Max Schmeling, Where Does He Rank?

[HomicideHenry]

Let's put a timeline perspective on Schmeling:


-January 1931 Schmeling began a 40 city exhibition tour to help boost his image because even in his home nation of Germany he was laughed at due to winning the heavyweight title on a foul; during this tour he kayoed Young Stribling, something that nobody had done in Stribling's 264 bout career

-Was in negotiations to fight Primo Carnera, but turned this down to fight Sharkey instead to erase all doubts of his championship legitimacy; during this time (in prep for the June bout) a biography of Schmeling written by Rolf Nuremberg is released and only further ruins Schmeling's appeal as it described him as being a cold, selfish cynic who only looked out for himself; of course Schmeling would lose the title, but even his biggest critics cited that he won the fight unaminously, it wasn't even that close (the fight went down as a SD win for Sharkey); the press labeled the match as being "a steal for a steal".

-Schmeling was in negotiations to fight Jim Braddock, but turned it down when he remarked "Who iss Chim Braddock? I haff neffer heardt of Chim Braddock"--- Schmeling was then in negotiations to fight Max Baer (again), however Baer/Braddock was arranged when "The Cinderella Man" defeated Art Lasky; of course Braddock beat Baer. Not long after this, Joe Louis would lose to Max Schmeling (Schmeling was a 10-1 underdog), and became Braddock's number one contender

-Schmeling trained for Braddock, even though by all accounts it appeared that Braddock would not fight him, but Louis instead; Schmeling, notably upset, went back to Germany and several European countries and commissions (most notably the BBBC) proclaimed Schmeling as the true heavyweight champion and Schmeling began training to fight Tommy Farr in defense of his 'title', however Joe Louis' management got to Farr first and Schmeling was again without an opponent---- over the next year Schmeling would fight fringe opponents in preperation to fight Joe Louis, he was 34 years old and by all accounts it was obvious the Louis group made his ring inactivity happen

One must wonder, had he gotten to Braddock, would he of been the first 2x heavyweight champion? And not only that, had he gotten a rematch with Louis much sooner, would the Brown Bomber of lost again? It took Louis two years to rebuild what he had lost. What says the forum?

[-KOKid-]

Schmeling is probably somewhat underrated.
He beat several of the top heavyweights of his era.
Here is a run down of his record against top 10 rated contenders (Ring Magazine).


1929
Johnny Risko - no. 10
Paulino Uzcudun - no. 4

1930
Jack Sharkey - no. 1

1931
Young Stribling - no. 3

1932
Jack Sharkey - no. 1 - LOSS
Mickey Walker - no. 5

1933
Max Baer - no. 3 - LOSS

1934
Steve Hamas - no. 8 - LOSS
Walter Neusel - no. 4

1935
Steve Hamas - no. 1

1936
Joe Louis - no. 1

1937
No rated opponents.

1938
Joe Louis - World Champ - LOSS

1939
Adolf Heuser - no. 8 (at Light-Heavyweight)

Record vs. top 10 opponents or champions: 9-4

[HomicideHenry]

I used to rate him as the best European heavyweight of all time, but considering Wladimir has 20+ title defenses, its hard for me to make the case for Schmeling any more. However, I do still have Schmeling in the top 15 heavyweights of all time. And, imho, any man in the top 20 could beat any man from 1-20 on any given night, so its hard to truly gauge where a man belongs among the atg's. Still, Schmeling was the top man in my mind of the 1930's til Louis came back bigger than ever in 1938. His loss to Sharkey was one of the more controversial decisions of the time, so I dont hold it against him, the record books dont lie, Schmeling was the better tactician and fighter.

[rightsideup]

It seems cruel the way max was forced to wait so long to fight for the title. In a bit of irony max ended up being a great friend of joes? To beat joe louis was a .great feat. Some people view joe as number one amongst the hws so that means max surely deserves some merit in the top 20/

[Crease]

Schmeling is in my top 20... And I wlays throw him in around 14-18 ish.

[Jaclem]

....i don't know how to put a numerical rating on schmeling, but i do think he would have beaten braddock.....but not against louis no matter when the rematch took place...

[HomicideHenry]

....i don't know how to put a numerical rating on schmeling, but i do think he would have beaten braddock.....but not against louis no matter when the rematch took place...

