Walcott Vs Schmeling

[BoxBuzz]

Ok I did a search on this one and it seems it has never been discussed. Seemed like a good time based on some other circulating topics. I couldn't help but notice that both of them have more wins than Rocky Marciano.


Max Schmeling
Alias Black Uhlan of the Rhine
Hometown Brandenburg, Germany
Birthplace Klein-Luckow / Uckermark, Germ
Date of Birth 1905-09-28
Date of Death 2005-02-02
Age at Death 99
Reach 76”
Stance Orthodox
Height 6' 1
Trainer Max Machon
W 56 (40 ko's) | L 10 | D 4 | Total 70
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=9041


Jersey Joe Walcott
Birth Name Arnold Raymond Cream
Hometown Camden, NJ
Birthplace Merchantville, NJ
Date of Birth 1914-01-31
Date of Death 1994-02-25
Age at Death 80
Reach 74”
Stance Orthodox
Height 6' 0
Trainer Nick Florio
W 51 (32 ko's) | L 18 | D 2 | Total 71

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=11028

[theone]

Schmeling, UD or late tko winner over Walcott.
Walcott looked spectacular against an older shuffling Louis, a crude and over anxious Marciano for 12 rounds and a careless Charles in the 3rd fight, who seemed to absent mindedly walk into that Walcott left hook.
I see Schmeling fighting a very disciplined fight and using his potent right hand to keep Walcott honest. I can see Walcott finally sucumbing to Scmelings punishing 1,2's somewhere around the 11th round.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Walcott looked spectacular against an older shuffling Louis, a crude and over anxious Marciano for 12 rounds and a careless Charles in the 3rd fight, who seemed to absent mindedly walk into that Walcott left hook.

or how bout a old but still great dangerous joe louis in 1947, a ATG peak top 10 heavyweight of all time rocky marciano, or ATG top 20 heavyweight of all time ezzards charles who got caught with the greatest left hook and greatest setup of a punch of all time by jersey joe walcott



walcott close dec/ or mid rounds KO over schmeling but i can see schmeling



marciano was not crude. he was skilled and deceptive in his own way. MAX BAER WAS CRUDE. REX LAYNE WAS CRUDE, MARCIANO WAS NOT CRUDE. certainly not by the time goldman polished him up.

[pundit]

Prime Schmeling would likley beat prime Walcott, there is little doubt in my mind. Walcott was a decent fighter, maybe even a bit more than that, but he could only become champion because the previous crop of great heavyweights (Louis, Charles) was severely on the decent, and the next one (Marciano) wasn't up yet. He was an interim champ. Schmeling, in contrast, dominated a highly competitive period of heavyweight boxing - the early 1930s - and was strong and smart enough to beat prime Louis in 1936.

P

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Reply with quote
Prime Schmeling would likley beat prime Walcott, there is little doubt in my mind. Walcott was a decent fighter, maybe even a bit more than that, but he could only become champion because the previous crop of great heavyweights (Louis, Charles) was severely on the decent

charles was NOT on the decent in 1951. please stop bullshiting us pundit.

please provide sources charles was "severely on the decent" in 1951



a peak walcott beats max schmeling IMO in a close one

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

schmeling did not beat a prime joe louis

Schmeling, in contrast, dominated a highly competitive period of heavyweight boxing

schmelings era was not that good as u think. and schmeling did not dominate


walcott dominanted in equally tough era in the mid 1940s to obtaain his title shot over joe louis







joe louis of 1947 was still a great fighter, not peak but still great. the 1936 louis wasnt peak either

[pundit]

Reply with quote
Prime Schmeling would likley beat prime Walcott, there is little doubt in my mind. Walcott was a decent fighter, maybe even a bit more than that, but he could only become champion because the previous crop of great heavyweights (Louis, Charles) was severely on the decent

charles was NOT on the decent in 1951. please stop bullshiting us pundit.

please provide sources charles was "severely on the decent" in 1951

a peak walcott beats max schmeling IMO in a close one

Charles was on a slow decent since 1948. In end-1951 he had decended enough such that Walcott could beat him.

I guess this is the key difference. If you believe Charles was still top-notch in 1952, you'll rank old Walcott very highly, and by implication Marciano. If you don't, Walcott's and Marciano's appreciation suffers as a corrolary.

I don't know how one would provide "sources" about the speed of decent of a fighter - how exactly do you meaqsure this? I've read this as an assessment in various places though.

[The Great John L]

I think the 30’s were actually a pretty good period for boxing, including the HWs. But in their primes I would say Walcott was just a little too slick for Schmeling although it would be a close competitive scrap.

