BoxRec

Not to mention, Max Schmeling was a superstar, none of these guys that beat Klitschko, in fact nobody Klitschko every fought, would be a favorite against Schmeling. Only Chris Byrd would have even had a shot against a prime Schmeling.

DaveyMac wrote:Not to mention, Max Schmeling was a superstar, none of these guys that beat Klitschko, in fact nobody Klitschko every fought, would be a favorite against Schmeling. Only Chris Byrd would have even had a shot against a prime Schmeling.

Until the Klitschko brothers came along, I used to say Schmeling was the greatest European heavyweight of all time.

And Byrd would of boxed his ears off--- in an incredibly boring contest where both men probably would of been decomissioned for such a lackluster performance--- but regardless, Schmeling wouldn't beat Byrd in my view. Hard to knock out a man on the back foot, etc. and Byrd had faster hands. Maybe Schmeling could win--- but it wouldnt of been easy, and it wouldnt of been wide or unaminous either. Schmeling himself was inconsistant and had a questionable chin (lost KO1st round to light heavyweight Gipsy Daniels prior to winning the world title). Not that Byrd could hurt Schmeling--- Byrd couldn't hurt anyone above a third tier class at heavyweight. Regardless, style wise--- its a disaster for Max.

You talk about the Klitschkos as if they are the same person. Which one specifically do you say is the greatest European heavyweight ever? The one who was stopped in 6 rounds by the European Lennox Lewis, or the one who is inferior to the one who was stopped in 6 rounds by the European Lennox Lewis?

That's the European Lennox Lewis who has a greater resume than both K brothers combined.

I can't wait to hear your thinking on this one.

Tuan_Jim wrote:You talk about the Klitschkos as if they are the same person. Which one specifically do you say is the greatest European heavyweight ever? The one who was stopped in 6 rounds by the European Lennox Lewis, or the one who is inferior to the one who was stopped in 6 rounds by the European Lennox Lewis?

That's the European Lennox Lewis who has a greater resume than both K brothers combined.

I can't wait to hear your thinking on this one.

Lmao, depends on your rationale.

I have yet to see a single person actually give a reasonable argument as to why Vladimir is the "inferior" brother between the two. In the beginning, in the 2000's, it used to be that Vladimir was the better brother, because Vitali had "no heart". Then Vladimir lost, and Vitali gained "heart" against Lewis and was the superior brother. Then Vitali retires, Vladimir rebuilds his image. Both are considered worthless. Then Vitali comes back after 4 years, regains the title, and is again put up as the better brother--- Vladimir in the mean time secures all the remaining belts. Vitali retires, and Vladimir is the only champion remaining (except for the WBC title which is being passed around like a game of musical chairs). Now the tables have turned, because Vladimir has 16+ defenses and almost a decade as champion and many are now saying he's the superior brother. Well, except for some of you guys on BoxRec who still hold losses from fifteen years ago over his head

As for Max Schmeling... outside of beating Lous in 1936... up until that point he was considered washed up and a has been. That's why he was brought in to fight Louis initially--- to be more cannon fodder to bolster Louis's growing reputation as a puncher. When he defied the odds, by out smarting and out boxing Louis, everyone considered it something of a miracle. But let's not forget, Schmeling was certainly no Nazi superman--- or all-time great boxer--- that many have made him out to be over the years. He belonged to that weak era in history, where the lineal undisputed championship was being traded in maiden defenses. There was no Tunney, there was no Dempsey, there was no one of any real consequence to make the heavyweight division all that important. Sounds very much like our own era, or even the 1980's.

The top contenders in the world, when Schmeling was champion, were the following men (according to RING):

1930-1931 (Schmeling's reign as champion of the world)

1930 (Annual Ratings)
-Jack Sharkey
-Young Stribling
-Tuffy Griffiths
-Primo Carnera
-George Godfrey
-Johnny Risko
-Ernie Schaaf
-Tommy Loughran
-Larry Johnson
-Max Baer

1931 (Annual Ratings)
-Jack Sharkey
-Ernie Schaaf
-Primo Carnera
-King Levinksy
-Mickey Walker
-Tommy Loughran
-Young Stribling
-Stanley Poreda
-Tuffy Griffiths
-Max Baer

1932 (Annual Ratings)- Jack Sharkey as Champion
-Max Schmeling
-Max Baer
-Stanley Pedora
-Primo Carnera
-Ernie Schaaf
-Johnny Risko
-King Levinsky
-Walter Neusel
-Larry Gains
-Unknown Winston

