Schmeling or Patterson: Who do rate higher?

[DrDuke]

Schmeling's biggest win is prime Joe Louis covers every Patterson's win, while Patterson's wins over ageing, but credible Moore and prime Johansson cover the remaining wins of Schmeling.

Schmeling wasn't consistent during his prime, Patterson was.

Schmeling wasn't the man of his era, Patterson was. That's the most decisive factor with all circumstances.

Patterson rates higher for me easily.

Would Patterson be the man of his era if he was around in Joe Louis' day? No.

Patterson wasn't the man of his era anyway. Sonny Liston was.

Would Schmeling be the man if he was around in Patterson's day? Not if he fought Sonny Liston. But against Patterson's soft opposition? This is a man who squashed Joe Louis!

Schmeling would knock Patterson's brains out.

Billy Tully, I agree with you.

Patterson during his reigns was consistent in that most of the fighters he defended his title against could knock him down or out. Rademacher, Harris, Johansson, Harris, McNeeley, and Liston.

Patterson was the man of his era? What kind of era was it in the heavyweight division? An era in which the champion made no effort to clean out his division against several of his perennial his top challengers and, of the top challengers he did fight, he lost three times if you include both his fights against Liston, both of which were first-round kayos. Floyd only fought one challenger per year in 1958, 1960, and 1961. And and in 1957, 1958, and 1962, his second defenses were at best against lower-tiered contenders, even if you choose to call Rademacher a "contender."

Not all that impressive an "era," in my opinion. As to the match-up against Schmeling, Max had as good a right hand as Johansson and was a much better all-around fighter. He undoubtedly would have landed his right and very likely have knocked Floyd down. He was smart enough to come up with a plan against Joe Louis, and I think he would have been able to come up with a plan to defeat Patterson during Floyd's championship years.

Patterson's era wasn't the best, but so as Schmeling's one. The gap between Tunney and Louis was filled with a lesser talent. And Schmeling wasn't the best there.

Head-to-head, Schmeling definitely could KO Patterson, as Floyd was chinny. But Max could be hurt himself. Patterson was way faster and more explosive than the likes of Sharkey and Baer, for instance.

[Riddick Bowie]

Schmeling wasn't the man of his era, Patterson was. That's the most decisive factor with all circumstances.

DrDuke's argument that being the man of your era is the most decisive factor and that swings it for Patterson is what I took issue with (and which the esteemed doctor has struggled to defend, retrofitting history rather than conceding that he was wrong). One, such an argument ignores the fact that one era might be much stronger than the other - for instance, does anyone see Wladimir Klitscho having a nine year reign in the 1990s? Didn't think so.

But the main issue is Patterson was never the man. This simply isn't up for debate. He famously fought weak challengers and was protected by Cus. This is extensively covered in the print media of the time and in books today, such as Remnick's King of the World. Arguing that the dangerous opponents he ducked didn't sustain winning records is ridiculous because neither did his weak opponents, bar Ingo who knocked him down 7 times and KOd him! Liston cleaned up the dangerous guys and when Floyd finally fought him, years too late, he was demolished with ease, twice. It's hard to picture Floyd making it through a defense versus a humongous puncher like Cleveland Williams, given that he was down against feeble opponents like debutante Rademacher and Roy Harris, not to mention Ingo 7 times and Liston 4 or so times in two quickies.

Schmeling KOd Louis, and lost a disputed 15 round decision to Jack Sharkey. He got KOd by Max Baer but it's hard to imagine Floyd surviving a killer puncher like Baer, given how badly Roy Harris et al could hurt him. It's similarly hard to imagine Floyd surviving a precision puncher like Schmeling. Schmeling rates so might higher it's hard to believe this is being discussed.

[DrDuke]

Schmeling wasn't the man of his era, Patterson was. That's the most decisive factor with all circumstances.

DrDuke's argument that being the man of your era is the most decisive factor and that swings it for Patterson is what I took issue with (and which the esteemed doctor has struggled to defend, retrofitting history rather than conceding that he was wrong). One, such an argument ignores the fact that one era might be much stronger than the other - for instance, does anyone see Wladimir Klitscho having a nine year reign in the 1990s? Didn't think so.