[pundit]

schmeling did not beat a prime joe louis

We disagree on this one and I frankly don't understand your reasoning.

Schmeling, in contrast, dominated a highly competitive period of heavyweight boxing

schmelings era was not that good as u think. and schmeling did not dominate

The eliminator tournament to determine Tunney's successor was one of the all-time highlights in HW boxing history, if you ask me.

"Dominate" in the sense of "was far and wide recognized as the best heavyweight" - of course this is true in the case of Schmeling. At least since the Stribling fight.

walcott dominanted in equally tough era in the mid 1940s to obtaain his title shot over joe louis

... while it is not true in the case of Walcott, not in any sense of the word. He fought close and disputed battles with challengers like Elmer Ray and Joey Maxim in 1946. Besides, there was still Louis, of course. Walcott was a persistent top-3 fighter in the mid-1940s - this would be the more accurate description.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

hahahaha the eliminator tournament was a joke. they didnt include fighters like george godfrey cause he was big dangerous BLACK fighter and no promoter wanted another black HW champ. in fact i have a newspaper article of them denying godfrey enter in the tournament.




tex rickard would only put godfrey in the tournament if he thought he could be beaten. in fact rickard thought about pairing up godfrey with knute hanson only if he thought hanson could beat godfrey. the tournament also avoided other dangerous black fighters like larry gains, who would have whupped tom heeney.

this tournament was a joke, they wanted no part of the dangerous black fighters cause they knew guys like godfrey would prob win it.


tunney never fought a black fighter, he completley drew the color line.


i rate tunney on the schmeling and sharkey level as a heavyweight, tunney is overated as a heavyweight.

We disagree on this one and I frankly don't understand your reasoning.

louis was a green 21 year old with only 2 years of experience. he still had a flaw of keeping his left low after jabbing. he had other rookie flaws. louis perfected these flaws after the schmeling fight and became a better fighter.


why do u think the 38 louis dominated schmeling so easily? this was a prime joe louis

... while it is not true in the case of Walcott, not in any sense of the word. He fought close and disputed battles with challengers like Elmer Ray and Joey Maxim in 1946. Besides, there was still Louis, of course. Walcott was a persistent top-3 fighter in the mid-1940s - this would be the more accurate description.

he beat joey maxim twice clearly and the papers reported the first maxim fight was a bad decision. new york times reported the first maxim-walcott fight "very unpopular decision"


elmer ray is a top 50 heavyweight of all time. in there rematch walcott knocked him down 3 times and won a clear cut decision over ray


walcott also during this period beat oustanding contenders like

lee q murray, jimmy bivins, hatchetman sheppard, joe baksi, tommy gomez, lee oma


walcott basically beat all the top contender in the division



tom heeney in comparison never beat jack sharkey, george godfrey, or larry gains. so heeney did not firmly establish himself the best contender out there


walcott beat the 3 best contenders out there murray, bivins, ray

[BoxBuzz]

bump,

more on this topic...

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 960#608960[/url]

[pundit]

bump,

more on this topic...

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 960#608960[/url]

You're asking a bit much in remebering a thread that has been dead for seven weeks...

[BoxBuzz]

I sense you feel disrespected.....please accept apologies...It's just a humble servants effort to consolidate topics when possible. In order that the greatest amount of readers will be able to share in the gestalt wisdom. You have been and will always be an honored and revered guest of the B.O.T.P.

[Jaclem]

..charles was actually declining by the time of the walcott rematches....and charles was not even prime charles when he beat joe louis. he was closer, of course to his prime than louis was...but he was no longer the fighter who was the scourge of the light heavyweights.

one problem ezzard had as a heavyweight......quote near verbatim...." i was never in peak condition as a heavyweight, because i always had to taper off training because as i really got into shape i LOST TOO MUCH WEIGHT." (CAPS MINE)

this is such a hard point to get across, so i've quit trying a few times but it keeps coming up. charles is alot like robinson in this respect....robinson was better against middleweights when he was at his prime as a welter....charles was better against heavies when he was at his prime as a light heavy. her was just so good that even at less than his very peak, he was still a marvelous fighter.

in addition to his size, look at the number of fights he was in before he became officially a heavyweight. unlike the "cautious" boxer he was called at the higher weight, he was an aggressive boxer/puncher and at the smaller wieght he was in a LOT of wars...he fought in one of the greatest eras of light heavies ever...and they took a slow gradual toll on him.


oh..yeah...this was about walcott vs. schmeling. ..interesting match up of styles ...i think each one would try to counter punch the other one. walcott trickier footwork...schmeling the shrewd calculator with probably the better chin. i think schmeling was a better fighter than marciano (whom i am not allowed to call crude, so i'll just say clumsy with minimal skills) so on the basis of the first walcott fight alone i go with der max.

yeah yeah.....louis was green when he fought schmeling the first time....but even then he was a devastating fighter who belted over most of the rated heavies.....he made max baer QUIT!!!....so schmeling victory was an outstanding achievement.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

i think schmeling was a better fighter than marciano

joe louis wouldnt agree with you

[pundit]

i think schmeling was a better fighter than marciano

joe louis wouldnt agree with you

Joe Louis said that Marciano punched harder than Schmeling, no more no less. Overall, this makes for a rather incomplete assessment of fighers' qualities...

