys were better
than the guys Alp mentioned Henry ?

I think considering the era and over all circumstances
(Great Depression) of the period that these men
fared well, and showed skills that while rudimentary
were solid. It is the attributes that these men
possesed to me that make them exciting.

Sharkey, Schmeling, Stribling, Loughran, Gaines, Braddock etc. had much more than 'rudimentary skills' . . .even Baer when he wasn't acting a fool had very solid boxing skills, as he showed vs Schmeling.

I'd put this era fairly ahead of the era of Page/Tubbs/Witherspoon etc.

[Robinson]

I wouldn't agree on that one.

But I do think it is a more 'honorable' era and holds more
historical significance and heritage.

I think that 80s HW's are alot more skilled and while
ruined as many were by drugs and drink, they still
had very solid skills. It is the gym time in later fights
that I think cost them.

Thats just me, though.

[dempseyfire]

I've seen a couple of Godfrey fight films (vs Carnera and one of his last fights in Europe, it may have been vs Charles) but none of Fox, who I don't believe has any existing footage. Does anyone know otherwise? Klompton?

I also don't believe there's any footage of John Henry Lewis besides the Louis KO unfortunately.

The BBC vaults have a number of Gaines fights that have survived.

[Robinson]

One fortunate thing is that with the net getting quicker
and with YouTube etc we will get to see those fights.

Id love to see some of the old timers mix it up.

[Martin Sosa Cameron]

Very good topic!

I thinks Max Schmeling was the best; Max Baer the number 2. Only a great fighter could knocked out Joe Louis in that time

[Martin Sosa Cameron]

From South America, another important boy in that times was the Argentinian Champion Victorio Campolo

[wouter]

Prime for Prime:

1. Sharkey
2. Baer
3. Schmeling
4. Carnera (distant 4th - should have lost a whole lot more than he did)

[HomicideHenry]

You really think that the late 19th century guys were better
than the guys Alp mentioned Henry ?

You can make the case for alot of guys from alot of different eras, no matter the weight class, of who was on par or better than someone else. I always hold Tommy Burns higher than most have, and I think it should be a no-brainer that Fitzsimmons was overall better than let's say Carnera and Baer and Sharkey...whose to say Risko could compete with Tom Sharkey? Or whose to say Kingfish Levinsky would have beaten Marvin Hart? etc etc etc.

I guess it all comes down to circumstances and hypotheticals, because I can pick McCarty over Willard, who lost to Dempsey, so does that mean McCarty is on par with Dempsey or just a notch below him? Even an old Dempsey was able to land a shot on Sharkey and knock him out, albiet a cheap shot, but still...some of the old contenders or champions, I could very well pick over another and make a solid case either for their benefit or not.

I can see Fitzsimmons beating Sharkey, just as much as I can see Burns beating John Henry Lewis or some other division jumper, and I can see Jeffries beating Baer and I can see Corbett out pointing Schmeling. But thats just me.

[Ambling Alp]

This period had a lot of depth. In many other eras, the top heavyweight was better than the top heavyweight in this era (presumably Schmeling), but there wasn't that much talent after the champion, or after the champion and a few contenders. In this era, there is not as much of a drop off after the best fighter.

There a couple of other interesting things about this time period:
-There was no heavyweight champion for more than a year. There was no tournament or anything like that planned after Tunney retired.
-Schmeling wasn't even considered in the mix when Tunney retired, but he was the one who became the first post-Tunney champion.
He went 5-0 (including wins over Risko and Uzcudun) that got him into position to fight Sharkey for the vacant title.

As mentioned earlier, the size of the crowds of some of the fights during this time period was enormous.
Here are some estimates:

1929 Sharkey-Stribling 30,000
1930 Sharkey-Schmeling 80,000
1930 Carnera-Uzcudun 75,000
1930 Carnera-Godfrey 35,000
1931 Gains-Scott 30,000
1932 Gains-Carnera 70,000
1933 Carnera-Sharkey II 40,000
1933 Baer-Schmeling 60,000
1934 Schmeling-Nuesel 100,000

[Big Bad John]

Canada's Larry Gains beat both Schmeling and Carnera. He was offered fights with Sharkey and Jimmy Maloney if he agreed to lose but turned them down.

Cap

Well, Gains's win over Schmeling wasn't terribly impressive. Schmeling had a bad infection from a bee sting, and only entered the ring because he needed the cash, kind of like Fireman Jim Flynn fighting Jack Dempsey, who hadn't eaten in a day. Schmeling basically quit, and if that fight had been in Utah, he would have been suspended, just as Dempsey was.

[raylawpc]

Dempsey wasn't suspended. He was blacklisted by certain promoters.

[Cap]

Canada's Larry Gains beat both Schmeling and Carnera. He was offered fights with Sharkey and Jimmy Maloney if he agreed to lose but turned them down.

Cap

Well, Gains's win over Schmeling wasn't terribly impressive. Schmeling had a bad infection from a bee sting, and only entered the ring because he needed the cash, kind of like Fireman Jim Flynn fighting Jack Dempsey, who hadn't eaten in a day. Schmeling basically quit, and if that fight had been in Utah, he would have been suspended, just as Dempsey was.

and Gains was half-starved and ring-weary due to poor management. Everyone might have an excuse if you digged deep enough.