BoxRec

Friedie wrote: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.

Shavers was not top 10 when he KOed Young in their first bout?

pundit wrote:
Shavers was not top 10 when he KOed Young in their first bout?

.....not the year before if you look at the Ring annual Ratings... Probably he got the Top 10 rating after knocking Jimmy out....

I picked the rating of the end of the year before...cause I wanted a rating prior to the fights....

Harry Thomas e.g. was probably a Top 10 HW too when Max knocked him out in Dec 1937. But I can't verify that (no monthly ratings at hand).In 1936 Thomas was not rated so I didn't pick the fight.

So you see... this sort of statistic prefers Young (ignoring a K.o. defeat) against Schmeling (ignoring a K.o. Win) at he end.

Friedie wrote:

pundit wrote:
Shavers was not top 10 when he KOed Young in their first bout?

.....not the year before if you look at the Ring annual Ratings... Probably he got the Top 10 rating after knocking Jimmy out....

I picked the rating of the end of the year before...cause I wanted a rating prior to the fights....

Harry Thomas e.g. was probably a Top 10 HW too when Max knocked him out in Dec 1937. But I can't verify that (no monthly ratings at hand).In 1936 Thomas was not rated so I didn't pick the fight.

So you see... this sort of statistic prefers Young (ignoring a K.o. defeat) against Schmeling (ignoring a K.o. Win) at he end.

Cheers -- and follow up: Uzcudun was out of the top 10 for the second and third Schmeling bout?

Once again this would be more valid if the 1930's was as good as the 1970's. It wasn't even close. Young might have gone 10-2 against the 12 opponents that Schmeling fought. Baer wouldn't have laid a glove on him, no way that Young loses to Hamas.
think about it Mickey Walker was in the top 10. No way in the world he would be remotely close to the top 10 in the 1970's (Or many other decades for that matter.) That Walker had the success that he did have at heavyweight in the 1930's is another indication that the decade wasn't that good.
Also Young was past his best when he lost to Ocasio, Page and Cooney.

Ambling Alp wrote:Once again this would be more valid if the 1930's was as good as the 1970's. It wasn't even close. Young might have gone 10-2 against the 12 opponents that Schmeling fought. Baer wouldn't have laid a glove on him, no way that Young loses to Hamas.

Shavers knocks Young out cold but Baer can't put a glove on him??

Also Young was past his best when he lost to Ocasio, Page and Cooney.

Norton was one of Young's finest bouts but 6 months later against Occasio Young is past his best?

I'd rather say Norton was past his best when he beat Young, which explains why the fight was so close. As was Foreman way past his best when he lost to Young, and as was Ali was past his best (and probably not fully motivated) when he beat Young.

Young's best fights came all against opponents who where far from their best.

Btw, Schmeling was also far from his best when he lost to Baer and Hamas.

pundit wrote:
Cheers -- and follow up: Uzcudun was out of the top 10 for the second and third Schmeling bout?

Yes ...Paolino was out of the Top 10 then ...but close behind I guess ...fighting against Joe Louis in late 1935 (and Louis only fought tough opposition that time).
And Adolf Heuser wasn't a top-notcher in 1938 either... but possibly in early 1939 when he became European Champion (and when Schmeling knocked him out later in the year to take the Title from him). 8)

pundit wrote:

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.

Why do only Jonson and Langford count in the the 1910-1919 decade? Jeanette, McVey, Wills all fought a lot in this decade and were great fighters. If you are going to Louis in the 1930's then you should count Dempsey in this decade.

I'm sorry that you find some of my comparisons absurd but I think the same of some your's:
Schmeling was as good as Holyfield? wow.
Sharkey as good as Tyson in the 1990's? I hate Tyson as much as anyone but I find this ridiculaus. Tyson would have destroyed Sharkey up until at least 1997. Even after that I would pick Tyson since Sharkey so often found ways to lose.

Baer as good as Bowe? Try some of Bowe's fights besides Golota.

who did the 1930's have that matched up with Lewis? I'm sure he would have been saking in his boots if had to fight King Levinsky or Tommy Loughran or Mickey Walker or Walter Neusel or Steve Hamas.

Most importantly, watch Young's fights with Ali,Norton,Foreman,and Lyle.
Outside of a prime 1960's Ali, Young may have been the best defensive heavyweight ever.
Not interested in the excuses for why Schmeling lost to Baer.

Are you seriously saying that Schmeling should be top 10 all time pound for pound?