1933 (Annual Ratings)- Primo Carnera as Champion
-Max Baer
-Tommy Loughran
-King Levinsky
-Max Schmeling
-Dan McCorkindale
-Patsy Perroni
-Walter Neusel
-Charley Massare
-Stave Hamas
-Lee Ramage

1934 (Annual Ratings)- Max Baer as Champion
-Steve Hamas
-Primo Carnera
-Art Lasky
-Max Schmeling
-King Levinsky
-Patsy Perroni
-Jack Peterson
-Natie Brown
-Joe Louis
-Lee Ramage

1935 (Annual Ratings)- James J. Braddock as Champion
-Joe Louis
-Max Schmeling
-Primo Carnera
-Charley Retzlaff
-Tommy Loughran
-Eddie Hader
-Hank Hankinson
-Ray Impellttierre
-Al Ettore
-Ford Smith


It is interesting to note, just how many lighter-weight fighters (Walker, Loughran, Levinsky, Gains, Stribling) were among the top ten in those years. It is also interesting to note, the great influx of European stock fighters becoming contenders during the reigns of Schmeling and Carnera. What's even more interesting, is the lack of depth there was in these eras despite the colorful names and records. Most of the names, even then, were considered fringe guys at best and writers were longing for the days of Tunney, Dempsey, Johnson, Sullivan, etc. because the contenders and champions were not living up to anyone's expectations. The fact that a guy like Braddock, could win the title, when he wasn't even rated in the top ten--- and the fact that guys like Walker (former welterweight and middleweight champion) were either winning titles or getting title shots, shows the all-around weakness of the eras that Schmeling was apart of in a big way.

People knock Klitschko for the same reasons. Sure, Klitschko doesn't have a win like Sharkey on his resume like Max does. But people often forget, Schmeling only beat Sharkey by DQ and in their rematch (though controversial) no one was exactly boo hoo'ing the fact that the title changed hands. He may of been tremendously popular in Europe, but his all-around importance here in the States was meaningless. And that may be the ONE thing comparable between the two men (Schmeling and Vladimir). Well, that and a suspect chin (Schmeling was inconsistant in his performances, losing on knockouts and decisions to less than imposing men, such as Gipsy Daniels). He was hot and cold, and that held him back as much as politics.

Schmeling may very well of been the best boxer-tactician of the time period, but even his skills couldn't save him from a monster puncher like Max Baer. His skills and abilities, also, couldn't protect him from the likes of Larry Gains, who knocked Schmeling out in two rounds. People forget just what kind of limitations Schmeling had. Sure he'll be remembered for beating the Brown Bomber on a knockout--- and for the WW2 propaganda of US vs THEM that made him legendary--- but no one wants to remember what happened before. He was good, but he wasn't that good. And considering all those things, that many want to sweep under the rug, I have a hard time imagining Schmeling being able to take Klitschko's punches. Let alone being able to out box him. Schmeling wasn't a fast starter by any means--- and his best chance would be to go at Klitschko fast, and start reigning down overhand rights. But that wasn't his style--- it never was. So why try and make him into something he wasn't?

More long winded babble, more stupid comments, more tangents.

First he brings up Ali for no particular reason and does his usual BS anti-Anti Ali thing.
Then he moved on to Holmes and Norton, even though nobody was talking about them.
We also heard how Floyd Patterson did not reach his best until he had been a pro for 16 years.
Now, out the blue, we are hearing about the supposed limitations of Max Schmeling.

Wow.

Hey.... if you want to put up Schmeling as being better than Klitschko go right ahead. I know in the 21st century there are people out there who still are apart of the Flat Earth Society, so hey, ignorance is bliss. You have your opinion I have mine.

Henry, it's very simple - people think Vitali is better because he would step in & beat up the guys who demolished Wladimir. Then he stood up to some enormous punches from Lennox Lewis that Wladimir wouldn't be able to take. Then he came off 4 years & easily beat up Sam Peter who Wladimir went life & death with.

See how I explained my position in one short, simple paragraph?

Vitali's better than Wladimir. Lennox is better than both. Neither Lennox or Vitali have this '10 years, 16 defences' waffle you cling to. Doesn't that tell you how meaningless his '10 years, 16 defences' is? Your writings are disturbing me. They're like the mad associations of a schizophrenic. Please lie down.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Henry, it's very simple - people think Vitali is better because he would step in & beat up the guys who demolished Wladimir. Then he stood up to some enormous punches from Lennox Lewis that Wladimir wouldn't be able to take. Then he came off 4 years & easily beat up Sam Peter who Wladimir went life & death with.

See how I explained my position in one short, simple paragraph?

