BoxRec

RazorKO wrote: Well it was a choice between Schemling and Young for 19th, but I went for Young as in my view he beat Ali on a decision as well as having wins over Lyle and Foreman. He also should of got the decision over Shavers and maybe Norton as well.

Jimmy Young: W 34 (11 ko's) | L 19 | D 2 | Total 56
M. Schmeling: W 56 (40 ko's) | L 10 | D 4 | Total 70

sorry...couldn't resist. ;)

Here are the true top 20:

1 Muhammad Ali
2 Joe Louis
3 Larry Holmes
4 Jack Johnson
5 George Foreman
6 Sonny Liston
7 Lennox Lewis
8 Sam Langford
9 Joe Frazier
10 Gene Tunney
11 Rocky Marciano
12 Jack Dempsey
13 Ezzard Charles
14 Mike Tyson
15 Jim Jeffries
16 Harry Wills
17 Jim Corbett
18 Evander Holyfield
19 Max Schmeling
20 Jersey Joe Walcott

Decagon wrote:Jim Corbett over Evander Holyfield?!?!!?? Based on what?

Brain.

Friedie wrote:

RazorKO wrote: Well it was a choice between Schemling and Young for 19th, but I went for Young as in my view he beat Ali on a decision as well as having wins over Lyle and Foreman. He also should of got the decision over Shavers and maybe Norton as well.

Jimmy Young: W 34 (11 ko's) | L 19 | D 2 | Total 56
M. Schmeling: W 56 (40 ko's) | L 10 | D 4 | Total 70

sorry...couldn't resist. ;)

Most of Youngs losses came when he was past it and hooked on drugs, and even then he went the distance with furture champs Tubbs, Tucker and Dokes. He beat Foreman when Foreman was thought as invincible since Ali when Foreman smashed Frazier into semi-retirement, he gave Shavers a very good fight, only to be robbed with a draw and has wins over Lyle twice.

The Ali and Norton fight were also close fights and the only thing that may of cost Young the Ali fight was when he stuck his head under the ropes. Schemling however has one great win over Louis, and only to be brutalised in the rematch, Max also won the title on a low blow which to me isnt impressive when compared to Young's achievements.

RazorKO wrote:

Friedie wrote:

RazorKO wrote: Well it was a choice between Schemling and Young for 19th, but I went for Young as in my view he beat Ali on a decision as well as having wins over Lyle and Foreman. He also should of got the decision over Shavers and maybe Norton as well.

Jimmy Young: W 34 (11 ko's) | L 19 | D 2 | Total 56
M. Schmeling: W 56 (40 ko's) | L 10 | D 4 | Total 70

sorry...couldn't resist. ;)

Most of Youngs losses came when he was past it and hooked on drugs, and even then he went the distance with furture champs Tubbs, Tucker and Dokes. He beat Foreman when Foreman was thought as invincible since Ali when Foreman smashed Frazier into semi-retirement, he gave Shavers a very good fight, only to be robbed with a draw and has wins over Lyle twice.

The Ali and Norton fight were also close fights and the only thing that may of cost Young the Ali fight was when he stuck his head under the ropes. Schemling however has one great win over Louis, and only to be brutalised in the rematch, Max also won the title on a low blow which to me isnt impressive when compared to Young's achievements.

Seems you know rather little about Max Schmeling if you reduce him to the 1936 Louis fight, when a past-prime Schmeling pulled a huge upset.

Schmeling was widely considered the world's best heavyweight between 1931-33. He won the title becasue Sharfkey fouled him in 1930, but he confirmed that he was legit impressively in 1931 when taking out the favored HOFer Young Stribling -- who had never been down in his entire career. In 1932 he lost the title to Sharkey in one of the worst robberies in boxing history. Other victims of Max include HOFer Mickey Walker and top notch contenders Johnny Risko and Paolino Uzcudun.

This resumee has a totally different quality than Jimmy Young's.

I think you mean Mickey Walker, not Mickey Ward.

Ambling Alp wrote:I think you mean Mickey Walker, not Mickey Ward.

Certainly....

RazorKO wrote:

Friedie wrote:

RazorKO wrote: Well it was a choice between Schemling and Young for 19th, but I went for Young as in my view he beat Ali on a decision as well as having wins over Lyle and Foreman. He also should of got the decision over Shavers and maybe Norton as well.

