Max Schmeling vs. Tommy Loughran

[scorpio83]

15 Rounds Heavyweight Bout

Loughran would have his moment early in the fight by outboxing Schemling behind his quick jabs and good footwork, but Schmeling would come back in the later rounds by jabbing against him and nailing him with good counter hard right hands to take a decision. What do you guys think and who do you got?

[HomicideHenry]

Loughran was like the Usyk of his day. I think he would have given Schmeling a lot of problems and most likely would have won a fifteen round decision.

[scorpio83]

Unfortunately, Loughran wasn't a southpaw and not a puncher, but he could jab and use great footwork.

[elmersalsa]

Is the weight a factor in this fight?

Primo Carnera, a fighter with less skills than Max Schmeling, beat the great Tommy Loughran.

Was Carnera much more skilled than Loughran? I don't think so. Loughran couldn't deal with Carnera's weight and physical advantages. Wasn't Carnera about 6'5 and about 260lbs? But historians and video show that he was clumsy as fornicate.

I lean towards Schmeling to win this fight. Probably by late KO.

[HomicideHenry]

Is the weight a factor in this fight?

Primo Carnera, a fighter with less skills than Max Schmeling, beat the great Tommy Loughran.

Was Carnera much more skilled than Loughran? I don't think so. Loughran couldn't deal with Carnera's weight and physical advantages. Wasn't Carnera about 6'5 and about 260lbs? But historians and video show that he was clumsy as fornicate.

I lean towards Schmeling to win this fight. Probably by late KO.

Carnera was better than people give him credit for.

No, nowhere near as good as Schmeling, but because of his size he was able to stop Loughran's in and out darting tactics. I rate Carnera higher than I do Valuev.

[Ambling Alp II]

It was Carnera's jab that made the difference. Close fight which naturally Loughran thought he won. One of only two fights that we have been able to come up with where a great fighter under 200 lost to a guy over 220.

[elmersalsa]

It was Carnera's jab that made the difference. Close fight which naturally Loughran thought he won. One of only two fights that we have been able to come up with where a great fighter under 200 lost to a guy over 220.

The great Tommy Loughran wasn't a heavyweight to begin with.

[HomicideHenry]

It was Carnera's jab that made the difference. Close fight which naturally Loughran thought he won. One of only two fights that we have been able to come up with where a great fighter under 200 lost to a guy over 220.

The great Tommy Loughran wasn't a heavyweight to begin with.

No but Loughran defeated plenty of heavyweights in his career.

[Ambling Alp II]

If we cherry pick things; take a look at this:

Loughran beat Baer. Schmeling lost to Baer.
Loughran beat Sharkey. Schmeling lost to Sharkey.
Loughran beat Hamas. Schmeling lost to Hamas.
Loughran beat Uzcudun. Schmeling had a draw with Uzcudun.

[elmersalsa]

If we cherry pick things; take a look at this:

Loughran beat Baer. Schmeling lost to Baer.
Loughran beat Sharkey. Schmeling lost to Sharkey.
Loughran beat Hamas. Schmeling lost to Hamas.
Loughran beat Uzcudun. Schmeling had a draw with Uzcudun.

Max Schmeling knocked out the great Joe Louis. Top that!

[Ambling Alp II]

Obvioulsy Loughran doesn't have anything like that. Max Baer got crushed by Louis. How did he do against Schmeling?
Not saying Loughran would win, but it probably would have been competitive.

[elmersalsa]

Obvioulsy Loughran doesn't have anything like that. Max Baer got crushed by Louis. How did he do against Schmeling?
Not saying Loughran would win, but it probably would have been competitive.

I mean, Tommy Loughran got to be included in the top 50 greatest boxers pound per pound ever, doesn't he?

Can the great Wilfred Benitez match Loughran's record? Do you think he's better than Loughran?

[HomicideHenry]

Obvioulsy Loughran doesn't have anything like that. Max Baer got crushed by Louis. How did he do against Schmeling?
Not saying Loughran would win, but it probably would have been competitive.

I mean, Tommy Loughran got to be included in the top 50 greatest boxers pound per pound ever, doesn't he?

Can the great Wilfred Benitez match Loughran's record? Do you think he's better than Loughran?