Vitali's better than Wladimir. Lennox is better than both. Neither Lennox or Vitali have this '10 years, 16 defences' waffle you cling to. Doesn't that tell you how meaningless his '10 years, 16 defences' is? Your writings are disturbing me. They're like the mad associations of a schizophrenic. Please lie down.

Lmao... At one point and time, I agreed with you that Vitali was better than Vladimir... but at the end of the day, the numbers start to become overwhelming. For me, Vladimir made the turn from below-Vitali to Vitali's equal to surpassing him, somewhere around the Ruslan-Chagaev & David Haye contests. By that time Vladimir already had six title defenses, and he knocked the snot out of Chagaev rather easily. Then he defeated Chambers who made giant men look like crap. He then kayos Samuel Peter, when before it was life and death with Peter. Then he makes David Haye look like a complete hype job. Since then its been 7 successful defenses against some good, bad, inbetween contenders and he looks better and better every time. Hell everyone thought Pulev had his number, and he made Pulev look so inept and awkward in there that it bordered on the ridiculous.

I do agree, though, Lewis was better than them. However, one must wonder, once Klitschko retires--- just how far or close will he be to Lennox? Unless Bryant Jennings, Tyson Fury, Deontay Wilder, etc. can prove me wrong and beat him--- I think we're going to see a man who matches not only Larry Holmes, but Joe Louis as well. And by that time, its going to be more than unavoidable to admit he is one of the all-time greats. For me, Vladimir gets better every year--- he's far and away better than he was in the days of Sanders. Its almost like night and day between then and now. And actually I stand corrected, he's got collectively 17 title defenses, Jennings will be #18. Two away from Holmes. Seven from Louis. And quite frankly, who out there can stop him?

Obviously homicidehenry is onto to something here.
We have have been going at this all wrong; looking at quality of competition.
It's how many title defenses against opponents who have a pulse that counts.

Here is how the Top of the All-Time Ratings should be:
1. Joe Louis
2. Larry Holmes
3. Wladimir Klitschko
4. Tommy Burns

How can you possibly argue with that?

Ambling Alp II wrote:Obviously homicidehenry is onto to something here.
We have have been going at this all wrong; looking at quality of competition.
It's how many title defenses against opponents who have a pulse that counts.

Here is how the Top of the All-Time Ratings should be:
1. Joe Louis
2. Larry Holmes
3. Wladimir Klitschko
4. Tommy Burns

How can you possibly argue with that?

you got my all-time list wrong... for sarcasm sakes... here's my list (top four) since you listed a joke list:

#1- Larry Holmes & Muhammad Ali (tied)
#2- Joe Louis
#3- Jack Dempsey
#4- George Foreman

Vladimir Klitschko I would either have @ #10 or #11. Lennox Lewis ahead of him. The rest would be a toss up between Holyfield, Rocky Marciano, Joe Frazier and Gene Tunney rounding out list. All ahead of Klitschko. I never quite said that Klitschko was high, middle, but just made the list or was just outside of the list.

HomicideHenry wrote:

man wrote: foreman looked like a strong but relatively normal fighter
after the ali bout. his second coming was more impressive
because of his age rather than his achievements. i do not
want to take away that he regained the title fair and square,
but he never came even close to how he was perceived pre-ali.

i think he was bully who got exposed and - as happens often -
bullies are not spectacular without the bullying factor. the
real riddle is how on earth he could blow away frazier and
norton.

I don't know if I would go that far @ "looked like a strong but relatively normal fighter after the ali bout." After Zaire, Foreman put on a rather impressive string of victories in a relatively short amount of time. Lyle was the most memorable, but he also kayoed LeDoux, Denis, Frazier (again), etc. He missed his 'chance' at getting a rematch, but even at that---

foreman came as close to being knocked out by lyle as you
possibly can. this was not an impressive win. though it was
certainly one of the most entertaining fights in history.

i sound like being more critical of foreman than i actually am.
in my opinion he did not get fair treatment in zaire, since he
was the champ and did beat the count. wouldn't change the
outcome though, just postpone it. foreman is a mystery to me,
because on the one hand i think he needed the bullying factor
to dominate and ali stood up to that, BUT he made joe frazier
look like an ordinary fighter and joe was definitely not bullied
into numerous knock downs. the closest i have come to solving
this is that a very strong man was too strong and too quickly
successful to ever learn two things about boxing: ring smarts
and footwork. lack of ring smarts made him run out of any
idea when it became clear that ali can withstand his punching
power (another mystery btw), lack of footwork (not only though)
made him embarrassingly vulnerable against a solid but not great
fighter in ron lyle.

not sure if this is true, but his corner in zaire was desperate
watching him out punch himself round after round. all in all
foreman is the ATG that is most difficult to assess for me.i
forgot to mention that i agree with you on wladimir, whose
current version is competitive with anybody in history. i think
he became that good because he had to overcome these relatively
early losses, but he faced his weaknesses rather than denied them,
unlike - i would say - foreman did.

