Max Schmeling vs. Jim Braddock

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 20 Jul 2005, 07:23

Who would have won if Braddock and Schmeling fought in late 1936 or early 1937? Both had re-emerged as top fighters the year before.

Right now I'm leaning towards Schmeling by close decision, maybe 9-6 in rounds, but want to see what the other opinions are before making my decision.

dnahar32 · Post by **dnahar32** » 20 Jul 2005, 13:54

I like Schmeling by knockout.

I think for Braddock actually winning the title was more important than keeping it. The NYSAC wanted him to fight Schmeling, but he fought Louis instead because of the sweetheart deal Jacobs gave him (10% of all future title fight proceeds, Braddock made a mint). If he was really serious about being a good champion, I don't think he would have waited so long to defend the title regardless of the politics of the time and he would have fought Schmeling first.

On to the fight. I think Schmeling, coming off the Louis fight, was focused and determined to win the title again. He scouted Louis and broke down Louis's style, and he would do the same to Braddock. I see him punishing Braddock early, piling up rounds, and then stopping Braddock late.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 20 Jul 2005, 14:26

VERY GOOD TOPIC

schmelling kinda got screwed because he knocked out louis yet louis got the title shot cause america didnt want to lose the title to europe and never see it again for a while. schmelling deserved the shot against braddock and i think max would have been the first guy to regain the heavyweight title after losing it.

id say he outpoints braddock over 15 rounds possibly 10 rounds to 5 or 9 rounds to 6.

if he nails braddock with his right, he could knock out braddock. but schmelling was a defensive fighter and so was braddock it prob would have been a dull fight but schemmling would have landed the harder blows.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 20 Jul 2005, 16:51

some people only remember braddock for beating baer and some say he was nothing but a one figh wonder, but braddock was also at his peak..everyone can say yeah yeah he was nothing after the baer fight but, dont forget who it was that beat him in his only title defense, possibly the greatest ever. i mean braddock still had some left he did go on to beat tommy farr.

braddock never would have lost this one because he has to much heart and he would have done anything to keep the belt in american hands instead of nazi germanys( was a large reason that he chose to fight louis.) but braddock beat baer who beat schmelling just a few years earlier..

i would think in a 15 round fight, braddock would probly be down a round or two going into the last one but i would say either a SD or KO resulting from the final round. in schmellings last 10 fights he was 6-3-1. only beat 3 world class boxers up to that point in sharkey, whom he lost to in their rematch, and coudl have lost to the first time if sharkey hadnt hit him with a low blow, which shouldnt have stopped the fight low blows happen in boxing., micky wlaker, and an old young stribling..

schmelling might have been lucky to catch louis offguard in their match, but braddock never lost focus, his fights meant to much for him to mess around. they meant the life of his family, and if you through him in the ring with a 10 foot giant, he wouldnt go down there was just to much on this fight for him. by the time he fought louis he was financially secure and he was guarenteed 10% of louis purse in the next 10 years. say whatever you want, because schmelling "is better" but at that moment in time, braddock would not have beaten schmelling. ill take braddock by SD in 15 , after he makes a late charge and sweeps up the last couple of rounds. doesnt anyone beleive in the cinderella man?

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 20 Jul 2005, 16:54

think for Braddock actually winning the title was more important than keeping it. The NYSAC wanted him to fight Schmeling, but he fought Louis instead because of the sweetheart deal Jacobs gave him (10% of all future title fight proceeds, Braddock made a mint). If he was really serious about being a good champion, I don't think he would have waited so long to defend the title regardless of the politics of the time and he would have fought Schmeling first.

no offense but thats a load of crap. it wasnt that uncommon for a title defender to wait over a year or so for there next fight, baer waited over a year. Braddock needed the money that he could make from being the heavyweight champ of the world. call him what u want but he was keeping hsi family off the streets by holding the title

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 20 Jul 2005, 17:14

Rory McCloskey wrote: schmelling might have been lucky to catch louis offguard in their match, but braddock never lost focus, his fights meant to much for him to mess around. they meant the life of his family, and if you through him in the ring with a 10 foot giant, he wouldnt go down there was just to much on this fight for him. by the time he fought louis he was financially secure and he was guarenteed 10% of louis purse in the next 10 years. say whatever you want, because schmelling "is better" but at that moment in time, braddock would not have beaten schmelling. ill take braddock by SD in 15 , after he makes a late charge and sweeps up the last couple of rounds. doesnt anyone beleive in the cinderella man?