Had the rematch taken place shortly after or before the Schmeling/Braddock bout would have taken place, I dont know if Louis would have been prepared enough to of done so. However, Schmeling's greatest strength was his greatest weakness: too methodical. If Louis threw all caution to the wind and came out throwing bombs, who knows what would have happened during that time frame; but one thing is for certain, Louis to his final days as a boxer was a sucker for a right cross and overhand right.

[dempseyfire]

I used to rate him as the best European heavyweight of all time, but considering Wladimir has 20+ title defenses, its hard for me to make the case for Schmeling any more. However, I do still have Schmeling in the top 15 heavyweights of all time. And, imho, any man in the top 20 could beat any man from 1-20 on any given night, so its hard to truly gauge where a man belongs among the atg's. Still, Schmeling was the top man in my mind of the 1930's til Louis came back bigger than ever in 1938. His loss to Sharkey was one of the more controversial decisions of the time, so I dont hold it against him, the record books dont lie, Schmeling was the better tactician and fighter.

Good grief, 'title defenses' in this day and age mean next to diddly squat. Just the one victory over a close to peak Louis absolutely sh^ts on anything Wlad has ever done in his life.

I think Max could be ranked anywhere from #14-18ish. I think if he'd avoided that post-title malaise he had in the early 30s (with the losses to Baer and Steve Hamas) he'd deserve just outside the top 10. I highly recommend his autobiography; lived quite an amazing life right smack dab in the middle of the most pivotal event of the 20th century.

[Ambling Alp]

The following would have to be ranked ahead of him:

Ali,Louis, Foreman,Johnson,Frazier,Holmes, Holyfield, Lewis,Marciano,Dempsey ,Jeffries, Tunney,Liston, and Tyson. That's 14 guys, so #15 is as high as you could go and that is probably pushing it.

After the previously mentioned group there is another group (most mid-level champions) of several guys that roughly even :
Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Langford,Jeannette,McVey, Wills,Sharkey, Baer,Charles,Walcott, Patterson,Norton, and Bowe. He belongs somewhere in with them.

[dempseyfire]

At heavyweight I'd put Schmeling over Tunney, who is IMO should be ranked overall as one of the 3 greatest light heavyweights of all-time.

[The Great John L]

Good grief, 'title defenses' in this day and age mean next to diddly squat. Just the one victory over a close to peak Louis absolutely sh^ts on anything Wlad has ever done in his life.

One victory, no matter who the opponent is can be compared to a lengthy resume of wins over world class competition. On any given night upsets can happen for a variety of reasons, but a sustained list of performances over top competition is a much more impressive accomplishment. Of course Schmeling had a lot more on his resume than the Louis upset.

Having said that, I can't say that Wlad's resume represents "a sustained list of performances over top competition", but I do believe that the 6-1 190 pound Schmeling would have had a very difficult time reaching Wlad's chin.

I've got Schmeling 23rd in my rankings, although I can see why others would place him higher.

[Ambling Alp]

Schmeling also did beat Risko and Uzcudun. Byrd is about the only one worth mentioning that Klitschko ever beat. Of course you also have to look at the losses. Schmeling did look bad against Baer and the loss to Hamas somehow always gets overlooked. However, Klitschko had monumental meltdowns against Purrity, Sanders and Brewster.

You have to weigh the key wins vs the losses. Schmeling had the edge over Klitschko both ways.

I know people don't don't think Tunney beat enough heavyweights but he actually fought quite a few. Heeney was arguably the 2nd best heavyweight in the world and Tunney beat him easily. He also beat Risko.

[The Great John L]

You have to weigh the key wins vs the losses. Schmeling had the edge over Klitschko both ways.

Alp, how would you see a matchup of Max and Wlad? I can see someone giving Max the edge in quality of opposition, but don't you think that Max would have a very difficult time reaching Wlad? While we all like to recognize the greater talent depth of past eras, shouldn't we also be somewhat objective and realize that a 6-1 190 lb HW who never fought anyone over 210 would have had one helluva time with a 6-6 240 lb guy who knew how to use his height and reach?

[Ambling Alp]

You would think that he probably would have some trouble reaching Klitschko. Actually Lamon Brewster was just a little taller and his reach was just an inch longer than Schmeling. Corrie Sanders was 3 inches taller but didn't have much of a longer reach than Schmeling.