He's well ahead of Loughran.

[elmersalsa]

Obvioulsy Loughran doesn't have anything like that. Max Baer got crushed by Louis. How did he do against Schmeling?
Not saying Loughran would win, but it probably would have been competitive.

I mean, Tommy Loughran got to be included in the top 50 greatest boxers pound per pound ever, doesn't he?

Can the great Wilfred Benitez match Loughran's record? Do you think he's better than Loughran?

He's well ahead of Loughran.

Say what??? Tommy Loughran beat much more quality boxers and had more longevity.

Benitez as great as he was, was done at 24. After the Thomas Hearns fight, Benitez didn't do a god-damned thing.

Loughran got way much more fights and beat more hall of famers.

[HomicideHenry]

I mean, Tommy Loughran got to be included in the top 50 greatest boxers pound per pound ever, doesn't he?

Can the great Wilfred Benitez match Loughran's record? Do you think he's better than Loughran?

He's well ahead of Loughran.

Say what??? Tommy Loughran beat much more quality boxers and had more longevity.

Benitez as great as he was, was done at 24. After the Thomas Hearns fight, Benitez didn't do a god-damned thing.

Loughran got way much more fights and beat more hall of famers.

Benetiz career was cut short because of high quality matches combined with extreme weight loss tactics because his weight fluctuated like crazy between fights. Never forget this was a kid who became world champion at 17 years old and nobody disagrees he's the "fifth king" after Leonard, Duran, Hagler and Hearns.

Loughran was good, damn good. But outside of the 175 pound title his achievements are pretty slim. He beat quite a number of good or near great or great men, but compare the available films of Loughran to the films of Benetiz. There's a reason why Benetiz was called "The Bible of Boxing."

[elmersalsa]

He's well ahead of Loughran.

Say what??? Tommy Loughran beat much more quality boxers and had more longevity.

Benitez as great as he was, was done at 24. After the Thomas Hearns fight, Benitez didn't do a god-damned thing.

Loughran got way much more fights and beat more hall of famers.

Benetiz career was cut short because of high quality matches combined with extreme weight loss tactics because his weight fluctuated like crazy between fights. Never forget this was a kid who became world champion at 17 years old and nobody disagrees he's the "fifth king" after Leonard, Duran, Hagler and Hearns.

Loughran was good, damn good. But outside of the 175 pound title his achievements are pretty slim. He beat quite a number of good or near great or great men, but compare the available films of Loughran to the films of Benetiz. There's a reason why Benetiz was called "The Bible of Boxing."

Benitez career was cut short at 24. Loughran at 24 was still fighting the best fighters of his time at the highest level.

Loughran fought middleweights, light- heavys and heavyweights. And had much more fights. Plus, he never lost his World Light-heavyweight crown.

Loughran was also The Ring Magazine Fighter of the Year twice.

And yes, he beat more hall of fame boxers than Benitez, and more world champions.

[HomicideHenry]

Say what??? Tommy Loughran beat much more quality boxers and had more longevity.

Benitez as great as he was, was done at 24. After the Thomas Hearns fight, Benitez didn't do a god-damned thing.

Loughran got way much more fights and beat more hall of famers.

Benetiz career was cut short because of high quality matches combined with extreme weight loss tactics because his weight fluctuated like crazy between fights. Never forget this was a kid who became world champion at 17 years old and nobody disagrees he's the "fifth king" after Leonard, Duran, Hagler and Hearns.

Loughran was good, damn good. But outside of the 175 pound title his achievements are pretty slim. He beat quite a number of good or near great or great men, but compare the available films of Loughran to the films of Benetiz. There's a reason why Benetiz was called "The Bible of Boxing."

Benitez career was cut short at 24. Loughran at 24 was still fighting the best fighters of his time at the highest level.

Loughran fought middleweights, light- heavys and heavyweights. And had much more fights. Plus, he never lost his World Light-heavyweight crown.

Loughran was also The Ring Magazine Fighter of the Year twice.

And yes, he beat more hall of fame boxers than Benitez, and more world champions.

Hall of Fame doesn't necessarily mean much to me, because once upon a time anyone who held a title no matter how ordinary they were were put in the HOF. Take Braddock for instance, Loughran beat him. He's in the HOF but when you look at his record does The Cinderella Man really deserve it? I don't think so.

