Who was the greatest european heavyweight?

theguvnor · Post by **theguvnor** » 20 Nov 2003, 11:57

Who was the greatest european heavyweight?
Not including Lennox Lewis

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 20 Nov 2003, 13:23

Out of those four I would say Max Schmeling by a long way. Johnsson for me was a very overated fighter (with a great punch) I think the 2nd and rubber match up with Patterson were more of a reflection of his ability than the first match.

Schemeling was an authentic world champion who faught and beat some of the best names in boxing history. He'll probably be most remembered for his 2nd fight with Louis, but lets not forget the 1st one.

The other two are not in the league of Johansson and especially Schmeling, infact Henry Cooper should be ranked ahead of them both.

Riddick Bowie · Post by **Riddick Bowie** » 20 Nov 2003, 14:14

bit of a short list matey...... but big frank would squash em all... as for henry cooper- please! besides hurling a haymaker left hook that could be seen coming half way round the world, what else was he good at? getting knocked out? getting cut to shreds? being annoying on those flu jab adverts?

theguvnor · Post by **theguvnor** » 21 Nov 2003, 00:09

Neil Wrote

bit of a short list matey

True it is a short list. but who else could i have listed?, Carnera?, Mildenberger?, Rodriguez?, Evangelista? , Zannon?, Eklund?, Damiani?, Akinwande? Klitschkos? Samil Sam?

One of the Klitschkos should have made the list, perhaps.
The reason I didnt include Lewis was no-one else would get a vote.

If Schmeling is the best from that list. Who else was better than him, besides Lewis?.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 21 Nov 2003, 02:10

i think it's schmeling all the way on this one, and for the reasons mentioned. it wasn't even a title fight, but his match with joe louisd overshadowed the heavyweight fights of the time, and his upset was one of the biggest in boxing history...at least up to that time.

he has someting of a bad rep..winning the title while on the floor .(.claiming a foul,) getting kayoed in one by louis in the rematch,(I can't see anybody surviving louis that night) and losing his title in a dull fight to jack sharkey...which most observers thought he won. there was also the nazi business, which has been discredited by recent history. but he was a good heavyweight...smart, excellent right hand..and beat top heavyweights in europe and the united states.

the other fighters listed are okay, but i don't think they were in schmeling's class.

back to louis rematch....remember he got up a coiple of times... god knows how.

Alister · Post by **Alister** » 21 Nov 2003, 05:35

Max Schmeling by far. He is a likely an all time top 15 heavyweight (champion at least), so he is certainly the best from Europe (not considering Lennox Lewis and that Bob Fitzsimmons was a middleweight).

Johansson is second of the four, but there is quite a gap between no. 1 and no. 2.
Bugner is an easy 3, Bruno I am not convinced is among the top 10 heavyweights of Europe at all. He is more a perfect example of the the line from the movie Pulp Fiction - "Personality goes a long way".

Alister

Alister · Post by **Alister** » 21 Nov 2003, 05:48

[quote="theguvnor"]

True it is a short list. but who else could i have listed?, Carnera?, Mildenberger?, Rodriguez?, Evangelista? , Zannon?, Eklund?, Damiani?, Akinwande? Klitschkos? Samil Sam?

Paolino Uzcudun was a good Spanish heavy in the 1930s.
I am not convinced that Frank Bruno was any better than Gary Mason.
Oleg Maskaev was at least better than Eklund and Sam.

Yikes! European heavies really suck, don't they?

The_Power · Post by **The_Power** » 21 Nov 2003, 13:47

Max Schmelling is by far the best heavyweight to come out of europe.

His skills are far superior to anyone else on the list, and he has victorys over great great fighter, including the Great Prime joe louis.

Mob · Post by **Mob** » 21 Nov 2003, 13:52

Max got ALL his accolades on his upset of a young up and coming Joe Louis........before that fight, he was average at best..........Mob

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 21 Nov 2003, 15:45

Mob wrote:Max got ALL his accolades on his upset of a young up and coming Joe Louis........before that fight, he was average at best..........Mob

I agree 100%...before the Louis UPSET, he was just a guy who won the championship on a foul...
...never could understand why he was in Fleishers' top ten...
But, he still may be the best of the Europeans....