However, over the course of several rounds, Schmeling is probably going to get to him at some point. And Klitschko has no chin.
Not to say Klitschko would have no chance. If he managed to hurt Schmeling before he got hurt himself, I could see him taking Schmeling out. (Both of these guys were clueless when they got hurt.)
However, more often than not, I think Schmeling would win this.

[The Great John L]

You would think that he probably would have some trouble reaching Klitschko. Actually Lamon Brewster was just a little taller and his reach was just an inch longer than Schmeling. Corrie Sanders was 3 inches taller but didn't have much of a longer reach than Schmeling.

However, over the course of several rounds, Schmeling is probably going to get to him at some point. And Klitschko has no chin.
Not to say Klitschko would have no chance. If he managed to hurt Schmeling before he got hurt himself, I could see him taking Schmeling out. (Both of these guys were clueless when they got hurt.)
However, more often than not, I think Schmeling would win this.

Well, those guys had experience with monster size fighters and Schmeling did not, so I still find it hard to see Schmeling, with zero experience against a tall and very heavy fighter, beating either Klitschko. Plus, you're focusing on Wlads bad fights, which is natural. He clearly changed his style after the Brewster fight and now fights very cautious, making him a very difficult target for guys that are his own size, let alone shorter much lighter opponents.

While I pretty much always favor the older era fighters, because I firmly believe the top fighters were more experienced and more skilled, this is a perfect example of me being miffed as to how anyone could legitimately see the older fighter winning. Schmeling was a very good fighter, but he wasn’t blindingly fast, he wasn’t a massive puncher, and he wasn’t a relentless swarmer. He simply didn’t possess the unique skills that a smaller HW like a Frazier or a Dempsey possessed that would give them a chance at overcoming a massive size advantage.

[Ambling Alp]

Trye, Schmeling didn't have expierence fighting huge fighters like that becasue there weren't very many in his day. however, I think he could adapt; Louis never fought anyone near the size of Carnera before he fought Primo.

Yes I am focusing on Klitschko's bad fights; I think you have to. He basically hasn't fought hardly anyone decent in his career. What fights can you focus on? tony Thomas, Calvin Brock, Haye, McCormeck? None really prove very much.
Not entirely his fault because in the last 8-10 years there really hasn't been anyone decent to fight. Though there were a still a few decent heavyweights around earlier in his career than he never met.

I relize that he fights at a much slower pace than he used to. That has helped cover up his chin and stamina problems. He can get away with that against weak competition. Against someone like Schmeling? I don't know.
I agree that Schmeling was no Frazier or Dempsey. However, he wouldn't have to have a chance.

He wasn't blindingly fast; but he wouldn't have to be. He certainly would have a significant speed advantage over Klitschko.
He wasn't a massive puncher; but again he would have to be. He certainly could hit hard enought to hurt Klitschko. Schmeling was at least as hard as a puncher as Brewster and Sanders, and way harder than Ross Purrity. Schmeling could hit harder than Samuel Peter who has Klitschko in big trouble.
Schmeling wasn't a relentless swarmer, but he was active enough.

I guess you can look at this in different ways. I agree that Klitschko would have a hughe size advantage and this could provide probalems for Schmeling.
However, look at it the other way; Schemling would present problems for Klitschko. He never fought anyone with Schmeling all-around ability. Schmeling has good boxing skills, good power, decent chin, wasn't predictable.

As for old timers vs older fights; I know some people favor guys from many years ago. Other people go with more modern fighters.
I have always conisdered myself in the middle. (I actually have a slightly lower opinion of Schmeling than many people.)
Sometimes the Old time fighter was better, sometimes the more modern fighter.
I do think the heavyweight division has been horrendous since Lewis retired.

[HomicideHenry]

I think Klitschko has improved so much since then, that the numbers just dont lie, I cant think of one guy since then who has won a round from him, let alone looked good against him. 20 plus title defenses against moderately good heavyweights isnt no lie. Schmeling is just too small I think, too methodical, to really pose a threat to Klitschko. But thats just my opinion.

[dempseyfire]

You would think that he probably would have some trouble reaching Klitschko. Actually Lamon Brewster was just a little taller and his reach was just an inch longer than Schmeling. Corrie Sanders was 3 inches taller but didn't have much of a longer reach than Schmeling.

However, over the course of several rounds, Schmeling is probably going to get to him at some point. And Klitschko has no chin.
Not to say Klitschko would have no chance. If he managed to hurt Schmeling before he got hurt himself, I could see him taking Schmeling out. (Both of these guys were clueless when they got hurt.)
However, more often than not, I think Schmeling would win this.