But the main issue is Patterson was never the man. This simply isn't up for debate. He famously fought weak challengers and was protected by Cus. This is extensively covered in the print media of the time and in books today, such as Remnick's King of the World. Arguing that the dangerous opponents he ducked didn't sustain winning records is ridiculous because neither did his weak opponents, bar Ingo who knocked him down 7 times and KOd him! Liston cleaned up the dangerous guys and when Floyd finally fought him, years too late, he was demolished with ease, twice. It's hard to picture Floyd making it through a defense versus a humongous puncher like Cleveland Williams, given that he was down against feeble opponents like debutante Rademacher and Roy Harris, not to mention Ingo 7 times and Liston 4 or so times in two quickies.

Schmeling KOd Louis, and lost a disputed 15 round decision to Jack Sharkey. He got KOd by Max Baer but it's hard to imagine Floyd surviving a killer puncher like Baer, given how badly Roy Harris et al could hurt him. It's similarly hard to imagine Floyd surviving a precision puncher like Schmeling. Schmeling rates so might higher it's hard to believe this is being discussed.

Schmeling's era wasn't really better than Patterson's one. Jack Sharkey, who fought on par with Primo Carnera, and Max Baer, who was schooled by Jim Braddock, could have hardly been better than Archie Moore or Ingo. And Patterson's performances against his opponents were more decisive, than Schmeling's one against his, apart from Max' win over Joe Louis. Even that Ingo loss, which apparently makes ya horny, was avenged twice by a KO.

So, overall your post is recycling of your initial ideas, which had already been proven wrong, so it's pretty amusing to see ya imposing theories about someone somehow struggling to defend his arguments.

[Riddick Bowie]

Schmeling wasn't the man of his era, Patterson was. That's the most decisive factor with all circumstances.

DrDuke's argument that being the man of your era is the most decisive factor and that swings it for Patterson is what I took issue with (and which the esteemed doctor has struggled to defend, retrofitting history rather than conceding that he was wrong). One, such an argument ignores the fact that one era might be much stronger than the other - for instance, does anyone see Wladimir Klitscho having a nine year reign in the 1990s? Didn't think so.

But the main issue is Patterson was never the man. This simply isn't up for debate. He famously fought weak challengers and was protected by Cus. This is extensively covered in the print media of the time and in books today, such as Remnick's King of the World. Arguing that the dangerous opponents he ducked didn't sustain winning records is ridiculous because neither did his weak opponents, bar Ingo who knocked him down 7 times and KOd him! Liston cleaned up the dangerous guys and when Floyd finally fought him, years too late, he was demolished with ease, twice. It's hard to picture Floyd making it through a defense versus a humongous puncher like Cleveland Williams, given that he was down against feeble opponents like debutante Rademacher and Roy Harris, not to mention Ingo 7 times and Liston 4 or so times in two quickies.

Schmeling KOd Louis, and lost a disputed 15 round decision to Jack Sharkey. He got KOd by Max Baer but it's hard to imagine Floyd surviving a killer puncher like Baer, given how badly Roy Harris et al could hurt him. It's similarly hard to imagine Floyd surviving a precision puncher like Schmeling. Schmeling rates so might higher it's hard to believe this is being discussed.

Schmeling's era wasn't really better than Patterson's one. Jack Sharkey, who fought on par with Primo Carnera, and Max Baer, who was schooled by Jim Braddock, could have hardly been better than Archie Moore or Ingo. And Patterson's performances against his opponents were more decisive, than Schmeling's one against his, apart from Max' win over Joe Louis. Even that Ingo loss, which apparently makes ya horny, was avenged twice by a KO.

So, overall your post is recycling of your initial ideas, which had already been proven wrong, so it's pretty amusing to see ya imposing theories about someone somehow struggling to defend his arguments.

You've demonstrated that you don't know the era you're talking about, including really basic stuff like how Floyd was perceived at the time, how he was managed. You really showed everyone what cards you were holding in your opening post.