Jimmy Young: W 34 (11 ko's) | L 19 | D 2 | Total 56
M. Schmeling: W 56 (40 ko's) | L 10 | D 4 | Total 70

sorry...couldn't resist. ;)

Most of Youngs losses came when he was past it and hooked on drugs, and even then he went the distance with furture champs Tubbs, Tucker and Dokes. He beat Foreman when Foreman was thought as invincible since Ali when Foreman smashed Frazier into semi-retirement, he gave Shavers a very good fight, only to be robbed with a draw and has wins over Lyle twice.

The Ali and Norton fight were also close fights and the only thing that may of cost Young the Ali fight was when he stuck his head under the ropes. Schemling however has one great win over Louis, and only to be brutalised in the rematch, Max also won the title on a low blow which to me isnt impressive when compared to Young's achievements.

...and half of Maxies defeats came when he was a 18/19 year old green lightheavy (3) and when he was a 43 year old veteran after an 8-year layoff after wwII (2). if not for political reasons Max instead of Paterson would have been the first Heavyweight to regain the title. Braddock fought Louis instead of Schmeling in '37 and therefore received 10% of Louis career-earnings afterwards. America didn't want a German Heavyweight Champion that time (1930 was a different situation).

Max was undisputed Champion when there was only one title at hand. I don't think Youngs achievements can be compared with that.

Friedie wrote: Max was undisputed Champion when there was only one title at hand. I don't think Youngs achievements can be compared with that.

Of course not.

pundit wrote:

Friedie wrote: Max was undisputed Champion when there was only one title at hand. I don't think Youngs achievements can be compared with that.

Of course not.

Young beat Foreman and Lyle, fought pretty much even with Ali and Norton, and most think he was jobbed against Shavers in their rematch. Not exactly the SAME as winning an undisputed HW championship and beating Joe Louis, but Young’s accomplishments certainly could be compared to Schmelings.

If you give Young a break and only count his best years (1974-1977) then he would probably belong in the top 20 and would deserve to be ahead of Schmeling. At his best, he was one of the best pure boxers in the histroy of the heavyweight division.

On the other hand, Schmeling was good for a much longer period of time. For his total career, Young doesn't deserve to be in the top 20.

Ambling Alp wrote:If you give Young a break and only count his best years (1974-1977) then he would probably belong in the top 20 and would deserve to be ahead of Schmeling. At his best, he was one of the best pure boxers in the histroy of the heavyweight division.

On the other hand, Schmeling was good for a much longer period of time. For his total career, Young doesn't deserve to be in the top 20.

Schmeling was widely recognized as the world's best heavyweight from 1931-33, a strong period of heavyweight boxing.

Even in his prime years Young is nowhere near the achievements of Schmeling.

Ambling Alp wrote:For his total career, Young doesn't deserve to be in the top 20.

Agreed

Pundit,
That's not really a fair comparison.

The early 1930's certainly wasn't as good as the period that Young was fighting in.

If Young was fighting in the 1930's, Young would have been the top heavyweight. If Schmeling was fighting in the mid-1970's, Schmeling wouldn't be.

Ambling Alp wrote:If Young was fighting in the 1930's, Young would have been the top heavyweight.

I guess that depends on the specific years. There was that guy named Louis during the 30’s. Of course, I think Young at his best would have been a VERY difficult fight for Louis. Or just about any other HW in history.

Ambling Alp wrote: If Schmeling was fighting in the mid-1970's, Schmeling wouldn't be.

Gotta agree with that!

Ambling Alp wrote:Pundit,
That's not really a fair comparison.

The early 1930's certainly wasn't as good as the period that Young was fighting in.

If Young was fighting in the 1930's, Young would have been the top heavyweight. If Schmeling was fighting in the mid-1970's, Schmeling wouldn't be.

I don't think at all Young could have been the top heayvweight in the 1930s. In the early 1930s Schmeling and Sharkey would have been ahead of him, in the late 1930s Louis.

More generally, in my book the 1930s are second only to the 1970s in terms of depth and quality of the heavyweight division. Over the entire 1930s I have Schmeling as #2 (behind Louis). Over the entire 1970s I have Young as #7 (behind Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Quarry; and just edging Lyle, Shavers, Patterson).

Being the #2 in the second-best decade should rank substantially higher than being the #7 in the best -- shouldn't it?