Let's look at the resume, more clearly...

Loughran (as a heavyweight) managed to beat:

Arturo Godoy (1-1-1), Jack Sharkey (1-1-0), Ernest Schaaf (1-2-0), Max Baer, and Paulino Uzcudun (controversial). He also lost to guys like Steve Hamas, Primo Carnera, split wins with Kingfish Levinsky and Tommy Farr. So I'd say he was basically average overall.

Loughran (as a light heavyweight) managed to beat:

Braddock, Walker, Slattery, McTigue, Stribling, Carpentier, Delaney and Greb (1-4-1). He also lost to Gene Tunney, and McTigue.

So overall ten or eleven quality championship caliber names, half of which he lost to. The rest were contenders he split losses with. He was good, yes, but he couldn't do anything really with Greb and Tunney. He was never quite "the guy" in his own era.

Benetiz?

He beat Duran. He beat Maurice Hope. He beat Carlos Palomino. He beat Bruce Curry. He beat Antonio Cervantes. He beat Carlos Santos. Etc. The only losses in his prime were to Hearns, Leonard and Hamsho. Quite a resume. He didn't lose to ordinary or average contenders at higher weights like Loughran did.

[elmersalsa]

Benetiz career was cut short because of high quality matches combined with extreme weight loss tactics because his weight fluctuated like crazy between fights. Never forget this was a kid who became world champion at 17 years old and nobody disagrees he's the "fifth king" after Leonard, Duran, Hagler and Hearns.

Loughran was good, damn good. But outside of the 175 pound title his achievements are pretty slim. He beat quite a number of good or near great or great men, but compare the available films of Loughran to the films of Benetiz. There's a reason why Benetiz was called "The Bible of Boxing."

Benitez career was cut short at 24. Loughran at 24 was still fighting the best fighters of his time at the highest level.

Loughran fought middleweights, light- heavys and heavyweights. And had much more fights. Plus, he never lost his World Light-heavyweight crown.

Loughran was also The Ring Magazine Fighter of the Year twice.

And yes, he beat more hall of fame boxers than Benitez, and more world champions.

Hall of Fame doesn't necessarily mean much to me, because once upon a time anyone who held a title no matter how ordinary they were were put in the HOF. Take Braddock for instance, Loughran beat him. He's in the HOF but when you look at his record does The Cinderella Man really deserve it? I don't think so.

Let's look at the resume, more clearly...

Loughran (as a heavyweight) managed to beat:

Arturo Godoy (1-1-1), Jack Sharkey (1-1-0), Ernest Schaaf (1-2-0), Max Baer, and Paulino Uzcudun (controversial). He also lost to guys like Steve Hamas, Primo Carnera, split wins with Kingfish Levinsky and Tommy Farr. So I'd say he was basically average overall.

Loughran (as a light heavyweight) managed to beat:

Braddock, Walker, Slattery, McTigue, Stribling, Carpentier, Delaney and Greb (1-4-1). He also lost to Gene Tunney, and McTigue.

So overall ten or eleven quality championship caliber names, half of which he lost to. The rest were contenders he split losses with. He was good, yes, but he couldn't do anything really with Greb and Tunney. He was never quite "the guy" in his own era.

Benetiz?

He beat Duran. He beat Maurice Hope. He beat Carlos Palomino. He beat Bruce Curry. He beat Antonio Cervantes. He beat Carlos Santos. Etc. The only losses in his prime were to Hearns, Leonard and Hamsho. Quite a resume. He didn't lose to ordinary or average contenders at higher weights like Loughran did.

Holy cow! Don't move the posts.

Tommy Loughran beat guys bigger than he. He beat hall of fame boxers like:
Young Stribbling....he is a solid hall of famer
Max Baer....I don't know if people called him at least a great fighter or good. Baer is in the Hall of Fame. Was he deserving? I don't know.
What about Jack Sharkey? He is a solid hall of famer.

In my view, he didn't lose to Gene Tunney. That Non decisions bs does not go with me. Either you win or you lose or you draw. Non decisions are unacceptable.

Tommy Loughran lost the series with the great Harry Greb. He at least beat Greb once.