Marciano vs. Schmeling would actually have been a very interesting matchup. Good puncher vs. good counterpuncher. Styles make fights, and Schmeling could have been unpleasant for the Rock, who struggled with far lesser counterpunchers like LaStarza.

[pundit]

I sense you feel disrespected.....please accept apologies...It's just a humble servants effort to consolidate topics when possible. In order that the greatest amount of readers will be able to share in the gestalt wisdom. You have been and will always be an honored and revered guest of the B.O.T.P.

Take it easy, Buzz....

[The Great John L]

Walcott looked spectacular against an older shuffling Louis, a crude and over anxious Marciano for 12 rounds and a careless Charles in the 3rd fight, who seemed to absent mindedly walk into that Walcott left hook.

or how bout a old but still great dangerous joe louis in 1947, a ATG peak top 10 heavyweight of all time rocky marciano, or ATG top 20 heavyweight of all time ezzards charles who got caught with the greatest left hook and greatest setup of a punch of all time by jersey joe walcott.

The greatest left hook of all time? Ali-Frazier I, round 15, or Robinson-Fullmer II, round 5, or Patterson-Johnansson II, round 5.

Weaver-Tate rd15

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

i think schmeling was a better fighter than marciano

joe louis wouldnt agree with you

Joe Louis said that Marciano punched harder than Schmeling, no more no less. Overall, this makes for a rather incomplete assessment of fighers' qualities...

Marciano vs. Schmeling would actually have been a very interesting matchup. Good puncher vs. good counterpuncher. Styles make fights, and Schmeling could have been unpleasant for the Rock, who struggled with far lesser counterpunchers like LaStarza.

max baer was knocked out by far less fighters in max baer. baer was much more unskilled and much more crude than marciano. it works both ways



marciano completley dominated and knocked out roland in 11. i might add roland also moved on his feet much more than schmeling did. schmeling stayed in there to fight. marciano would smash schmeling around the block like max baer did.

[pundit]

joe louis wouldnt agree with you

Joe Louis said that Marciano punched harder than Schmeling, no more no less. Overall, this makes for a rather incomplete assessment of fighers' qualities...

Marciano vs. Schmeling would actually have been a very interesting matchup. Good puncher vs. good counterpuncher. Styles make fights, and Schmeling could have been unpleasant for the Rock, who struggled with far lesser counterpunchers like LaStarza.

max baer was knocked out by far less fighters in max baer. baer was much more unskilled and much more crude than marciano. it works both ways

marciano completley dominated and knocked out roland in 11. i might add roland also moved on his feet much more than schmeling did. schmeling stayed in there to fight. marciano would smash schmeling around the block like max baer did.

Aren't you the one who says Schmeling would easily have won a refight against Baer?

[Roco]

Louis was raw when he lost to Schmeling. I certainly think Walcott would have been capable of beating Schmeling and vice versa. If they fought 4 times then I see two wins each.

[witherspoon]

bump,

more on this topic...

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 960#608960[/url]

You're asking a bit much in remebering a thread that has been dead for seven weeks...

I remember this very well, even some of the individual posts from nearly six years ago.
Should I be worried?

[dempseyfire]

I don't think one can logically make either fighter a heavy favorite in this one. A very even matchup. I think peak for peak Schmeling may edge it with his aggressiveness (people remember the patient counter-punching late period Max, but at his late 20s peak he was more of a boxer-pressure fighter than counter-puncher)

[Jaclem]

...brockton buddy.....max baer was never knocked off his feet until he fought joe louis. when he was on the canvas he waved to the crowd, as he had said no one could knock him down. as it was he had enough sense to stay down at the final knockdown because he knew there was no point in going on and said, "the paid to see a prizefight, not an execution." the other two kos (i don't distinguish between kos and tkos) were late in his career were by the same man...lou nova.

i don't know what this has to do with walcott and schmeling and i forget what it was that triggered this response...all of which is well known anyway. :?? :?? :??