Catch Louis offguard? Schmeling dominated that fight from the 4th on. There was no offguard.

dnahar32 · Post by **dnahar32** » 20 Jul 2005, 17:15

Rory McCloskey wrote:
think for Braddock actually winning the title was more important than keeping it. The NYSAC wanted him to fight Schmeling, but he fought Louis instead because of the sweetheart deal Jacobs gave him (10% of all future title fight proceeds, Braddock made a mint). If he was really serious about being a good champion, I don't think he would have waited so long to defend the title regardless of the politics of the time and he would have fought Schmeling first.
no offense but thats a load of crap. it wasnt that uncommon for a title defender to wait over a year or so for there next fight, baer waited over a year. Braddock needed the money that he could make from being the heavyweight champ of the world. call him what u want but he was keeping hsi family off the streets by holding the title

Why is this a load of crap? The NYSAC was close to stripping Braddock of his title, and Schmeling was the clear #1 contender off the Louis win. Braddock repeatedly delayed the fight with injury claims and refusals to show up. It's not like a Schmeling fight would have been unpopular or a money-losing fight. Promoter Mike Jacobs later admitted that a fear of losing the title overseas contributed to all these delays and that Braddock-Schmeling was never going to happen.

You can disagree with the point, fair enough, but calling it crap is very shortsighted and not fair.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 20 Jul 2005, 17:26

[quote="Rory McCloskey"]
i would think in a 15 round fight, braddock would probly be down a round or two going into the last one but i would say either a SD or KO resulting from the final round. in schmellings last 10 fights he was 6-3-1. only beat 3 world class boxers up to that point in sharkey, whom he lost to in their rematch, and coudl have lost to the first time if sharkey hadnt hit him with a low blow, which shouldnt have stopped the fight low blows happen in boxing., micky wlaker, and an old young stribling..
[quote]

Five of those fights, two losses, were from a comeback when Schmeling was in his mid 40's after over 6 years off. Why don't you check things before you post? Interesting note, in an article I was reading Louis said that he never considered himself champ until after he beat Schmeling. He even said Schmeling deserved the shot before him. And I don't know if you were insinuating it or not, but to be safe, Schmeling was a German, but was never a nazi.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 20 Jul 2005, 17:48

SHERLOCK- no no i know he wasnt, he said once " ive had dinner with the feurh(hitler) but that doesnt mean im a nzai, i had dinner with FDR that doesnt make me a democrat."

and yeah i can see why louis wouldnt feel he was champ, that was because he lost to schmelling i would think, not necessarily because he was better. louis might have said that schmelling deserved his shot but it was up to braddock, and the louis camp offered him a deal he couldnt refuse ( 10% of his purses for the next 10 years, which amounted to 150,000 dollars.) i do know what i post, im just trying to support my opinion.

and max schmelling being over 40 and taking 6 years off doesnt really change anything, because before the jack sharkey fight, he had never really been greatly challeneged by great fighters, even hall of fame fighters. braddock had fought 3 and beaten 2 (john henry lewis and max baer., you could say uzcudun and risko were hard fights, but for a fighter who is supose to be as great as schmelling they really werent god competition. this is just my opinion. but i would think it hard to say otherwise.

the choice of who to fight in his defense was up to braddock and there were 3 main reasons why he chose to fight louis.

1) the 10% deal
2) keep the belt in american hands
3) before the max baer fight, braddock was suppose to fight max schmelling, but max schmelling insulted braddock as a fighter and said he would not fight such a weak boxer, so braddock felt insulted.

why give him a shot if he wouldnt give braddock a shot?

sorry about the confusion,
rory

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 20 Jul 2005, 17:50

i decided to get some proof to my statement so you beleive me

But Jimmy knew his limits; his fairy godmother had only so many charges in her wand. One more big fight, as champion, and he'd have enough money to take care of his family, which was his only goal any way. Remembering the way Schmelling had snubbed him prior to the Baer fight, and not willing to see the crown leave America, he decided to fight the dangerous Joe Louis instead.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/JamesBraddock.html the whole article.... enjoy!

