Max Schmeling-How Good was He ?

[Caractacus]

Could he have done better ?

[Caractacus]

I think he may be remembered most (other then the disatrous re-match with Joe Louis in a very unwelcoming Gotham City)
as being the first HW Champion to win the title on a Foul
( even tho I believe he was ahead ).

[Caractacus]

I don't like how he carried his left tho sometimes .
He had it down near his waist in a defensive position with the glove bent at a unusual angle.
Looked a bit strange

[Caractacus]

A clip from LOVE IN THE RING (1930)

[Kalan]

Max Schmeling won the title on a flagrant low blow... It was deliberate and half the people in the arena saw it and gasped aloud... Schmeling was robbed in the Sharkey rematch... He was a better boxer and puncher than Sharkey.

Schmeling's legacy win was his KO of 24-0 Joe Louis as a massive underdog... He scored 3 knockdowns and a brutal KO.

Were Schmeling an American citizen he would have gotten his deserved Title shot at Braddock for that crushing victory -- and probably be noted today as the fist 2-time Heavyweight Champion instead of Patterson.... Instead they put Braddock on the shelf for 2 years, denying Schmeling his Title Fight and Louis got the next opportunity to fight Braddock.

Louis was kept extremely busy following the Schmeling defeat... Schmeling was inactive, denied big fights, and had 3 fights in the interim 2 years before he got his title shot... Louis fought 9 times in the interim -- including several World Title defenses before he fought Schmeling -- when they wanted him to fight Schmeling.

It was a little like Wilder-Ortiz as far as the timing went .... an aging and ring rusty Schmeling was dead meat.

[DrDuke]

Schmeling was pretty good, he was solid and pragmatic boxer, his rational style looked special in some sense considering the fact, in what era Schmeling had fought.

[Caractacus]

[Ambling Alp II]

Schmeling was pretty good, he was solid and pragmatic boxer, his rational style looked special in some sense considering the fact, in what era Schmeling had fought.

That seems to be a good description of him. I think his biggest weakness was when he got hurt. He seemed clueless against both Baer and Louis. Instead of grabbing on or running, he just stood there.
He was a good boxer with good power.

[gilgamesh]

Schmeling was pretty good, he was solid and pragmatic boxer, his rational style looked special in some sense considering the fact, in what era Schmeling had fought.

That seems to be a good description of him. I think his biggest weakness was when he got hurt. He seemed clueless against both Baer and Louis. Instead of grabbing on or running, he just stood there.
He was a good boxer with good power.

To both descriptors here

[Caractacus]

He was probably Old school German (born 1905)and may have thought such tatics as grabbing and running in a fight was for Sissies.

[HomicideHenry]

He was probably the best technician among the heavy weights of his era. However like many of the heavyweights of his era he was very inconsistent in his performances. When he was hot he was on fire when he was cold he was an iceberg. In his prime peak years he lost by first round knockout to a light heavyweight and this was around the same time he was battering Joe Louis and others.

[Ambling Alp II]

Homicide, you have to start doing some research.
The one-round KO loss to Gyspy Daniels was in 1928.
He didn't beat Louis until 8 years later, in 1936.
Daniels was not really a light heavyweight. In fact, he outweighed Schmeling.

[BoxBuzz]

I believe what I read in this thread is that someone here believes that Max Schmeling was a better fighter than Joe Louis.....and it is the FIRST fight not the second that is the defining fight between these two.

And just in case that contributor wants to "parse words" on this......I believe he said the best Max beats the best Joe.
Which COULD be explained by his belief that their styles are the reason for this....and NOT that Max was actually better than Joe. So I'm hoping I'm not over assuming anything here.

I simply never have never heard that before..... Although I never got Adolf's take on this....so there may be someone else who shares this opinion.

Of course in my young nearly 70 years I've never heard the words "Hand me that solar system". Or "Don't eat that Edsel", used in a sentence before before....but there is one contributor who may get around to both of these phrases before I shuck my mortal coil.

So....

Just for the record....does anyone else believe that Joe Louis vs Max Schmeling in their primes ends up in a Max Victory?
Or that the first fight was the more significant fight? I'm just trying to get my bearings, and make sure I'm not dreaming...or delusional here. Cuz I can't get a good reading on that logic in my current state of mind.

[BitPlayer]

I think he may be remembered most (other then the disatrous re-match with Joe Louis in a very unwelcoming Gotham City)
as being the first HW Champion to win the title on a Foul
( even tho I believe he was ahead ).

Though in the bareknuckle era I believe Joe Goss won the American HW title on a foul. I think he had a method of intentionally tricking someone into hitting him when he was on the ground to win on a DQ.

Sharkey also "beat" Fitz on a questionable foul in a fight billed for the heavyweight title (after Fitz beat Maher)

[Caractacus]

and don't forget Faintin "Phil" Scott.
and his numerous"victories" via disqualification.
who was the British Empire Champion.

[Caractacus]

Is it me or does Paulino Uzcadun's fighting style seem somewhat reminicent of "The ole Mongoose" ?

[Kalan]

About the only thing Paulino and Archie have in common is the cross armed defense - which got them both dinged a lot.. Like Ken Norton, they both got hit with right hands a lot... Moore was a bit more like Schmeling... He could counter well and throw smoother long range jabs, hooks, and right hands than Uzcudun and make clever use of the ring.