You also talk about fights you don't know anything about, such as Folley/Cooper 1, and now Sharkey and Primo. Sharkey made easy work of Primo Carnera, then lost in a rematch in a comically bad dive that is among the most notorious fights of all-time. The pair of them were hardly 'on par' as you claim. How do you not know this?

Could you explain specifically what I've said that you have proven wrong? Anything factual at all. Because I and others have pointed out specifically where you have your facts wrong. So far you've just said I'm wrong.

[DrDuke]

DrDuke's argument that being the man of your era is the most decisive factor and that swings it for Patterson is what I took issue with (and which the esteemed doctor has struggled to defend, retrofitting history rather than conceding that he was wrong). One, such an argument ignores the fact that one era might be much stronger than the other - for instance, does anyone see Wladimir Klitscho having a nine year reign in the 1990s? Didn't think so.

But the main issue is Patterson was never the man. This simply isn't up for debate. He famously fought weak challengers and was protected by Cus. This is extensively covered in the print media of the time and in books today, such as Remnick's King of the World. Arguing that the dangerous opponents he ducked didn't sustain winning records is ridiculous because neither did his weak opponents, bar Ingo who knocked him down 7 times and KOd him! Liston cleaned up the dangerous guys and when Floyd finally fought him, years too late, he was demolished with ease, twice. It's hard to picture Floyd making it through a defense versus a humongous puncher like Cleveland Williams, given that he was down against feeble opponents like debutante Rademacher and Roy Harris, not to mention Ingo 7 times and Liston 4 or so times in two quickies.

Schmeling KOd Louis, and lost a disputed 15 round decision to Jack Sharkey. He got KOd by Max Baer but it's hard to imagine Floyd surviving a killer puncher like Baer, given how badly Roy Harris et al could hurt him. It's similarly hard to imagine Floyd surviving a precision puncher like Schmeling. Schmeling rates so might higher it's hard to believe this is being discussed.

Schmeling's era wasn't really better than Patterson's one. Jack Sharkey, who fought on par with Primo Carnera, and Max Baer, who was schooled by Jim Braddock, could have hardly been better than Archie Moore or Ingo. And Patterson's performances against his opponents were more decisive, than Schmeling's one against his, apart from Max' win over Joe Louis. Even that Ingo loss, which apparently makes ya horny, was avenged twice by a KO.

So, overall your post is recycling of your initial ideas, which had already been proven wrong, so it's pretty amusing to see ya imposing theories about someone somehow struggling to defend his arguments.

You've demonstrated that you don't know the era you're talking about, including really basic stuff like how Floyd was perceived at the time, how he was managed. You really showed everyone what cards you were holding in your opening post.

You also talk about fights you don't know anything about, such as Folley/Cooper 1, and now Sharkey and Primo. Sharkey made easy work of Primo Carnera, then lost in a rematch in a comically bad dive that is among the most notorious fights of all-time. The pair of them were hardly 'on par' as you claim. How do you not know this?

Could you explain specifically what I've said that you have proven wrong? Anything factual at all. Because I and others have pointed out specifically where you have your facts wrong. So far you've just said I'm wrong.

Factual means idea + proof. So far you've just said "I'm right because I'm a profound old school era pundit and you don't know a sh!t about older eras".

[Riddick Bowie]

Schmeling's era wasn't really better than Patterson's one. Jack Sharkey, who fought on par with Primo Carnera, and Max Baer, who was schooled by Jim Braddock, could have hardly been better than Archie Moore or Ingo. And Patterson's performances against his opponents were more decisive, than Schmeling's one against his, apart from Max' win over Joe Louis. Even that Ingo loss, which apparently makes ya horny, was avenged twice by a KO.

So, overall your post is recycling of your initial ideas, which had already been proven wrong, so it's pretty amusing to see ya imposing theories about someone somehow struggling to defend his arguments.

You've demonstrated that you don't know the era you're talking about, including really basic stuff like how Floyd was perceived at the time, how he was managed. You really showed everyone what cards you were holding in your opening post.

You also talk about fights you don't know anything about, such as Folley/Cooper 1, and now Sharkey and Primo. Sharkey made easy work of Primo Carnera, then lost in a rematch in a comically bad dive that is among the most notorious fights of all-time. The pair of them were hardly 'on par' as you claim. How do you not know this?