First of all, I want to calrify something I wrote earlier. I think Young would have been the best heavyweight in the early 1930's not the entire decade of the 1930's.

I don't think the 1930's was the second best decade in heavyweight history. Not only is it far behind the 1970's, it is behind the 1990's, the 1960's, and the 1910-1919 decade. It's not far ahead of the 1950's, the 1920's or the 1980's.

As for Young being the #7 fighter in the 1970's I don't quite agree with that. At his best he was better than Quarry and was about even with Norton. Schmeling would also rank behind Ali,Foreman,Frazier,Norton, and Holmes had he fought in their era.

Except for punching power, Young (at his best) was better than Schmeling in most areas. He was faster, much harder to hit, had at least as good of a chin, and had better all around boxing skills.

Ambling Alp wrote:First of all, I want to calrify something I wrote earlier. I think Young would have been the best heavyweight in the early 1930's not the entire decade of the 1930's.

.... and he would still have been behind Schmeling and Sharkey. Plus Young struggled badly with Earnie Shavers, so by no means am I certain that I would put Young ahead of Max Baer.

I don't think the 1930's was the second best decade in heavyweight history. Not only is it far behind the 1970's, it is behind the 1990's, the 1960's, and the 1910-1919 decade. It's not far ahead of the 1950's, the 1920's or the 1980's.

Strongly disagree. In the 1910s a bum called Jess Willard was heavyweight champion for several years. In the 1960s there was too little competition -- first Liston, then Ali dominating the plot. 1990s can be argued, as can 1950s, but I still rank the 1930s substantially higher. Louis, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Braddock, Schaaf, Carnera, Stribling, Levinsky, Gains, Uzcudun, Risko, Loughran --in terms of depth this is surpassed only by the 1970s.

As for Young being the #7 fighter in the 1970's I don't quite agree with that. At his best he was better than Quarry and was about even with Norton.

Neither nor in my book.

Schmeling would also rank behind Ali,Foreman,Frazier,Norton, and Holmes had he fought in their era.

NOT behind Norton.

Except for punching power, Young (at his best) was better than Schmeling in most areas. He was faster, much harder to hit, had at least as good of a chin, and had better all around boxing skills.

Prime Schmeling was at least as hard to hit as Young (unless you went below the belt as Sharkey). He had no obvious flaw -- good foot- and handspeed, great jab, superb defense, excellent timing, perfect stamina --and his counter-punching skills are top 5 ATG. So I don't know how you come to assess better boxing skills with Young. Plus Schmeling was a smart, thinking fighter who figured his opponents out and could change track in the middle of a bout if he needed.

I consider this comparison simply inadequate. Schmeling is a clear-cut ATG who wrote heavyweight history more than once, Young is not.

pundit wrote:Strongly disagree. In the 1910s a bum called Jess Willard was heavyweight champion for several years. In the 1960s there was too little competition -- first Liston, then Ali dominating the plot. 1990s can be argued, as can 1950s, but I still rank the 1930s substantially higher. Louis, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Braddock, Schaaf, Carnera, Stribling, Levinsky, Gains, Uzcudun, Risko, Loughran --in terms of depth this is surpassed only by the 1970s.

Hmmm, let’s see the 60’s had Liston, Ali, Patterson, Johannsen, Machen, Foley, Williams, Chuvalo, Cooper, Bonavena, Frazier, Ellis, Terrell, Quarry, etc. I could go on, but I won’t. I think this sounds better than the 30’s, but of course that just an opnion…

Ambling Alp wrote:As for Young being the #7 fighter in the 1970's I don't quite agree with that. At his best he was better than Quarry...

The mid 70's Quarry, yes. Prime Quarry would be a whole nother story...

Ring - Magazine Top-10 Anual Rankings say:


Jimmy Young:

1975: 2.
1976: 3.
1977: 2.
1978: 5.


Max Schmeling:

1929: 2.
1930: Champion
1931: Champion
1932: 1.
1933: 4.
1934: 4.
1935: 2.
1936: 1.
1937: 1.
1938: -
1939: 5.

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:First of all, I want to calrify something I wrote earlier. I think Young would have been the best heavyweight in the early 1930's not the entire decade of the 1930's.

.... and he would still have been behind Schmeling and Sharkey. Plus Young struggled badly with Earnie Shavers, so by no means am I certain that I would put Young ahead of Max Baer.