[Caractacus]

I think Max Schmeling would have been rememered more better.
If he had actually won the HW Championship by clear points victory over Jack Sharkey instead of a foul while on the canvas.
and had also awarded the second fight with him.
also if he had had his teeth capped.
IMOP He resembled somewhat British actor James Mason.
Just imagine if he had a voice and spoken like James Mason too (but with a German accent tho of course).

[Caractacus]

[Caractacus]

About the only thing Paulino and Archie have in common is the cross armed defense - which got them both dinged a lot.. Like Ken Norton, they both got hit with right hands a lot... Moore was a bit more like Schmeling... He could counter well and throw smoother long range jabs, hooks, and right hands than Uzcudun and make clever use of the ring.

Archie Moore had said that the "cross-armed" armadillo defense was taught to him by
by Monroe Harrison who was the amateur HW Champion there and coach of the Pine Street YMCA Gym
in St. Louis back in the 1930's.
So were did Monroe Harrison learn his style ?

[Sidney Carton]

. He was a better boxer and puncher than Sharkey.

Schmeling was a far inferior boxer to Sharkey.

Sharkey gave Schmeling a boxing lesson in their second fight.

[Kalan]

I believe what I read in this thread is that someone here believes that Max Schmeling was a better fighter than Joe Louis.....and it is the FIRST fight not the second that is the defining fight between these two.

And just in case that contributor wants to "parse words" on this......I believe he said the best Max beats the best Joe.
Which COULD be explained by his belief that their styles are the reason for this....and NOT that Max was actually better than Joe. So I'm hoping I'm not over assuming anything here.

I simply never have never heard that before..... Although I never got Adolf's take on this....so there may be someone else who shares this opinion.

Of course in my young nearly 70 years I've never heard the words "Hand me that solar system". Or "Don't eat that Edsel", used in a sentence before before....but there is one contributor who may get around to both of these phrases before I shuck my mortal coil.

So....

Just for the record....does anyone else believe that Joe Louis vs Max Schmeling in their primes ends up in a Max Victory?
Or that the first fight was the more significant fight? I'm just trying to get my bearings, and make sure I'm not dreaming...or delusional here. Cuz I can't get a good reading on that logic in my current state of mind.

You make a lot of fluffy sounds with little content... Nobody will hear ""Hand me that solar system" or "Don't eat that Edsel"" from anybody other than those traipsing through moonbeams on planet Oersberi at the edge of the Milky Way...

Schmeling was closer to his prime in his first encounter with Louis -- and Louis had already slaughtered Baer and Carnera... Louis was in his prime as well... Schmeling wasn't better....he had a skill that allowed him to take advantage of a Louis flaw, and he scored a major upset for which he's noted... Schmeling was messed over pretty good after that win.

Buster Douglas had a skill set that allowed him to beat Mike Tyson if he actually got his ass to the gym and watched his nutrition for one training camp.... Was he better than Tyson? .... On a night where it was important for him to be he was.

What boxers are doing is playing a game... You might win or lose a round....a round is not the fight... You could lose a lot of chess pieces and and win the game... What Schmeling and Douglas did was score a checkmate... They became world famous because they were World Champions and their careers didn't go that well particularly... That doesn't undo their achievement...attaining the Title... That didn't mean nobody could kick their butt on that night, but they were good.

[oogiebe]

I believe what I read in this thread is that someone here believes that Max Schmeling was a better fighter than Joe Louis.....and it is the FIRST fight not the second that is the defining fight between these two.

And just in case that contributor wants to "parse words" on this......I believe he said the best Max beats the best Joe.
Which COULD be explained by his belief that their styles are the reason for this....and NOT that Max was actually better than Joe. So I'm hoping I'm not over assuming anything here.

I simply never have never heard that before..... Although I never got Adolf's take on this....so there may be someone else who shares this opinion.

Of course in my young nearly 70 years I've never heard the words "Hand me that solar system". Or "Don't eat that Edsel", used in a sentence before before....but there is one contributor who may get around to both of these phrases before I shuck my mortal coil.

So....

Just for the record....does anyone else believe that Joe Louis vs Max Schmeling in their primes ends up in a Max Victory?
Or that the first fight was the more significant fight? I'm just trying to get my bearings, and make sure I'm not dreaming...or delusional here. Cuz I can't get a good reading on that logic in my current state of mind.

I have a feeling I know who, but Smellin', as Louis used to say, had a great game plan in the first fight. "I zinc I see zumthing' was what Max said and it was counter right hand that louis couldn't stop. Louis learned more from that fight than any other. Both in their primes is a no contest (Louis was still young the first fight) for Louis.

[Kalan]

Louis WAS in his prime for their 1st fight. He was undefeated and the best Heavyweight in the world without question.

Louis was still young and Schmeling was getting old for their first fight... Max beat a prime undefeated Louis who everyone picked to destroy him. Max was a massive underdog... They wouldn't give Schmeling a rematch or a Title Fight with Braddock that he earned... He was a rusted out old man when they fought again... They set the table for Louis and fed him Schmeling. Life isn't fair and it was never meant to be... They say the next life is fair -- so if you want fair you have to wait.

If Schmeling were an American he would have gotten the shot at Braddock.