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 20 Jul 2005, 18:13

Rory McCloskey wrote:SHERLOCK- no no i know he wasnt, he said once " ive had dinner with the feurh(hitler) but that doesnt mean im a nzai, i had dinner with FDR that doesnt make me a democrat."

sorry about the confusion,
rory

No problem. I didn't think that was what you were saying but wanted to make sure. I've ran into a lot of people who still think he was.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 20 Jul 2005, 18:15

nope, glad thats settled...anyway do you give braddock any shot at winning this fight?

dnahar32 · Post by **dnahar32** » 20 Jul 2005, 18:35

But that was my point, that Braddock was more determined to win the title than actually keeping it. You are saying that he looked to cash out for his family and he did. I think Schmeling having to wait would have further fueled his training for a Braddock fight and I do believe he would have KO'd Braddock.

That said, can't we respectfully disagree on these forums? I didn't call any of your points, even ones I disagreed with, crap. :)

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 20 Jul 2005, 18:45

Rory McCloskey wrote:nope, glad thats settled...anyway do you give braddock any shot at winning this fight?

I still believe Schmeling wins a close 9-6 or 8-7 decision in a classic. Braddock would have been the aggressor but Schmeling was an excellent counterpuncher. But I can't see Braddock losing by knockout, I think he stays on his feet the whole time, as does Schmeling. Great textbook fight with an aggressor and counterpuncher, which historically is usually won by the counterpuncher.

I love Braddock, his story is amazing, but sometimes guys giving there all for family or country fall short. Schmeling was fighting for his country's respect but fell to Louis, sometimes its not meant to be. But do understand, this is only my personal opinion, nobody is right. Its just fun to debate fantasy fights and learn more about fighters.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 20 Jul 2005, 18:57

no worries i understand what u mean

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 20 Jul 2005, 19:09

Schmeling by decision.

Just as fast, stronger, harder puncher.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 18 Sep 2005, 19:02

Braddock by decision. Just as fast maybe a shade faster, not quite as strong, more determined and driven. Overides the odds just as with Baer. As long as the timing for the bout was roughly the same time, right before, or right after the Baer fight.

theone · Post by **theone** » 18 Sep 2005, 22:47

Jesus Christ. Ive followed boxing for 30 years, i have spent countless wonderful hours talking about the fight game with friends who are fighters trainers old pros and old timers who seen many of the greats of the past. i've spent hundreds of hours watching old fights and programs about boxing and own an extensive collection of books on boxing.
Never in all that time have i heard or read Braddock spoken so highly of as a fighter(not as a man) than i have since joining this forum. the level at which this man is overrated is mindboggling. wouldnt it stand to reason that if he was as good as some write on this forum his win over Maxie would have been no big deal? that the nickname the cinderella man would have been inaproppriate? that no one would have called it the greatest upset of all time, even though Baer had not made a great impact as champion?

Oh yeah, Schmelling very easy descision.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 18 Sep 2005, 23:51

i think that the fight wouldnt be a blowout... but after just beating louis in stunning fashion with a KO, i think that schmelling wins by UD

i want to find some reason as to how i could pick braddock but schmelling was a truly great fighter... by late 1936, 1937 braddock had begun to suffer from severe arthritis... he was 30 years old pushing on 31..might not sound old but he fought about 90 fights in 10 years.. and didnt fight for abotu a year n a half with injury and a need to work on the docks to feed his family... maybe MAYBE if this fight is fought on june 13 1935 then braddock would win this fight.. i would actually feel comfortable picking him because it would have taken a god to keep braddock from winning this fight to feed his family..that night he was a deadly man... and there is a little bit of interest because baer beat schmelling quite recent to the fight.. but aside from that i think schmelling was a very capable fighter and i just dont see my boy overcoming this one.. i think braddock is standing at the end..bloody, but with nothing left... he woulda left everything in the ring like he did in the louis fight... max wins 10-5/9-6 on the scorecards...

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 19 Sep 2005, 16:55

Well I just do this to get "theone" worked up. Also to give homage to the spirit of the "man who won't be beat can't be beat." It's not always about logic.

But it usually is.

By the way I have lost all my bets recently on every logical decision I have made. The only one I have come out better on is when I went against the odds with my gut..