Could you explain specifically what I've said that you have proven wrong? Anything factual at all. Because I and others have pointed out specifically where you have your facts wrong. So far you've just said I'm wrong.

Factual means idea + proof. So far you've just said "I'm right because I'm a profound old school era pundit and you don't know a sh!t about older eras".

I knew you would have nothing.

[DrDuke]

You've demonstrated that you don't know the era you're talking about, including really basic stuff like how Floyd was perceived at the time, how he was managed. You really showed everyone what cards you were holding in your opening post.

You also talk about fights you don't know anything about, such as Folley/Cooper 1, and now Sharkey and Primo. Sharkey made easy work of Primo Carnera, then lost in a rematch in a comically bad dive that is among the most notorious fights of all-time. The pair of them were hardly 'on par' as you claim. How do you not know this?

Could you explain specifically what I've said that you have proven wrong? Anything factual at all. Because I and others have pointed out specifically where you have your facts wrong. So far you've just said I'm wrong.

Factual means idea + proof. So far you've just said "I'm right because I'm a profound old school era pundit and you don't know a sh!t about older eras".

I knew you would have nothing.

Lol, another backed up argument. And what do you have?

You claim Patterson wasn't the man, but Liston was, everybody knew that. Try watching the HBO and Showtime documentaries about Sonny, dear pundit. The situation about the public perception of Patterson and Liston is demonstrated far more trustworthy there than in your super profound claims.

Apart from that, you've claimed tons of other nonsense, for instance, insisting that Folley-Cooper was a big robbery, while the article on this site doesn't describe it as such.

After all that stuff you keep trying to be smart-aleck super duper expert, the circus is missing ya, bruh.

[margaret thatcher]

schmeling has the benefit of being remembered most for a big win, patterson the disadvantage of being remembered for ko losses to the stars mostly


but overall patty had the better career, probably he's underrated

[Riddick Bowie]

Factual means idea + proof. So far you've just said "I'm right because I'm a profound old school era pundit and you don't know a sh!t about older eras".

I knew you would have nothing.

Lol, another backed up argument. And what do you have?

You claim Patterson wasn't the man, but Liston was, everybody knew that. Try watching the HBO and Showtime documentaries about Sonny, dear pundit. The situation about the public perception of Patterson and Liston is demonstrated far more trustworthy there than in your super profound claims.

Apart from that, you've claimed tons of other nonsense, for instance, insisting that Folley-Cooper was a big robbery, while the article on this site doesn't describe it as such.

After all that stuff you keep trying to be smart-aleck super duper expert, the circus is missing ya, bruh.

Yes I watched the HBO doc on Sonny in 1995. If you mean the American public perceived Floyd as a 'good guy' and Sonny as a 'bad guy' then you're conflating two things. Floyd and Cus were correctly criticised by the press for ducking dangerous challengers and defending against hand-picked stiffs, regardless of whether he was likeable. He empirically was a protected fighter and empirically was criticised by the media for it. Is your argument here really that Floyd was more liked than 'evil' Sonny, therefore it proves he was 'the man'? Really?

Lol at 'Boxrec doesn't say Folley and Cooper was a robbery'. I have no idea what it does say because fortunately my frame of reference is not limited to Boxrec.

[DrDuke]

I knew you would have nothing.

Lol, another backed up argument. And what do you have?

You claim Patterson wasn't the man, but Liston was, everybody knew that. Try watching the HBO and Showtime documentaries about Sonny, dear pundit. The situation about the public perception of Patterson and Liston is demonstrated far more trustworthy there than in your super profound claims.

Apart from that, you've claimed tons of other nonsense, for instance, insisting that Folley-Cooper was a big robbery, while the article on this site doesn't describe it as such.

After all that stuff you keep trying to be smart-aleck super duper expert, the circus is missing ya, bruh.