Well, those guys had experience with monster size fighters and Schmeling did not, so I still find it hard to see Schmeling, with zero experience against a tall and very heavy fighter, beating either Klitschko. Plus, you're focusing on Wlads bad fights, which is natural. He clearly changed his style after the Brewster fight and now fights very cautious, making him a very difficult target for guys that are his own size, let alone shorter much lighter opponents.

While I pretty much always favor the older era fighters, because I firmly believe the top fighters were more experienced and more skilled, this is a perfect example of me being miffed as to how anyone could legitimately see the older fighter winning. Schmeling was a very good fighter, but he wasn’t blindingly fast, he wasn’t a massive puncher, and he wasn’t a relentless swarmer. He simply didn’t possess the unique skills that a smaller HW like a Frazier or a Dempsey possessed that would give them a chance at overcoming a massive size advantage.

Schmeling at his best had very fast hands and certainly enough power in his right cross to take Klitschko out. He also in his 1928-32 peak fought much more aggressively a la Dempsey than his later incarnation that beat Louis (who because of older legs was more of a patient counter-puncher). Given the peak Schmeling was not naturally any smaller than the likes of Haye and Ibragimov who gave Wlad problems (Wlad was petrified of both and won close rounds by just landing a few more jabs) and who both were technically very flawed, I can see the peak aggressive Schmeling using a good mix of aggression and countering to take Klitschko out of his comfort zone. I'd agree the later mid 30s version of Max loses to Wlad by decision.

[HomicideHenry]

You would think that he probably would have some trouble reaching Klitschko. Actually Lamon Brewster was just a little taller and his reach was just an inch longer than Schmeling. Corrie Sanders was 3 inches taller but didn't have much of a longer reach than Schmeling.

However, over the course of several rounds, Schmeling is probably going to get to him at some point. And Klitschko has no chin.
Not to say Klitschko would have no chance. If he managed to hurt Schmeling before he got hurt himself, I could see him taking Schmeling out. (Both of these guys were clueless when they got hurt.)
However, more often than not, I think Schmeling would win this.

Well, those guys had experience with monster size fighters and Schmeling did not, so I still find it hard to see Schmeling, with zero experience against a tall and very heavy fighter, beating either Klitschko. Plus, you're focusing on Wlads bad fights, which is natural. He clearly changed his style after the Brewster fight and now fights very cautious, making him a very difficult target for guys that are his own size, let alone shorter much lighter opponents.

While I pretty much always favor the older era fighters, because I firmly believe the top fighters were more experienced and more skilled, this is a perfect example of me being miffed as to how anyone could legitimately see the older fighter winning. Schmeling was a very good fighter, but he wasn’t blindingly fast, he wasn’t a massive puncher, and he wasn’t a relentless swarmer. He simply didn’t possess the unique skills that a smaller HW like a Frazier or a Dempsey possessed that would give them a chance at overcoming a massive size advantage.

Schmeling at his best had very fast hands and certainly enough power in his right cross to take Klitschko out. He also in his 1928-32 peak fought much more aggressively a la Dempsey than his later incarnation that beat Louis (who because of older legs was more of a patient counter-puncher). Given the peak Schmeling was not naturally any smaller than the likes of Haye and Ibragimov who gave Wlad problems (Wlad was petrified of both and won close rounds by just landing a few more jabs) and who both were technically very flawed, I can see the peak aggressive Schmeling using a good mix of aggression and countering to take Klitschko out of his comfort zone. I'd agree the later mid 30s version of Max loses to Wlad by decision.

Haye gave Vladimir problems?

[dempseyfire]

You would think that he probably would have some trouble reaching Klitschko. Actually Lamon Brewster was just a little taller and his reach was just an inch longer than Schmeling. Corrie Sanders was 3 inches taller but didn't have much of a longer reach than Schmeling.

However, over the course of several rounds, Schmeling is probably going to get to him at some point. And Klitschko has no chin.
Not to say Klitschko would have no chance. If he managed to hurt Schmeling before he got hurt himself, I could see him taking Schmeling out. (Both of these guys were clueless when they got hurt.)
However, more often than not, I think Schmeling would win this.