So what you think of as fact.....aint necessarily so sometimes. Thats why the Cinderella man is the Cinderella man. He is quite aptly named. He should not have won the fight with Baer...but he did. Douglas should not have one the fight with Tyson...but he did. That U.S. hockey team should not have beat the Russian team...but they did. That Chinese guy at Tieneman square should not have been able to stop that Tank from advancing, but he did.

Aint it a wonderful world?

Friedie · Post by **Friedie** » 06 Oct 2005, 13:18

Rory McCloskey wrote: i would think in a 15 round fight, braddock would probly be down a round or two going into the last one but i would say either a SD or KO resulting from the final round. in schmellings last 10 fights he was 6-3-1. only beat 3 world class boxers up to that point in sharkey, whom he lost to in their rematch, and coudl have lost to the first time if sharkey hadnt hit him with a low blow, which shouldnt have stopped the fight low blows happen in boxing., micky wlaker, and an old young stribling..

i count more heavyweight- world class opposition than only 3 beaten by Max Schmeling:

Johnny Risko (tko 9th)
Paolino Uzcudun (wu 15, draw, wu 12)
Jack Sharkey (dsq 4th, rematch lost unfairly sd 15)
Young Stribling (who wasn't old that time) (tko 15th)
Mickey Walker (tko 8th)
Walter Neusel (rated very high that time) (tko 9th)
Joe Louis (ko 12th)

later came another k.o. over Harry Thomas in 8th (with 7 knockdowns).

if you see Maxies defeats on the other hand: the number of "10" seem to be a lot in 70 fights for a world class heavyweight (how many defeats had Braddock...25 ?) , but 4 of them were early in his career (as a light-heavy), 2 were after WW2 when he was over 40 years old ...leaving only 4 defeats in his prime: one of them was an extreme unfair verdict (Sharkey II), one was "cleared" by Maxie in the rematch (Hamas on points in '34, Max won by tko the second one in '35). ...the tko defeat against Baer was Schmelings worst fight in his career (the rematch didnt took place after Baer lost the title...and lost to Louis in '35) ...and the Louis II fight is best known (with it's very special circumstances).

intersting is the fact, that one year after that Schmeling became European Champion by knocking out A.Heuser in only 60 seconds... his last fight before WWII.

Schmeling k.o.'s Braddock in 10th round.
...if the fight would have taken place in Germany Maxie wins in 5 !

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 06 Oct 2005, 13:41

dnahar32 wrote:The NYSAC wanted him to fight Schmeling, but he fought Louis instead because of the sweetheart deal Jacobs gave him (10% of all future title fight proceeds, Braddock made a mint)

Without looking it up but I am sure Braddock recieved 10% of Louis's managements cut for each fight for 10 years.

Not 10% of the total Louis purse.

Friedie · Post by **Friedie** » 06 Oct 2005, 13:45

KOJOE90 wrote:
dnahar32 wrote:The NYSAC wanted him to fight Schmeling, but he fought Louis instead because of the sweetheart deal Jacobs gave him (10% of all future title fight proceeds, Braddock made a mint)
Without looking it up but I am sure Braddock recieved 10% of Louis's managements cut for each fight for 10 years.

Not 10% of the total Louis purse.

to my information he recieved 10 % of Louis purse...AFTER the management cut of 37 %. ...for the rest of Joes career.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 06 Oct 2005, 13:45

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:schmelling kinda got screwed because he knocked out louis yet louis got the title shot cause america didnt want to lose the title to europe and never see it again for a while.

Just one point it was Nazi controlled Germany they didn't what to lose the title to not Europe as a whole.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 06 Oct 2005, 14:31

Thanks KO I was about to chime in on that.

Look I go for Braddock for the intangibles. Sometimes guys can fight over their heads, he proved it. Baer beat Schmeling and Braddock beat Baer....I'm taking the simplton approach on this.

If it was on the line just like it was the night with Baer, Braddock brings it home. Some fighters do not choke in the clutch, Braddock fits this catagory. He even gave the great Joe Louis a KD to think about when Louis was considerably better than he was when Max beat him.

I'm not going that far out on a limb here. There is a good argument either way on this. Those who think Braddock was the worst of the worst of champs will not be dissuaded.