How about Mickey Walker? Wasn't he any great? I believe that you have him as an all-time great pound per pound guy. Anyone that disagrees raise their hand.

How about Georges Carpentier? Loughran also beat him.


So there's no way that a guy with that type of resume should be an average fighter. Either you great or mediocre. Loughran was very great.

Plus, Loughran was fighting top guys for at least 15 years! He was one of the truly top ten boxers of the 1920s. How can he be average,?

[HomicideHenry]

I said as a heavyweight he was basically average. That post Tunney era of Sharkey, Schmeling, Carnera, Baer and Braddock is generally considered one of the weaker eras in heavyweight history. He beat good names at heavyweight, yes, but he also lost to people only hardcore boxing fans would know about like Steve Hamas. When you weigh it all out he was basically the average or slightly above average contender at heavyweight.

As a light heavyweight he was one of the near great or great fighters at 175. Nobody can deny that. But being great or near great at one weight class and basically being incapable of winning a title beyond that weight class imho does hold him back, because at least Benetiz won 3 titles at 3 different weight classes. Hope, Duran, Palomino and Cervantes certainly is comparable or better than the likes of Greb, Sharkey, Baer, and Braddock.

[elmersalsa]

I said as a heavyweight he was basically average. That post Tunney era of Sharkey, Schmeling, Carnera, Baer and Braddock is generally considered one of the weaker eras in heavyweight history. He beat good names at heavyweight, yes, but he also lost to people only hardcore boxing fans would know about like Steve Hamas. When you weigh it all out he was basically the average or slightly above average contender at heavyweight.

As a light heavyweight he was one of the near great or great fighters at 175. Nobody can deny that. But being great or near great at one weight class and basically being incapable of winning a title beyond that weight class imho does hold him back, because at least Benetiz won 3 titles at 3 different weight classes. Hope, Duran, Palomino and Cervantes certainly is comparable or better than the likes of Greb, Sharkey, Baer, and Braddock.

We cannot compare Light-heavyweights in terms of pound per pound with others that competed below middleweight.

Loughran was a light-heavyweight champ. To win a crown at heavyweight now we're talking about a weight class that doesn't has a limit. You could be as heavy as you want.

Still, Loughran beat some excellent heavyweights: Young Stribbling, Jack Sharkey, and Max Baer. All hall of famers. If we want to say that Baer doesn't belong in the HOF, still, he was good enough to win the heavyweight championship.

Loughran beat Light-heavyweights: Georges Carpentier, Jimmy Braddock, Jimmy Slattery, and Mike McTigue. All of them champions and in the hall of Fame.

Loughran beat middleweights: Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Johnny Wilson, and Pete Latzo. Greb and Walker are in many people's all time pound per pound top 20 or 30 lists.

How could that be lesser than Benitez?

Benitez was a multi division champ.

Loughran a one division champ.

We could say that Benitez was a better champion.

And Loughran the better fighter.

[HomicideHenry]

Again I would point out the difference between the two men as far as film is concerned. Let's compare:



Loughran basically at the peak of his powers as a light heavyweight as he would drop the title to compete strictly as a heavyweight from this point onward.



Benetiz's greatest win as a professional basically the peak of his powers against Roberto Duran. He'd go on to win more titles after this.

I don't think anyone can really make a reasonable argument that Loughran boxed or fought better than Benetiz. Benetiz looked like a work of art in the ring. Loughran was a smooth operator, yes, but it's clear one had more abilities than the other.

[elmersalsa]

Rocky Marciano had less ability than Benitez and Loughran and is rated higher than those two.

So, ability is not the overall factor to measure another fighter's greatness or not.

Benitez beat Duran. I ain't gonna come for excuses for my favorite fighter. Duran lost and I dealt with it. He also beat Cervantes at 17 years of age. Which is a remarkable feat. He also beat Palomino.


Loughran beat Greb, Walker, Carpentier who probably is France's greatest boxer, and Jack Sharkey

The thing with Benitez is that he should have taken care of his responsibility. He didn't trained like he should. And that cost him.

Meanwhile, Marciano that never had Benitez's talent, trained and always was in great shape. He took the sport much more seriously than Benitez. So did Loughran.