I don't think the 1930's was the second best decade in heavyweight history. Not only is it far behind the 1970's, it is behind the 1990's, the 1960's, and the 1910-1919 decade. It's not far ahead of the 1950's, the 1920's or the 1980's.

Strongly disagree. In the 1910s a bum called Jess Willard was heavyweight champion for several years. In the 1960s there was too little competition -- first Liston, then Ali dominating the plot. 1990s can be argued, as can 1950s, but I still rank the 1930s substantially higher. Louis, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Braddock, Schaaf, Carnera, Stribling, Levinsky, Gains, Uzcudun, Risko, Loughran --in terms of depth this is surpassed only by the 1970s.

As for Young being the #7 fighter in the 1970's I don't quite agree with that. At his best he was better than Quarry and was about even with Norton.

Neither nor in my book.

Schmeling would also rank behind Ali,Foreman,Frazier,Norton, and Holmes had he fought in their era.

NOT behind Norton.

Except for punching power, Young (at his best) was better than Schmeling in most areas. He was faster, much harder to hit, had at least as good of a chin, and had better all around boxing skills.

Prime Schmeling was at least as hard to hit as Young (unless you went below the belt as Sharkey). He had no obvious flaw -- good foot- and handspeed, great jab, superb defense, excellent timing, perfect stamina --and his counter-punching skills are top 5 ATG. So I don't know how you come to assess better boxing skills with Young. Plus Schmeling was a smart, thinking fighter who figured his opponents out and could change track in the middle of a bout if he needed.

I consider this comparison simply inadequate. Schmeling is a clear-cut ATG who wrote heavyweight history more than once, Young is not.

Jess Willard may have been the champion during the 1910-1919 period but he wasn't anywhere near the best heavyweight. This decade had Johnson, Langford,Jeanette, McVey ,Wills, as well as Dempsey at the end of it. There was also some good fighters such as Frank Fulton,Billy Miske and Gunboat Smith. This decade was loaded. If it wasn't for boxing politics regarding who got title shots this would be remembered as a great era.

The 1990's had Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, and good fighters such as Moorer, Mercer, and Ruddock. I can't believe you think the 1930's even compares to this.

I want to reiterate that Schmeling did have a better overall career than Young. Young struggled early in his career and after a few excellent years he declined too soon. However, if you are just talking about Young at his best, then it's a different story.
Schmeling was as good defensively as Young? Are you kidding? Schmeling couldn't even avoid the punches from Max Baer that you could see a mile away.
Schmeling had no obvious flaw? Well for starters, he was clueless when he got hurt. In both the Baer and 2nd Louis fights, he had absolutely no idea what to do when he was hurt. Instead of trying to clinch, dance away, or catch them coming in, he walked right into Baer and Louis and practically invited them to hit him. He couldn't have made it any easier for Baer and Louis to finish him off.

As far as making history, well it's not Young's fault that he wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt with the judges. Either the Ali or the Norton fight could have gone his way and he would have "made history".

Schmeling's had good footspeed and handspeed, but not as good as Young's. I do agree that Schmeling had great timing- He came along in the early 1930's when there were not any great heavyweights.

Some more Statistics on the Young/Schmeling matter...

How did Young and Schmeling compete against World Class opposition during their Careers ? I checked The Top-10 "The Ring Magazine" annual ratings of the year before one of the two Fighters met the Opponent (so that the result of the fight itsself will not influence the rating).



Jimmy Young

1974 Ernie Shavers (rated 6th in '73) Draw 10 Rds.
1975 Ron Lyle (rated 3rd in '74) Won UD. 10 Rds.
1976 Muhammad Ali (Champion) Lost UD 15 Rds.
1976 Ron Lyle (rated 5th in '75) Won UD 12 Rds.
1977 George Foreman (rated 1st in '76) Won UD 12 Rds.
1977 Ken Norton (rated 2nd in '76) Lost SD 15 Rds.
1979 Ozzie Ocasio (rated 9th in '78 ) Lost UD 10 Rds.
1980 Gerrie Cooney (rated 9th in '79) Lost t.K.o. 4th Rd.
1982 Greg Page (rated ? in '81) Lost UD 12 Rds.

