BoxRec

DoubleM wrote:

DoubleM wrote:

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Rahman would destroy a 190 pound Schleming regardless

Request: reasons why.

Infact I bet I know your answer already - "he's bigger, he's more powerful."

Right... Schmeling was probably more durable, and much more skilled & intelligent. A bit faster, with far better stamina, and he hit easily hard enough to hurt Rahman. It would be a classic case of the very good smaller man beating the half-decent bigger man.

Besides, with modern "training" methods (as steriods tend to called in heavyweight boxing), Schmeling would probably come in at 220 or 230. He was 6'1, Rahman is 6'2. Not much of a difference.

Other than size, there is nothing Rahman can do that Schmeling couldn't, and many things Schmeling could do better. Like figuring your opponent out and exploiting his weaknesses. Like sticking to a strategy even if it hurts. Like rallying late in the fight. Like delivering the knockout when you need it.

Well, Pundit, I really don't like saying "if Marciano was around today he'd be two inches taller and weigh 210lbs" or whatever. It's a very unpredictable concept. And who's to say Schmeling would pack on an extra 30lbs just because he's around in 2006? I will just take the 190lbs Schmeling here.

In all honesty, all that bulky muscle on Rahman is a disadvantage. Take a look at Sonny Liston - now he was in good shape at 215lbs. Rahman has a lot of unnecessary bulk at 235lbs or whatever it is he weighs. It makes him slower, drains his stamina, and he's just not as sharp in general as he could be at a lean 215 or 220. It's the same case with a lot of these heavyweights today.

I'm not saying size doesn't matter - I pick Lennox Lewis to beat Rocky Marciano, for instance, for that very reason (among a couple of other reasons) - but I don't think size is everything. Rahman is not better than Schmeling in the first place, and he's definitely not better because of his muscles.

Max Schmeling is overrated, but he was way better than Hasim Rahman...

Rahman was lucky against Lennox Lewis, but Max Schmeling was the best boxer in hes first fight with Joe Louis...

none of them is in my top 20. of all time.

DoubleM wrote:Well, Pundit, I really don't like saying "if Marciano was around today he'd be two inches taller and weigh 210lbs" or whatever. It's a very unpredictable concept. And who's to say Schmeling would pack on an extra 30lbs just because he's around in 2006? I will just take the 190lbs Schmeling here.

In all honesty, all that bulky muscle on Rahman is a disadvantage. Take a look at Sonny Liston - now he was in good shape at 215lbs. Rahman has a lot of unnecessary bulk at 235lbs or whatever it is he weighs. It makes him slower, drains his stamina, and he's just not as sharp in general as he could be at a lean 215 or 220. It's the same case with a lot of these heavyweights today..

Rahman's best perfomance other than Lewis I was when he came in at 224 vs Holyfield which I'm pretty sure was his lightest ever, he could pobably have come in even lighter and been better for it. Tell Schmeiling he only has to do 12 rounds instead of 15 maybe he comes in slightly heavier thatn 190lbs but not by much.

DoubleM wrote:Well, Pundit, I really don't like saying "if Marciano was around today he'd be two inches taller and weigh 210lbs" or whatever. It's a very unpredictable concept. And who's to say Schmeling would pack on an extra 30lbs just because he's around in 2006? I will just take the 190lbs Schmeling here.

In all honesty, all that bulky muscle on Rahman is a disadvantage. Take a look at Sonny Liston - now he was in good shape at 215lbs. Rahman has a lot of unnecessary bulk at 235lbs or whatever it is he weighs. It makes him slower, drains his stamina, and he's just not as sharp in general as he could be at a lean 215 or 220. It's the same case with a lot of these heavyweights today.

I'm not saying size doesn't matter - I pick Lennox Lewis to beat Rocky Marciano, for instance, for that very reason (among a couple of other reasons) - but I don't think size is everything. Rahman is not better than Schmeling in the first place, and he's definitely not better because of his muscles.

I suscribe to all that. My main point was though that had they fought in the same period, the weight difference between Schmeling and Rahman would ahve been far smaller.

The Durable Dane wrote:Max Schmeling is overrated, but he was way better than Hasim Rahman...

Rahman was lucky against Lennox Lewis, but Max Schmeling was the best boxer in hes first fight with Joe Louis...

none of them is in my top 20. of all time.

Well, Schmeling is in my top 20. Today people tend to note only his upset win over Louis in 1936; but this overlooks that Schmeling was the world's #1 heavyweight between about 1931 and 1933, in a strong period of heavyweight boxing. In and before this period he accumulated wins over HOFers Jack Sharkey (on paper in 1930, for real in 1932) and Young Stribling (Stribling's only ever KO loss came of the hands of Schmeling) and world class contenders like Johnny Risko or Paolino Uzcudun.

Losing to Schmeling is no shame for anyone. Losing to McCall or Rahman is, at least a little.