Pundit, I often agree with you. But when it comes to 1930's heavyweights, you seem to have an odd nostalgia for a great era that never was.

Ambling Alp wrote:Why do only Jonson and Langford count in the the 1910-1919 decade? Jeanette, McVey, Wills all fought a lot in this decade and were great fighters.

None of them ever had a chance to get a title shot because of the wrong skin color. Heavyweight boxing in the early 1910s was an absurd affair -- everyone knew the top 5 contenders were all black -- with Langfrod and Wills leading the pack -- but they were not allowed to compete. The 1910s might have had the potential to be competitive and interesting as only the 1970s, but they were not.

The 1930s were different. All the fine folks fought one another.

If you are going to Louis in the 1930's then you should count Dempsey in this decade.

I'm not used to this kind of BS from you. When did Dempsey come through in earnest -- 1918, at best late 1917 if one is gracious. How many title fights did he have in the 1910s -- 1.

While Louis was a top notch heayweight from at least 1935 when he beat Levinsky, Carnera, Baer, Uzcudun; and had 9 title fights.

This said, fine, include Dempsey. It doesn't take away the color line and the fact that Wills, not Dempsey should have gotten the shot at Willard.

I'm sorry that you find some of my comparisons absurd but I think the same of some your's:
Schmeling was as good as Holyfield? wow.

Yeah, roughly the same. Both lower top 20.

Sharkey as good as Tyson in the 1990's? I hate Tyson as much as anyone but I find this ridiculaus. Tyson would have destroyed Sharkey up until at least 1997. Even after that I would pick Tyson since Sharkey so often found ways to lose.

The 1930 Sharkey was far better than the 1990 Douglas. No comparison.

Baer as good as Bowe? Try some of Bowe's fights besides Golota.

Who is there except Holyfield.

who did the 1930's have that matched up with Lewis? I'm sure he would have been saking in his boots if had to fight King Levinsky or Tommy Loughran or Mickey Walker or Walter Neusel or Steve Hamas.

Joe Louis, my friend.

Most importantly, watch Young's fights with Ali,Norton,Foreman,and Lyle. Outside of a prime 1960's Ali, Young may have been the best defensive heavyweight ever.

Foreman had Young in deep trouble at least once, and Young won first and foremosty because Foreman was unfocussed and had an enormous stamina problem.

This said, this win over far-off-prime Foreman was impressive and without a doubt Young's best fight.

Now compare this to Schmeling's best fight (KO12 Louis).

Not interested in the excuses for why Schmeling lost to Baer.

But you seem very interested in excuses for Young's losses to Shavers, Occasio, Dokes, Cooney. Btw, what about Randy Neumann.

Are you seriously saying that Schmeling should be top 10 all time pound for pound?

No. But top 20 for sure.

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.

Not interested in the excuses for why Schmeling lost to Baer.

But you have to decide:

Do you compare the complete careers of Schmeling and Young (including "Baer", "Louis II" for Schmeling...but then please count "Shavers I" and "Cooney" for Young too).

or...

Do you compare both at their best ?

But it is illogical to "give Young a break" on the one hand but "not be interested in the excuses for why Schmeling lost to Baer" on the other hand.

Friedie wrote:

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.

Not interested in the excuses for why Schmeling lost to Baer.

But you have to decide:

Do you compare the complete careers of Schmeling and Young (including "Baer", "Louis II" for Schmeling...but then please count "Shavers I" and "Cooney" for Young too).

or...

Do you compare both at their best ?

But it is illogical to "give Young a break" on the one hand but "not be interested in the excuses for why Schmeling lost to Baer" on the other hand.

.... and if you compare only the best you end up with:

Schmeling KO12 Louis with

against

Young UD12 post-prime Foreman

Hmmm.

pundit wrote:
.... and if you compare only the best you end up with:

Schmeling KO12 Louis with

against

Young UD12 post-prime Foreman

Hmmm.

now the Ambling Alp could say...."the Louis fight was an exeption in Schmelings career...one glorious night"... Young fought more good fights at a high level.

...so here as "good night special" (I'm posting from Europe) one more good Max-fight as example (focus on the defensive skills the defending Champion shows here, the fine K.o. -punch and how fresh Max is after 15 rounds carrying his opponent back to his corner):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xRG9AucDm0#GU5U2spHI_4

pundit wrote:.... and if you compare only the best you end up with:

Schmeling KO12 Louis with

against

Young UD12 post-prime Foreman

Hmmm.