3 Wins (0 by K.o.) 5 Losses 1 Draw


Max Schmeling

1929 Johnny Risko (rated7th in '28 ) Won t.K.o. 9th Rd.
1929 Paolino Uzcudun (rated 3rd in '28 ) Won UD 15 Rds.
1930 Jack Sharkey(rated 1st in '29) Won Dsq 4th Rd.
1931 Young Stribling (rated 7th in '30) Won t.K.o. 15th Rd.
1932 Jack Sharkey (rated 1st in '31) Lost SD 15 Rds.
1932 Mickey Walker (rated 5th in '31) Won t.K.o. 9th Rd.
1933 Max Baer (rated 2nd in '32) Lost t.K.o. 10th Rd.
1934 Steve Hamas (rated 9th in '33) Lost Pts. 12 Rds.
1934 Walter Neusel (rated 7th in '33) Won t.K.o. 9th Rd.
1935 Steve Hamas (rated 1st in '34) Won t.K.o. 9th Rd.
1936 Joe Louis (rated 1st in '35) Won K.o. 12th Rd.
1938 Joe Louis (Champion) Lost K.o. 1st Rd.

8 Wins (6 by K.o.) 4 Losses (wich were the only losses during his prime)


Some opponents names in Schmelings list seem to be less known than in Youngs list....a matter of time I guess.

Ambling Alp wrote: However, if you are just talking about Young at his best, then it's a different story.
Schmeling was as good defensively as Young? Are you kidding? Schmeling couldn't even avoid the punches from Max Baer that you could see a mile away.
Schmeling had no obvious flaw? Well for starters, he was clueless when he got hurt. In both the Baer and 2nd Louis fights, he had absolutely no idea what to do when he was hurt. Instead of trying to clinch, dance away, or catch them coming in, he walked right into Baer and Louis and practically invited them to hit him. He couldn't have made it any easier for Baer and Louis to finish him off.

Now you compare Schmelings "worst" (Baer, Louis II) with Youngs "best"; that's not very fair.

If you compare both Fighters at best you have to consider Schmelings fights as vs. Risko, Stribling, Sharkey II (yes, not only Jimmy Young "wuz robbed" in his career) Walker and Louis (1st fight) for example.

...and for the Baer fight...the first 8-9 Rds. the fight was quite close. And Baer was a very hard hitter making the best fight of his career.

...for the second Louis fight ...please don't forget the circumstances when this fight took place. It was a psychological disatvantage to stand not only against one of the best Heavyweights of all time but against a crowd of 80.000 who hate you very much and show that merciless (the walk in for Schmeling was the most difficult ever for afighter in boxing history I guess) Max wasn't a fearfull guy but I think that was to much for him at last. And after some punches Schmeling was so badly injured in his back (vertebrae broken in three parts) that it was not possible to continue much longer. I think it was a wonder he got up 3 (or 4?) times after those punches of Louis... Louis was nearly unvincible that day and you can't hold this fight against Schmeling when comparing him with a fighter like Jimmy Young (who indeed was a very good Heavyweight for sure).

I think Max would have beaten Jimmy considering both were in their Primes.

Ambling Alp wrote: Jess Willard may have been the champion during the 1910-1919 period but he wasn't anywhere near the best heavyweight. This decade had Johnson, Langford,Jeanette, McVey ,Wills, as well as Dempsey at the end of it. There was also some good fighters such as Frank Fulton,Billy Miske and Gunboat Smith. This decade was loaded. If it wasn't for boxing politics regarding who got title shots this would be remembered as a great era.

Johnson and Langford are the one that realy count, but Langford was frozen out. Doesn't compare with the 30s.

The 1990's had Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, and good fighters such as Moorer, Mercer, and Ruddock. I can't believe you think the 1930's even compares to this.

Of course I can compare the 1930s with the 90s
Louis > Lewis
Schmeling about the same as Holyfield
Sharkey at least as good as the washed-up 90s Tyson
Baer at least as good as one-opponent wonder Bowe

I come out with the 30s ahead. The 90s are my #3 decade though.

As for the rest: nothing really new here. Prime Schmeling was a more complete and rounded fighter than Young. Better handspeed, better ring generalship, immmaculate timing, and, yes, better defense (his all-time low fight against Baer whe he was heat-drained and dehydrated should be discounted).

As for history, had it not been for politics Schmeling would arguably have won his world title back from Braddock in 1937 -- hardly his fault that he held the wrong passport. In this case most folks would have him in the top 10 pfp, and even fewer would make absurd comparisons with failed contenders like Jimmy Young.