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 21 Nov 2003, 20:21

Upon further consideration, I DO understand why he was in Fleishers' top ten...

A. He did upset Joe Louis...which is worth something...

B. Nat died too early in the '70's to be able to rate anyone from that decade properly (assuming that atleast 2 fighters from the '70's would displace the #9 & #10 spots on his list...Max was #9, I think...)

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 22 Nov 2003, 03:06

good point sweet one...nat picked his top ten so long ago that there were only about eleven in the running. well...that's an exaggeration...but he made his original list out when joe louis was champion, and i'm certain that he did have schmeling at nine. as years went on he was very reluctant to add more contemporary fighters. finally he did drop someone from the top ten to make room for marciano at the tenth spot. when some started trying to add ali to the top ten, nat said..."that would mean he'd be able to beat marciano...a ridiculous supposition."

well....i for one think marciano would touch gloves with ali before the start of the fight and that would be the last physical contact he'd make.

i've got his top ten in all divisions around here in several books...in the heavies he rated jack johnson first,and I beleive he had dempsey, jeffries and corbett rated above joe louis..and maybe a couple more....fitzsimmons perhaps. in all divisions he rated fighters from the earlier eras higher than later ones.
well..he did see most of them....but i do think he was a touch close- minded in adding fighters to his list....for one thing because that meant taking someone off...which he just couldn't bring himself to do.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 23 Nov 2003, 20:50

Jaclem wrote: well....i for one think marciano would touch gloves with ali before the start of the fight and that would be the last physical contact he'd make.

I would tend to agree...but...when they shot that 'computer fight' in 1969 (which hit the theaters in 1970, after Marciano died)...Ali was quoted as saying that his 'arms hurt for weeks' from Marciano beating on them during the 'sparring sessions' they used to put together the final film...

You never knew for sure when Ali was being serious...but I think he was serious about that...not that it means anything...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 24 Nov 2003, 12:37

What about Tommy Farr?..... fought and beat some top contenders and most memorably went 15 rounds with Louis and gave him a difficult time... Farrs main flaw was lack of big punch but he had great chin and I'd rank him pretty high on the list of Euro heavies.... he'd have beaten Johannson in my opinion.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 24 Nov 2003, 13:21

i forgot about farr. he lost matches in the states after his excellent stand against louis, but to some good fighters. i have a film of much of the louis fight and for a lot of rounds it was a jabbing contest with each landing a lot of them but louis's were harder. farr was as tough as a three dollar steak and it think would be competive with many champions. very game guy.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 24 Nov 2003, 16:17

Another one worth mentioning is Don Cockell... who was an excellent boxer... really a light-heavy but he was forced to move up to heavy due to a gland problem. But he managed to notch up some really good wins as a heavy and was brave and very fast despite bulk... he was subjected to a bad beating by Marciano who fouled Cockell outrageously and should have been disqualified... and I say this despite being a big Marciano fan... the fouls Marciano inflicted on Cockell definately affected his fight plan... and ruined him basically.

Holyfield Headbutt · Post by **Holyfield Headbutt** » 24 Nov 2003, 23:09

1)Max Schmeling
2)Ingemmar Johannson
3)Frank Bruno
4)Joe Bugner

This is actually a tougher decision than ya'll make it out to be...
Max had big KOs of Mickey Walker and Joe Louis, and that puts him head and shoulders above the rest. But, he had 10 losses, and a handful of them by KO (including a first-round flattening against Louis). His competition was of the untested European variety and his record isn't as good as Bruno's, who had half as many losses and lost to very good fighters like Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson. A win over Oliver McCall for the title says good things about Bruno, as does a handful of wins over good contenders like Quick Tillis, but in the end he lost his biggest fights while Max won the fight of his life. Max is #1.