Well, those guys had experience with monster size fighters and Schmeling did not, so I still find it hard to see Schmeling, with zero experience against a tall and very heavy fighter, beating either Klitschko. Plus, you're focusing on Wlads bad fights, which is natural. He clearly changed his style after the Brewster fight and now fights very cautious, making him a very difficult target for guys that are his own size, let alone shorter much lighter opponents.

While I pretty much always favor the older era fighters, because I firmly believe the top fighters were more experienced and more skilled, this is a perfect example of me being miffed as to how anyone could legitimately see the older fighter winning. Schmeling was a very good fighter, but he wasn’t blindingly fast, he wasn’t a massive puncher, and he wasn’t a relentless swarmer. He simply didn’t possess the unique skills that a smaller HW like a Frazier or a Dempsey possessed that would give them a chance at overcoming a massive size advantage.

Schmeling at his best had very fast hands and certainly enough power in his right cross to take Klitschko out. He also in his 1928-32 peak fought much more aggressively a la Dempsey than his later incarnation that beat Louis (who because of older legs was more of a patient counter-puncher). Given the peak Schmeling was not naturally any smaller than the likes of Haye and Ibragimov who gave Wlad problems (Wlad was petrified of both and won close rounds by just landing a few more jabs) and who both were technically very flawed, I can see the peak aggressive Schmeling using a good mix of aggression and countering to take Klitschko out of his comfort zone. I'd agree the later mid 30s version of Max loses to Wlad by decision.

Haye gave Vladimir problems? [/quote]

Yes. I gave Haye 3 rounds (1, 3 and 4) with 1 even (12th) and most of them were very close due to their respective inactivity. Haye landed more power punches and as I stated, most rounds both guys were afraid to throw much of anything, but Wlad won them by throwing more and landing a few jabs. Not an impressive performance by any stretch. Vs guys with some handspeed and punching power (Ibragimov, Haye), Wlad basically nullifies his own offense due to his fear of getting caught with something big. Considering Max was a far superior technical fighter to both of those and mentally tougher, I see him having more success than they did.

[HomicideHenry]

Afraid, or playing it smart? There's a thin line between the two. And imho, Haye was playing it scared. Cus Wladimir was doing the same ol' style he has done since the Samuel Peter fight. Jab, jab, jab, decides not to throw a right hand, jab. Haye wasnt that impressive with Valuev either except in that last round; and imho Holyfield did better than Haye did. Remember in the '60s everyone said Ali fought like a scared rabbit, when truth is he was being smart. Wladimir is playing it smart, Haye was just a chickenshit even though I would still rank him as the #3 heavyweight in the world.

[dempseyfire]

Wladimir threw far less power-punches vs Ibragimov and Haye than he did vs Peter, Thompson, Brewster II etc. b/c he was scared of the return fire. I wouldn't say it's "smart" considering he both a) Puts himself at risk for losing close rounds when he hardly lands any punches, as did occur several times and b) Let's the other guy stay in the fight longer than they otherwise could be. See Haye shake Wlad in the 12th with that right hand . . if David wasn't a little pussy and wouldn't have taken another 'dive' to the canvas asking for the ref's help after he landed that shot and instead really taken it to Klitschko, he would've had a chance to do more in that final round. Both guys fought scared, which shouldn't have been a surprise considering Haye fought the same way vs Valuev and Ibragimov did vs Briggs and an ancient Holyfield.

Ali in the 60s? Ali's work-rate in the 60s was insane . . simply comparing him using lateral movement to Klitschko going 6 rounds without throwing a combination is not really comparable.

[Jaclem]

.....alp....not having ezzard charles in your list weakens its credibility a bit..

[BoxBuzz]

Alp....what Jaclem said.

[Ambling Alp]

Here is what I said:
The following would have to be ranked ahead of him:

Ali,Louis, Foreman,Johnson,Frazier,Holmes, Holyfield, Lewis,Marciano,Dempsey ,Jeffries, Tunney,Liston, and Tyson. That's 14 guys, so #15 is as high as you could go and that is probably pushing it.

After the previously mentioned group there is another group (most mid-level champions) of several guys that roughly even :
Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Langford,Jeannette,McVey, Wills,Sharkey, Baer,Charles,Walcott, Patterson,Norton, and Bowe. He belongs somewhere in with them.

Are you guys saying that Charles belongs in the first group? I don't see anyone in the first group that he was as good as. There are several guys in the 2nd group that you could make a legitimate arguement for as being as good/better than Charles.