Yes I watched the HBO doc on Sonny in 1995. If you mean the American public perceived Floyd as a 'good guy' and Sonny as a 'bad guy' then you're conflating two things. Floyd and Cus were correctly criticised by the press for ducking dangerous challengers and defending against hand-picked stiffs, regardless of whether he was likeable. He empirically was a protected fighter and empirically was criticised by the media for it. Is your argument here really that Floyd was more liked than 'evil' Sonny, therefore it proves he was 'the man'? Really?

Lol at 'Boxrec doesn't say Folley and Cooper was a robbery'. I have no idea what it does say because fortunately my frame of reference is not limited to Boxrec.

Your 'frame of reference' didn't provide any source. Until the opposite thing comes, your claims gotta remain just your claims.

[Riddick Bowie]

I'm happy to do so. However, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who refuses to even concede widely known facts, such as the complaints about the quality of Floyd's title opposition, or that Cus was criticised for protecting Floyd, or that Sonny was ducked for years etc.

Do I really have to prove this on a forum called Boxers of the Past, in a thread about famous 30s, 40s and 50s boxers? Are these facts new to anyone else except Dr Duke?

[DrDuke]

I'm happy to do so. However, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who refuses to even concede widely known facts, such as the complaints about the quality of Floyd's title opposition, or that Cus was criticised for protecting Floyd, or that Sonny was ducked for years etc.

Do I really have to prove this on a forum called Boxers of the Past, in a thread about famous 30s, 40s and 50s boxers? Are these facts new to anyone else except Dr Duke?

And I didn't even deny the fact, that D'Amato was trying to avoid Liston. So, by b!tching about as if I denied it or didn't know it, you only prove more and more how cheap your talk is.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm happy to do so. However, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who refuses to even concede widely known facts, such as the complaints about the quality of Floyd's title opposition, or that Cus was criticised for protecting Floyd, or that Sonny was ducked for years etc.

Do I really have to prove this on a forum called Boxers of the Past, in a thread about famous 30s, 40s and 50s boxers? Are these facts new to anyone else except Dr Duke?

This forum doesn't have the as many knowledgeable people as it used to have, but I think most people on here know these things.
The real question is how does it affect his rating? What about the fights that he did have?
Patterson had his up and downs. He does have some good wins and some terrible losses. He had some big strengths and a glass jaw. (By great fighter standards)

Schmeling likewise had his ups and downs. Nobody ever wants to talk about the loss to Steve Hamas, but it happened. Just like the win over Louis happened. Schmeling had other nice wins that often get overlooked. He stopped Young Stribling and Johnny Risko, who were very hard to stop.

I don't think Schmeling was as skillful as some people think. He should have been able to outbox Baer but got hammered. Watching the Baer fight and the 2nd Louis fight, he didn't seem to react well when he got hurt. Instead of clinching or running, he just let the other guy continue to hammer him.

It is too bad that the first Schmeling-Sharkey fight is not available. That may have told us a lot about him.

[Cojimar 1946]

Schmelling seems to be underrated these days. I would say he was the second best heavyweight of his era which puts him in pretty selective company like say Ezzard Charles or Holyfield.

I would rate him the best heavyweight from 1929 to 1934 and the second best overall of his era behind Louis.

[margaret thatcher]

is this our boi tuan jim back

[Riddick Bowie]

I'm happy to do so. However, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who refuses to even concede widely known facts, such as the complaints about the quality of Floyd's title opposition, or that Cus was criticised for protecting Floyd, or that Sonny was ducked for years etc.

Do I really have to prove this on a forum called Boxers of the Past, in a thread about famous 30s, 40s and 50s boxers? Are these facts new to anyone else except Dr Duke?

This forum doesn't have the as many knowledgeable people as it used to have, but I think most people on here know these things.
The real question is how does it affect his rating? What about the fights that he did have?
Patterson had his up and downs. He does have some good wins and some terrible losses. He had some big strengths and a glass jaw. (By great fighter standards)

Schmeling likewise had his ups and downs. Nobody ever wants to talk about the loss to Steve Hamas, but it happened. Just like the win over Louis happened. Schmeling had other nice wins that often get overlooked. He stopped Young Stribling and Johnny Risko, who were very hard to stop.