Though...after thinking about it...I've realized that Ingo Johannson was better than Bruno too. Disregard my opening statement

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 25 Nov 2003, 08:20

Nat Fleischer had a huge bias toward old time fighters, he was hardly the most objective judge of fighters, and he had a huge ego.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 25 Nov 2003, 18:54

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Nat Fleischer had a huge bias toward old time fighters, he was hardly the most objective judge of fighters, and he had a huge ego.

Agreed...But he (The Ring Magazine) was the most influencial boxing media pre-1970's...and his top ten list was the most influencial...considering that (A.) He saw them all fight, and (B.) there were few other such lists in print...

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 25 Nov 2003, 20:37

You only have to have a look at footage of fighters from the past,
even as recently as Jack Dempsey, to see how ridiculous it is to say
that the greatest fighters were all from some golden age. The so called
golden age was filled with men flailing around like marooned halibut,
or launching themselves like scud missiles across the ring.

This is why pre 1920's boxing to me, belongs in a different category
to modern fighting. I think the best we can say is that those old timers

However, when we get to the 1930's and beyond, I think the fighters
in the majority probably had an edge in technique, because they had
so many more fights in which to develop compared to modern day
fighters. I think that the 60's and 70's saw just the right blend of
activity, correct training

I think there are so few really knowledgable trainers around today,
back in the 1950's there were a clutch of trainers around as good as
Roach and McGirt, who now stand out as being boxing magicians. Even Manny Steward for me has shot his bolt, he was great when he had a stable full of guys from amateur days at Kronk, but since then, he hasn't really achieved much except for tinkering with guys like Lewis and Hamed, to varying degrees of success.

Modern fighters have access to much better training facilities, nutrition, medical care, and have far more people looking after them, but they are not anywhere near as active, nor in general as well rounded fighters.

This is why a veteran like Medina, who is probably about 4 years past his best, is able to take a bull of a man like Harrison to school, because in almost 20 years as a pro and in training he has seen all of that before.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 25 Nov 2003, 21:09

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You only have to have a look at footage of fighters from the past,
even as recently as Jack Dempsey, to see how ridiculous it is to say
that the greatest fighters were all from some golden age. The so called
golden age was filled with men flailing around like marooned halibut,
or launching themselves like scud missiles across the ring.

This is why pre 1920's boxing to me, belongs in a different category
to modern fighting.

I can think of quite a few fighters from that era that could box (and didn't 'flail around like marooned halibut')...

Actually, I always thought that boxing is the sport that changed the LEAST, over the last 80 years...compared to baseball, football, even golf...or anything really...Other than not being able to be saved by the bell, boxing is still basically the same as it was in 1920, don't you think???

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 26 Nov 2003, 08:24

James, to be honest I'm quite appalled by your recent comments concerning the old-time fighters... ofcourse everyone has a right to there own opinion, but it really beggars belief that someone whom writes about boxing so much and obviously loves the sport can simply on the other hand dismiss whole generations of fighters as 'men failing around like marooned halibut or launching themselves like scud missiles across the ring' ......perhaps Jack Dempsey fought like that but do you really believe that the likes of The dixie kid, Kid Mccoy, Tommy Ryan, Joe Gans, Freedie Welsh, Benny Leonard, Jim Driscoll, Tommy and Mike Gibbons, Jack Britton, Kid Chocolate, Abe Attell, Willie Richie, Jim Corbett, Johnney Dundee... to name just a few only had this to offer in the ring?? as you well know, fighters at the turn of the last century and up to the 50s... thought nothing of fighting 20 to 25 times a year.... also at around the 1910s to the 20s fighters fought 20 to 40 plus round fights.... these guys wern't playing dominoes and if their skills were up to the standered you seem to believe they would never have made it out of the ring alive. What you seem to be describing is one of those modern tough man fights but men like Joe Gans were artists in the ring.... and the sluggers of the time like say Battling Nelson were hard tough men who would probably have a feild day if let loose against todays fighters.
Take a look at the records of Harry Greb, Jack Dillon, Battling Nelson.... these guys were not bums fighting like barroom drunks..... although they were probably far more fearless than todays lot.... no quitting a fight with a sore hand or eye cut or because they were butted.
How many fighters today do you think could go 20 or 40 rounds?.... how many could do 15 rounds for that matter?... many are so muscel bound today that they start blowing after 3 or 4 rounds
Modern day fighters have the advantage of funny diets and all that but this doesn't make them better fighters, far from it.... I believe if Roy Jones was put in the ring with either Stanley Ketchel or Harry Greb all the muscel building diets in the world wouldn't help him win.
Don't forget that the competition pre 50s was enormous and if you look at the amount of fighters around at the early part of the last century it just doesnt bear comparison to today.
As far as skill goes skill has depleted over the years.... how many boxers today use the feint?..... how many use the jab properly today??? ....mention to most boxers of today things like blocking and walking away and angling and fighting off the ropes and they think you're barking. Boxers like Driscole used the jab in a way which is rarely seen today. Many fighters today win titles before they can even really fight... look at Scott Harrison.... brought up on diet of hasbeens and as soon as he comes across a boxer with a bit of speed and savvy who gives him a few angles and movement he doesn't know what to do.
I try not to look at things in a black and white context and I still rate a good many fighters of today such as Floyd Mayweather who is a throwback in terms of defensive skills but on the whole if you have to choose between the eras Id definately pick the fighters of Gans era over todays lot.... compared with the fighters of yesterday, todays fighters are just playing at boxing.