HomicideHenry wrote: Lmao... At one point and time, I agreed with you that Vitali was better than Vladimir... but at the end of the day, the numbers start to become overwhelming. For me, Vladimir made the turn from below-Vitali to Vitali's equal to surpassing him, somewhere around the Ruslan-Chagaev & David Haye contests. By that time Vladimir already had six title defenses, and he knocked the snot out of Chagaev rather easily. Then he defeated Chambers who made giant men look like crap. He then kayos Samuel Peter, when before it was life and death with Peter. Then he makes David Haye look like a complete hype job. Since then its been 7 successful defenses against some good, bad, inbetween contenders and he looks better and better every time. Hell everyone thought Pulev had his number, and he made Pulev look so inept and awkward in there that it bordered on the ridiculous.

For me, Vladimir gets better every year--- he's far and away better than he was in the days of Sanders. Its almost like night and day between then and now. And actually I stand corrected, he's got collectively 17 title defenses, Jennings will be #18. Two away from Holmes. Seven from Louis. And quite frankly, who out there can stop him?

And if you judge a fighter purely by the numbers, John Ruiz was a better heavyweight champion than Sonny Liston. Tommy Burns was better than Mike Tyson. In fact, Wladimir Klitschko was better than Corrie Sanders! The numbers speak for themselves!

Unless. . . . you employ critical analysis and see what these numbers actually mean, or as Alp said, 'look at quality of competition'.

Vitali beats up the men who knocked out Wladimir. He beats up a man who gave Wladimir life and death. But numbers, squiggly lines on a piece of paper, make Wladimir 'better' than Vitali, better than Muhammad Ali, equal to most heavyweights in history, simply because he is racking up title defences in a diluted division? Henry, I ask you - are you a robot? You're thinking is like some sort of artificial intelligence. Also, in your numbers evaluation, there's no concession for the change in cultures, that records are padded now, titles have multiplied beyond measure, average men can build a record, win a belt, lose it to Wladimir and furnish him with 'another win over a champion'. Wladimir can spend 10 more years lancing nonentities like Tony Thompson, David Haye, Chagaev, Chambers, Jennings, it won't mean he can beat a great fighter in a head-to-head fight.

You actually think a 40 year old man is 'getting better every year' - which is in itself an absurd point of view.

#1- Boxing isn't just a numbers game. I know this first hand. Paper means nothing. Records mean nothing. Hell my pro debut is proof of that (0-0 vs 1-0, but that didnt tell the true story). I've seen men with magnificent records get sparked out by complete "bums", like Faruq Saleem getting knocked cold by a 4-3 fighter. I seen first hand Wilshaun Boxley, all 4-5 of him, beat from pillar to post a 9-0-0 (9) Canadian, and was robbed blind. However--- I think we all can agree, no matter how weak an era is, anyone who gets within a stone's throw of a division's title is damn good, and when someone is the best of that division, regardless of how weak it is, for ten years, that man is double damn good.

#2- If Klitschko (as you put it) was champion for another ten years and by my assumption would probably have 40 or more defenses of the title--- it means one of two things, either boxing is dead or that Klitschko is great. What if Klitschko is champion, I ask, for five more years and retires as champion with (say) 30 title defenses? Is boxing dead, or is Klitschko great? That's what it comes down to. Either boxing has no real fighters at heavyweight anymore, or Klitschko is greater than people want to believe, want to accept. I seem to recall Joe Louis, even John L. Sullivan, receiving similar criticisms. They been champion so long, and winning so easily, regardless of opponent's worth that it was still grouped together as a bum of the month club. Funny, how in retrospect, those men and many others are considered top men now, but were highly criticized then.

#3- Your comment on "40 year old man getting better and better" is absurd. What of Lennox Lewis? In my opinion it seemed he appeared more dominate as time went on. He got even better. Same argument can be made of Jersey Joe Walcott. 37 years old, becomes the champion, and against Marciano (before getting caught cold) fought a damn near perfect and masterful fight. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a man, regardless of age, can get better. Hell, Foreman is living proof of that. Ray Mercer is another one, who started when he was 29 and didn't hit his peak, reached his full stride until he was 35 years old when he fought Lennox Lewis. Stranger things have happened in boxing, and last I have seen in my lifetime, and last I have checked in my history books, in the heavyweight division age doesn't exactly apply as much as it does elsewhere. Especially in our modern world where health, nutrition, training camps, etc. have prolonged fighters careers. Hopkins, Jones, Tarver, Toney, etc. are proof of concept alone.