I don't think Schmeling was as skillful as some people think. He should have been able to outbox Baer but got hammered. Watching the Baer fight and the 2nd Louis fight, he didn't seem to react well when he got hurt. Instead of clinching or running, he just let the other guy continue to hammer him.

It is too bad that the first Schmeling-Sharkey fight is not available. That may have told us a lot about him.

Glad to hear it. Thought I was going mad.

[DrDuke]

I'm happy to do so. However, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who refuses to even concede widely known facts, such as the complaints about the quality of Floyd's title opposition, or that Cus was criticised for protecting Floyd, or that Sonny was ducked for years etc.

Do I really have to prove this on a forum called Boxers of the Past, in a thread about famous 30s, 40s and 50s boxers? Are these facts new to anyone else except Dr Duke?

This forum doesn't have the as many knowledgeable people as it used to have, but I think most people on here know these things.
The real question is how does it affect his rating? What about the fights that he did have?
Patterson had his up and downs. He does have some good wins and some terrible losses. He had some big strengths and a glass jaw. (By great fighter standards)

Schmeling likewise had his ups and downs. Nobody ever wants to talk about the loss to Steve Hamas, but it happened. Just like the win over Louis happened. Schmeling had other nice wins that often get overlooked. He stopped Young Stribling and Johnny Risko, who were very hard to stop.

I don't think Schmeling was as skillful as some people think. He should have been able to outbox Baer but got hammered. Watching the Baer fight and the 2nd Louis fight, he didn't seem to react well when he got hurt. Instead of clinching or running, he just let the other guy continue to hammer him.

It is too bad that the first Schmeling-Sharkey fight is not available. That may have told us a lot about him.

Glad to hear it. Thought I was going mad.

You were right.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm happy to do so. However, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who refuses to even concede widely known facts, such as the complaints about the quality of Floyd's title opposition, or that Cus was criticised for protecting Floyd, or that Sonny was ducked for years etc.

Do I really have to prove this on a forum called Boxers of the Past, in a thread about famous 30s, 40s and 50s boxers? Are these facts new to anyone else except Dr Duke?

This forum doesn't have the as many knowledgeable people as it used to have, but I think most people on here know these things.
The real question is how does it affect his rating? What about the fights that he did have?
Patterson had his up and downs. He does have some good wins and some terrible losses. He had some big strengths and a glass jaw. (By great fighter standards)

Schmeling likewise had his ups and downs. Nobody ever wants to talk about the loss to Steve Hamas, but it happened. Just like the win over Louis happened. Schmeling had other nice wins that often get overlooked. He stopped Young Stribling and Johnny Risko, who were very hard to stop.

I don't think Schmeling was as skillful as some people think. He should have been able to outbox Baer but got hammered. Watching the Baer fight and the 2nd Louis fight, he didn't seem to react well when he got hurt. Instead of clinching or running, he just let the other guy continue to hammer him.

It is too bad that the first Schmeling-Sharkey fight is not available. That may have told us a lot about him.

Glad to hear it. Thought I was going mad.

I think we are on the same page, if not in complete agreement.
He certainly a true champion. He won the title fair and square. Title defense against Hurricane Jackson was legit. After that his title reign was not. How much you want to blame that on the IBC and/or D'Mato is arguable.

Would have been great if he had defended the title against Folley, Williams and Machen. (Though he did beat Machen later when he was not the champion.) Had he beaten those guys he would have deserved to be rated higher. He didn't.

He did have good big wins throughout his career and he should be given credit for that.

I think Patterson and Schmeling should be rated near each other.

[Riddick Bowie]

This forum doesn't have the as many knowledgeable people as it used to have, but I think most people on here know these things.
The real question is how does it affect his rating? What about the fights that he did have?
Patterson had his up and downs. He does have some good wins and some terrible losses. He had some big strengths and a glass jaw. (By great fighter standards)

Schmeling likewise had his ups and downs. Nobody ever wants to talk about the loss to Steve Hamas, but it happened. Just like the win over Louis happened. Schmeling had other nice wins that often get overlooked. He stopped Young Stribling and Johnny Risko, who were very hard to stop.