Friedie · Post by **Friedie** » 12 Dec 2003, 17:42

Sweet Scientist wrote:
Mob wrote:Max got ALL his accolades on his upset of a young up and coming Joe Louis........before that fight, he was average at best..........Mob
I agree 100%...before the Louis UPSET, he was just a guy who won the championship on a foul...
...never could understand why he was in Fleishers' top ten...
But, he still may be the best of the Europeans....

nonsense !

Maxie had big k.o's over Johnny Risco, Young Stribling (his 2nd title fight) and Mickey Walker before that first louis fight....and if you mention that he won the crown on a foul (that wasn't his choice) you have to see that they robbed him 2 years later.....

Friedie · Post by **Friedie** » 12 Dec 2003, 17:54

Holyfield Headbutt wrote:1)Max Schmeling
2)Ingemmar Johannson
3)Frank Bruno
4)Joe Bugner

This is actually a tougher decision than ya'll make it out to be...
Max had big KOs of Mickey Walker and Joe Louis, and that puts him head and shoulders above the rest. But, he had 10 losses, and a handful of them by KO (including a first-round flattening against Louis). His competition was of the untested European variety and his record isn't as good as Bruno's, who had half as many losses and lost to very good fighters like Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson. A win over Oliver McCall for the title says good things about Bruno, as does a handful of wins over good contenders like Quick Tillis, but in the end he lost his biggest fights while Max won the fight of his life. Max is #1.

Though...after thinking about it...I've realized that Ingo Johannson was better than Bruno too. Disregard my opening statement

to schmelings 10 losses:

4 of them came before 1928 in the lightheavyweight division....
2 of them came in 1947/48 after the war......

so only 4 defeats in his prime ('28-'39)
3 of them against coming or current heavyweight champs (against Sharkey, where he was robbed, against Baer, shmeling's weakest career performance...and louis, a fight where the brown bomber was invincible).
the 4th defeat, '34 on points against Steve Hamas. one year later Maxie won the rematch by k.o......

Palais · Post by **Palais** » 25 Dec 2003, 20:02

Only a dreamfight Max Schmeling-Ingemar Johansson would decide.
A "hungry" Johansson would probably knock out Schmeling?
It seems like all Johansson is remembered for is his two losses to Patterson.
Forgotten are his KO wins over Eddie Machen, Henry Cooper, Heinz Neuhaus, Franco Cavicchi, Dick Richardson and other european contenders.
In favor for Schmeling is his longtime career and KO wins over Joe Louis, Steve Dudas, Steve Hamas and a few other americans.
But, an undisputed fact is that he won the World Heavyweight Title down on the floor, KO'd by a low blow.
Another point is that both Johansson and Schmeling, if they were fighting today, both would be world class Cruiserweights.
A tie Johansson/Schmeling would be fair.
8) Palais