Three more heavily flawed points.
1. No, we can't all agree that even in a weak era that a fighter has to be damn good to be the heavyweight champion. This is what people have been trying to get through your thick head. A fighter has not had to be damn good be the heavyweight champion since Lennox Lewis retired.

2. And no Sullivan did not get nearly as much criticism as Klitschko gets. People occasionally questioned the quality of long time champions challengers. Certainly in some cases, the challengers were weak. However, the long time champions themselves in the past got at least grudging respect by most people. For example, Larry Holmes may not have got the credit he should have, but people did not rip him like they do Klitschkos.

3. It is you who are absurd, not Tuan Jim. Of course fighters decline after they reach a certain age/take enough punishment. Walcott was an exception, though even that was mostly due to poor management early in his career. Foreman was nowhere near as good in his 40s as he was in his 20s. Of course Mercer was at his best in his 30s because he started late. He couldn't be at his best in early 20s if he wasn't fighting his early 20s. Klitschko is not at his best now. Look at some of his fights before he fought Sanders. Much faster, much higher workrate when he was younger.

I'm tired of arguing with you, tbh. So I'm walking away from the discussion. But when (not if) Klitschko surpasses Holmes or Louis, I will wait to see what you say then. And if its more of the same--- then I'll have co choice but to accept that you either lost a shitload of money on the man once, and thats why ur pissed at him, or you are delusional.

If he passes them in title defenses, it doesn't mean anything unless he gets some over quality opponents. So far, he has not. You mentioned yourself that boxing is not a numbers game. You yourself see how silly it was to have Tommy Burns as the #4 heavyweight even though he has the 4th most title defenses.

I see a guy that's biggest win is over Chris Byrd. Scores of fighter's throughout history could have done that. Dozens of other fighters in history could have have made the same title defenses he did against his competition. He also had three clearcut embarrassing losses who were not that good. That doesn't happen to great fighters. Not all that impressed when watching him. I don't exaggerate his strengths and ignore his weaknesses.

I'm happy that you mentioned that you are done discussing this. You don't seem to be able to comprehend anything.

Fundamentally, Henry cannot comprehend the expression 'quality of opposition'. You demonstrate clearly how ludicrous his tunnel vision statistics are, urge him to consider quality of competition, and what does he do? Comes straight back with 'Ah but if he's champ X more years, and makes X more defences, WHAT WILL YOU SAY THEN?'

The boy is a dunce.

Important to note that due to Louis's second world war alomst 4 years off, even ignoring quality of opp. WK would have to do prob 40 defences to even get involved in a discussion on being comparible with the brown bomber.

I'm sorry but I can't see Billy Conn or Tony Galento being able to be much of a threat to Klitschko either....

DaveyMac wrote:Not to mention, Max Schmeling was a superstar, none of these guys that beat Klitschko, in fact nobody Klitschko every fought, would be a favorite against Schmeling. Only Chris Byrd would have even had a shot against a prime Schmeling.

A prime Schmeling would whip Byrd's a$$.

Also, Klitschko does not have 17 lineal/undisputed defenses, which is what counts. He was not undisputed champion until he beat Chagaev. Thus, in comparison to a Louis or Holmes, he has 10 defenses.

HomicideHenry wrote: I'm sorry but I can't see Billy Conn or Tony Galento being able to be much of a threat to Klitschko either....

Galento= Povetkin, practically the same guy.

Billy Conn is better than almost everyone K fought.

Can you imagine the beatings Puritty, Sanders and Brewster would have taken versus Joe Louis? Can you imagine a wide open, fat slob like Sam Peter going the distance with him?

HomicideHenry wrote:40 year old man getting better and better" is absurd. What of Lennox Lewis? In my opinion it seemed he appeared more dominate as time went on. He got even better. Same argument can be made of Jersey Joe Walcott. 37 years old, becomes the champion, and against Marciano (before getting caught cold) fought a damn near perfect and masterful fight. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a man, regardless of age, can get better. Hell, Foreman is living proof of that.

no boxer gets better after 35. end of story.
foreman is a special case, because he didn't
become better, he became less stupid.

regarding wlad. anyone can see how that
this is not the same boxer that lost against
purrity, sanders and brewster. but even if
you do not buy that he obviously dominated
better men than brewster and purrity and
losing to sanders is nothing one needs to be
terribly ashamed of. hell, every ATG lost
one or the other fight. get over it.

Who's better than Sanders and Brewster that Wladimir dominated?

I've braced myself for a lot of padded record fluff and paper trinkets being used to bolster some men's reps.