I don't think Schmeling was as skillful as some people think. He should have been able to outbox Baer but got hammered. Watching the Baer fight and the 2nd Louis fight, he didn't seem to react well when he got hurt. Instead of clinching or running, he just let the other guy continue to hammer him.

It is too bad that the first Schmeling-Sharkey fight is not available. That may have told us a lot about him.

Glad to hear it. Thought I was going mad.

I think we are on the same page, if not in complete agreement.
He certainly a true champion. He won the title fair and square. Title defense against Hurricane Jackson was legit. After that his title reign was not. How much you want to blame that on the IBC and/or D'Mato is arguable.

Would have been great if he had defended the title against Folley, Williams and Machen. (Though he did beat Machen later when he was not the champion.) Had he beaten those guys he would have deserved to be rated higher. He didn't.

He did have good big wins throughout his career and he should be given credit for that.

I think Patterson and Schmeling should be rated bear each other.

It would be great if he did -- I as a Floyd fan would love it -- but he didn't. Instead we got Rademacher, Harris, London, McNeeley, a three-year Ingo trilogy that should have been a one-and-done win for Floyd etc.

And because of all the knockdowns, genuinely too numerous to count, I find it impossible to imagine him surviving Cleveland Williams. Cus D'amato, evidently, agreed with me.

[cfang]

Had a look at their records and it’s not even close. Pattersons record is far superior. Schmelings record doesn’t have many good wins. Apart from the obvious he has the foul win over sharkey who he lost to and then stribling and a bunch of ok euro heavies and that’s it.

Patterson post Liston fights had some great results against quarry, chuvalo, machine, bonavena. His career much more impressive.

[Riddick Bowie]

Had a look at their records and it’s not even close. Pattersons record is far superior. Schmelings record doesn’t have many good wins. Apart from the obvious he has the foul win over sharkey who he lost to and then stribling and a bunch of ok euro heavies and that’s it.

Patterson post Liston fights had some great results against quarry, chuvalo, machine, bonavena. His career much more impressive.

I stopped reading at "had a look at their records".

[Ambling Alp II]

Had a look at their records and it’s not even close. Pattersons record is far superior. Schmelings record doesn’t have many good wins. Apart from the obvious he has the foul win over sharkey who he lost to and then stribling and a bunch of ok euro heavies and that’s it.

Patterson post Liston fights had some great results against quarry, chuvalo, machine, bonavena. His career much more impressive.

The "obvious one" over Louis is a big deal. Not the end all, be all, but it counts for a lot. A lot of people thought he should have got the decision over Sharkey in the 2nd fight. Uzcudun was more than just a "euro heavy".

But yeah, Patterson had some good results too.

[HomicideHenry]

Had politics not been extreme at the time Schmeling most likely would have been the first two-time heavyweight champion because he was supposed to fight Jim Braddock.

Had Patterson not been robbed he would have been the first three time heavyweight champion, when he fought Jimmy Ellis for the WBA title.

Patterson post-championship reign, in my view, became a superior fighter as he was overly protected while as champion.

Both Schmeling and Patterson are underrated and both to one degree or another were stereotyped. Patterson was considered an Uncle Tom, and Schmeling was considered a Nazi. Neither perceptions were true.

Patterson, from my perspective was the overall better boxer but a man like Schmeling was indeed a world class tactician who could punch hard.

Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all

[kasimirkid]

Dr. Duke wrote:

Patterson's era wasn't the best, but so as Schmeling's one. The gap between Tunney and Louis was filled with a lesser talent. And Schmeling wasn't the best there.

Head-to-head, Schmeling definitely could KO Patterson, as Floyd was chinny. But Max could be hurt himself. Patterson was way faster and more explosive than the likes of Sharkey and Baer, for instance.
[/quote]

Duke, I basically agree with your analysis here because it focuses on the head-to-head match-up. I don't think either fighter dominated his era and whether they did or not isn't really relevant to how a match between them would turn out. Like I say, we're on the same page, but I lean toward Max while you are leaning toward Floyd. Fair enough. You might be right.

[Ezzard]

Both on their best nights it has to be Schmeling. In a h2h he would KO Floyd. His right hand would be too much.