Big Bad John wrote: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.
In his autobiography Schmeling brings up similar excuses for every single fight he's lost. As for Dempsey, he should have come up with something a lot better to explain him not being able to go 10 seconds strong.
BTW, prior to the Tyson fight Trevor Berbick was poisened via the air conditioning system in his hotel room.
Cap wrote: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.
Fighters and their fans usually have their excuses after losses. (I read Schmeling's autobiography as well and it had a lot of excuses, though I don't remember the bee sting one but will take you guys' word for it.) Most of the time there is nothing to it. Usually they lost to a better fighter.
I don't hold Schmeling in quite as high of regard as some people, but I have to say that the Gains fight shouldn't be held against him (or considered a big achievement for Gains). I believe this was discussed on an old thread a year or two ago.
Schmeling was very inexperienced. He had only been a pro for barely a year and wasn't even 20 years old yet. Not only that, he was also still a lightheavyweight, while Gains was a heavyweight, albiet a small one.
Last edited by Ambling Alp on 01 Jul 2008, 08:52, edited 1 time in total.
Let's see. He blamed the Diekmann loss on a cut, but in an interview later on, said that Diekmann hit harder than any fighter he ever got in the ring with, including Louis and Baer. He blamed the Daniels KO loss on an injury too, if I remember. Does anyone remember what the supposed injury was?
Well, I have heard a secondary source on the Gains knockout being due to an infection resulting from a bee sting, and it's not too flattering of Schmeling. Unfortunately, it's not a reliable source. Basically, some German boxing fan relayed the incident to me as he read from a recent German biography of Schmeling. The way the incident was described, Schmeling simply quit after showing up and doing enough to get paid.
Excuses to some, factors in the outcome to others...
I'm not going to go into individual circumstances but any info that chnages the odds even a tiny amount is seized upon by professional gamblers to give them an edge.
All we can really go on is the results and what we see but at the very top level of any sport the difference between victory and defeat can be surprisingly small.
I'm not arguing that we take every detail as gospel and re-write the record books but I do know that inside information on such small details can change the odds significantly enough for people to make money out of them.
For some people it's a factor in the outcome when their guy lost. It's an excuse when their guy won and the other guy and/or his fans are complaining.
A fighter could go 50-6, and his fans will have an excuse for every single one of his six defeats. However, it won't even occur to them to consider an excuse for any of his opponents in his 50 wins. You see this constantly.
Everyone had personal problems or distractions; we just hear about a small % of them. Part of boxing is putting them aside when you are in the ring.
There are legitimate excuses. Obviously it's much more impressive to beat a fighter when he is close to his prime rather than old or too inexperienced.
Of course there are terrible decisions, referees occasionally affect the outcome, etc.
However, the vast majority of the time, one guy won and one guy lost because one guy was better than the other guy.
Ambling Alp wrote:
However, the vast majority of the time, one guy won and one guy lost because one guy was better than the other guy...on that particular night
I'm not really familiar with the details/circumstances of Schmeling's pre-heavyweight losses. However, looking at his overall career, it looks to me that the reason for those losses (especially the ones by stoppage) might simply be that he was a skinny light-heavyweight then and was not sturdy at that weight. Think of DeLaHoya at 130, or Eusebio Pedroza at bantamweight. Once he filled out to around 190 pounds, it seems to me he was much sturdier. He was only stopped twice over the whole rest of his career, and that was by two of the hardest hitting 200-pound fighters ever, Louis and Baer. Baer only stopped him after a tough 10 round battle, and it took Louis two fights before he could stop him, and Schmeling was already past his prime by then.
My2Sense wrote:I'm not really familiar with the details/circumstances of Schmeling's pre-heavyweight losses. However, looking at his overall career, it looks to me that the reason for those losses (especially the ones by stoppage) might simply be that he was a skinny light-heavyweight then and was not sturdy at that weight. Think of DeLaHoya at 130, or Eusebio Pedroza at bantamweight. Once he filled out to around 190 pounds, it seems to me he was much sturdier. He was only stopped twice over the whole rest of his career, and that was by two of the hardest hitting 200-pound fighters ever, Louis and Baer. Baer only stopped him after a tough 10 round battle, and it took Louis two fights before he could stop him, and Schmeling was already past his prime by then.
Of Schmelings four early losses, two of them (including two of the three kayo losses) were against other light heavyweights, and the other two were against fighters who were only five or ten pounds heavier than Schmeling, so your point is moot.
My2Sense wrote:I'm not really familiar with the details/circumstances of Schmeling's pre-heavyweight losses. However, looking at his overall career, it looks to me that the reason for those losses (especially the ones by stoppage) might simply be that he was a skinny light-heavyweight then and was not sturdy at that weight. Think of DeLaHoya at 130, or Eusebio Pedroza at bantamweight. Once he filled out to around 190 pounds, it seems to me he was much sturdier. He was only stopped twice over the whole rest of his career, and that was by two of the hardest hitting 200-pound fighters ever, Louis and Baer. Baer only stopped him after a tough 10 round battle, and it took Louis two fights before he could stop him, and Schmeling was already past his prime by then.
Of Schmelings four early losses, two of them (including two of the three kayo losses) were against other light heavyweights, and the other two were against fighters who were only five or ten pounds heavier than Schmeling, so your point is moot.
Not really... if he's fragile at that weight, then he's fragile at that weight. I don't see what the size of his opponents has to do with it. If anything, the fact that he was getting KO'd by other light-heavyweights simply reinforces the likeliness that he was a bit fragile when weighing 175-180.
Manny Pacquiao was the same way below featherweight.