For God's sake a prime Rahman lost to Ruiz. That should tell you how good he is.

Decagon wrote:A prime Schmeling lost to fighters I'd rank below Ruiz.

You probably have Schmeling's 1934 loss to Steve Hamas in mind. Well, by his own admission, Schmeling had a terrible year in 1934 where he lost temporarily what had made him a good boxer -- timing, reflexes, feeling comfortable in the ring. The boxing public thought Schmeling was past it.

But Schmeling got his act together once more, toyed with Hamas in the retrun bout in 1935 before knocking him out (and ending Hams' career), and then fought Louis. So it's debatable whether one should consider the 1934 Schmeling "prime". In my book Schmeling's prime was 1929-33, with a second strong run in 1936-38.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Lewis' only two defeats against McCall and Rahman were avenged in rematches, and the 'draw' against Holyfield was avenged in a rematch.

Yes, he avenged all his defeats and "draws". But he didn't avenge his "win" over Mercer...

Decagon wrote:One could also argue that Rahman got himself together after the Ruiz loss, scoring a string of victories culminating in what should have been a convincing win over James Toney.

Sure. One could. But there are too many shaky losses on Rahman's record to make for an overall ATG fighter. Besides, he didnt knock out Joe Louis after losing to John Ruiz.

..heartbreak kid.....if you're impressed by joe louis' "15 title defenses" you'll be even more so if you check his record and find he did...ah... a few more....than 15.

brown bomber....greatest of them all...

gregor wrote:

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Lewis' only two defeats against McCall and Rahman were avenged in rematches, and the 'draw' against Holyfield was avenged in a rematch.

Yes, he avenged all his defeats and "draws". But he didn't avenge his "win" over Mercer...

He didn't have to he beat Mercer anyway.
True it was close, but Lewis still edged it

Jaclem wrote:..heartbreak kid.....if you're impressed by joe louis' "15 title defenses" you'll be even more so if you check his record and find he did...ah... a few more....than 15.

brown bomber....greatest of them all...

Lennox Lewis has 15.

I know Joe Louis has 25 defences

But 15 is still one of the most ever for HW's

You don't see Holyfield and Bowe getting near to that

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:

Jaclem wrote:..heartbreak kid.....if you're impressed by joe louis' "15 title defenses" you'll be even more so if you check his record and find he did...ah... a few more....than 15.

brown bomber....greatest of them all...

Lennox Lewis has 15.

I know Joe Louis has 25 defences

But 15 is still one of the most ever for HW's

You don't see Holyfield and Bowe getting near to that

If you count him winning the lineal heavyweight championship from when he beat Briggs, which most people do, he has 9 defences and the Rahman loss. If you count it from when he won all three belts vs Holyfield he has 6 defences. If your just counting defences of a heavyweight belt I believe Larry Holmes has about 18.

Lennox was a great champion and his stats show this but others have equalled or surpassed him in terms of achievements.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:

Jaclem wrote:..heartbreak kid.....if you're impressed by joe louis' "15 title defenses" you'll be even more so if you check his record and find he did...ah... a few more....than 15.

brown bomber....greatest of them all...

Lennox Lewis has 15.

I know Joe Louis has 25 defences

But 15 is still one of the most ever for HW's

You don't see Holyfield and Bowe getting near to that

As you spend longer on this forum you realise that most of the posters on here underrate Lewis and dont give him the credit he deserves. Is that because hes not American? He was clearly the best heavyweight of a strong generation, but all they do is knock him for his 2 losses, which as you rightly point out were savagely avenged. Lewis is definitely top 10 of all time but a lot on here wont recognise it..........cos he isnt American

pundit wrote:

DoubleM wrote:Well, Pundit, I really don't like saying "if Marciano was around today he'd be two inches taller and weigh 210lbs" or whatever. It's a very unpredictable concept. And who's to say Schmeling would pack on an extra 30lbs just because he's around in 2006? I will just take the 190lbs Schmeling here.

In all honesty, all that bulky muscle on Rahman is a disadvantage. Take a look at Sonny Liston - now he was in good shape at 215lbs. Rahman has a lot of unnecessary bulk at 235lbs or whatever it is he weighs. It makes him slower, drains his stamina, and he's just not as sharp in general as he could be at a lean 215 or 220. It's the same case with a lot of these heavyweights today.

I'm not saying size doesn't matter - I pick Lennox Lewis to beat Rocky Marciano, for instance, for that very reason (among a couple of other reasons) - but I don't think size is everything. Rahman is not better than Schmeling in the first place, and he's definitely not better because of his muscles.

I suscribe to all that. My main point was though that had they fought in the same period, the weight difference between Schmeling and Rahman would ahve been far smaller.

Pundit, that's pretty much how I see it.

Whne it comes down to it though Schmeling was just a far better fighter.

Decagon wrote:True, but there are also shakey losses in Schmeling's early career, many by knockout. In the end, Schmeling won 80% of the fights in his career, and Rahman won 83% or 84%.

True again. But then, Schmeling did not have an amateur career. Hence the early fights had to substitute for this, and the corresponding losses came when he was very young and very green. Just normal for a fighter at the time, not normal today where pro prospects need to pile up a X-0 record to attrack gain attention. A few more or Schmeling's losses came after WWII when he was in his 40s and fought only to accumulate the capital to purchase a Coca Cola distribution license (which made him a rich man later on). So comparing Schmeling's and Rahman win/loss percentages is really comparing apples with oranges.

Loo

Look at who Rahman won against . . .win/loss percentages in boxing mean very little.

We talk of Toney being a defensive genius . . watch film of a prime Max. He was just as skilled with the shoulder roll as Toney is. Add to that being in exceptional condition, very hard right hand, much faster than Rahman. It wouldn't even be competetive.

As you spend longer on this forum you realise that most of the posters on here underrate Lewis and dont give him the credit he deserves. Is that because hes not American? He was clearly the best heavyweight of a strong generation, but all they do is knock him for his 2 losses, which as you rightly point out were savagely avenged. Lewis is definitely top 10 of all time but a lot on here wont recognise it..........cos he isnt American[/quote]


Well said. Maybe they're just p*ssed that Lennox beat all their great american Heavyweight hopes

As you spend longer on this forum you realise that most of the posters on here underrate Lewis and dont give him the credit he deserves. Is that because hes not American? He was clearly the best heavyweight of a strong generation, but all they do is knock him for his 2 losses, which as you rightly point out were savagely avenged. Lewis is definitely top 10 of all time but a lot on here wont recognise it..........cos he isnt American[/quote]


Well said. Maybe they're just p*ssed that Lennox beat all their great american Heavyweight hopes

..heartbreak..sorry....i misread your post and thought the number referred to joe louis....i twas alot easier then to define title defenses.

regardless of what number is given to those of lennox lewis, i consider him an excellent fighter...had some lapses but when he was good he was superb.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:As you spend longer on this forum you realise that most of the posters on here underrate Lewis and dont give him the credit he deserves.

Not my experience. Please back up.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:As you spend longer on this forum you realise that most of the posters on here underrate Lewis and dont give him the credit he deserves. Is that because hes not American? He was clearly the best heavyweight of a strong generation, but all they do is knock him for his 2 losses, which as you rightly point out were savagely avenged. Lewis is definitely top 10 of all time but a lot on here wont recognise it..........cos he isnt American

Well said. Maybe they're just p*ssed that Lennox beat all their great american Heavyweight hopes[/quote]


Maybe, but what has nationality got to do with it? I'm British, but no way do I think a guy that was smashed by two moderates like McCall and Rahman is an All Time Great.

Collins2000 wrote:

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:As you spend longer on this forum you realise that most of the posters on here underrate Lewis and dont give him the credit he deserves. Is that because hes not American? He was clearly the best heavyweight of a strong generation, but all they do is knock him for his 2 losses, which as you rightly point out were savagely avenged. Lewis is definitely top 10 of all time but a lot on here wont recognise it..........cos he isnt American

Well said. Maybe they're just p*ssed that Lennox beat all their great american Heavyweight hopes

Maybe, but what has nationality got to do with it? I'm British, but no way do I think a guy that was smashed by two moderates like McCall and Rahman is an All Time Great.

And I for my part think Lennox is an ATG. Not in the league of Ali and Louis, and also a tad behind Larry Holmes or Jack Johnson, but in the ballpark of greats like George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston, Rocky Marciano, Gene Tunney, Jack Dempsey, Sam Langford, Jim Jeffries.

pundit wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:As you spend longer on this forum you realise that most of the posters on here underrate Lewis and dont give him the credit he deserves. Is that because hes not American? He was clearly the best heavyweight of a strong generation, but all they do is knock him for his 2 losses, which as you rightly point out were savagely avenged. Lewis is definitely top 10 of all time but a lot on here wont recognise it..........cos he isnt American

Well said. Maybe they're just p*ssed that Lennox beat all their great american Heavyweight hopes

Maybe, but what has nationality got to do with it? I'm British, but no way do I think a guy that was smashed by two moderates like McCall and Rahman is an All Time Great.

And I for my part think Lennox is an ATG. Not in the league of Ali and Louis, and also a tad behind Larry Holmes or Jack Johnson, but in the ballpark of greats like George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston, Rocky Marciano, Gene Tunney, Jack Dempsey, Sam Langford, Jim Jeffries.

Well it's only opinions and mine is that every one of those fighters you mention would have bitch slapped Lummox. The only question in my mind is just how big a bitch slapping each would have been. But that's just my opinion of course.