Hey Einstein. Louis had just turned 22 when he lost to Schmeling. So if Foreman was “post-prime” against Young (which I don’t agree with), then isn’t it possible that Louis was “pre-prime” when he fought Schmeling? Or did you miss that simple fact?

Decagon wrote:

pundit wrote:Young struggled badly with Earnie Shavers, so by no means am I certain that I would put Young ahead of Max Baer.

Young lost to Shavers when he was, well, young. He clearly won the rematch, no matter what the judges said. Plus, Shavers is much better to Max Baer, who had a lot more trouble with slick boxers.

Yes, even Shavers was much more skilled than Baer. Some of Baer's performances are rather hard to watch he was so wild. But then there were a few fights where he actually showed some skill. Very few fights...

I do think that Schmeling as is an underrated fighter today. Like Frazier he actually beat a real legend and yet everyone tends to focus on the fights they lost. The way Schmeling experienced a blip but pulled himself out of it is impressive.

Young was also a fantastic fighter who IMO would have given anyone problems. Overall I think Schmeling was the greater of the two.

Ezzard wrote:I do think that Schmeling as is an underrated fighter today. Like Frazier he actually beat a real legend and yet everyone tends to focus on the fights they lost. The way Schmeling experienced a blip but pulled himself out of it is impressive.

Young was also a fantastic fighter who IMO would have given anyone problems. Overall I think Schmeling was the greater of the two.

Excellent asessment. I think this is what Alp has been saying.

Ezzard wrote:I do think that Schmeling as is an underrated fighter today. Like Frazier he actually beat a real legend and yet everyone tends to focus on the fights they lost. The way Schmeling experienced a blip but pulled himself out of it is impressive.

Young was also a fantastic fighter who IMO would have given anyone problems. Overall I think Schmeling was the greater of the two.

I certainly agree to this. I have Schmeling at #19 in my ATG heavyweight ranking and Young at #34.

I don't agree though that this would somehow hold only "overall" and that "at their best"* Young was better than Schmeling -- but this what I read from Alp's posts.

P

* whatever the difference between these concepts is -- I rank fighters largely according to their best performances anyway.

If Schmeling had got the chance to regain the title against Braddock (and had he won) how much difference would it make to his standing?

Also, what if he'd have not rematched Louis?

Most people seem to feel he deserved the decision against Sharkey too.

The Great John L wrote:
Hey Einstein. Louis had just turned 22 when he lost to Schmeling. So if Foreman was “post-prime” against Young (which I don’t agree with), then isn’t it possible that Louis was “pre-prime” when he fought Schmeling? Or did you miss that simple fact?

Joe Louis already kayoed two former Champions in 1935 (Carnera, Baer) and one more short after the Schmeling Defeat in 1936 (Sharkey).
And he had some more impressive wins against guys like Levinsky, Uzcudun, Retzlaff as well. I think he was very near his prime in 1936 (considered "unvincible" by experts and the public). Before the fight against Max he had a K.o.-winning series of 10 fights in a row.

A pre-prime Louis of 1935/36 was much stronger than a past-prime Foreman I guess.

Considering how high we all rate Ali and Louis do Frazier and Schmeling have the greatest wins in the history of HW boxing?

Ezzard wrote:Considering how high we all rate Ali and Louis do Frazier and Schmeling have the greatest wins in the history of HW boxing?

thats difficult to say. I think some of the single wins Louis and Ali have had were quite impressive too (e.g. Ali vs Liston, Ali vs Foreman, Louis vs Schmeling II.) I would put all these mentioned fights in a Top ten. And possibly the Douglas vs. Tyson fight belongs there too.

Fraziers and Schmelings wins are very impressive cause they were against (at least near) prime versions of Ali and Louis.

Friedie wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Considering how high we all rate Ali and Louis do Frazier and Schmeling have the greatest wins in the history of HW boxing?

thats difficult to say. I think some of the single wins Louis and Ali have had were quite impressive too (e.g. Ali vs Liston, Ali vs Foreman, Louis vs Schmeling II.) I would put all these mentioned fights in a Top ten. And possibly the Douglas vs. Tyson fight belongs there too.

Fraziers and Schmelings wins are very impressive cause they were against (at least near) prime versions of Ali and Louis.

Brock and I tried our hands on "greatest wins" some time ago (I've moved my HW rankings a bit around in the meantime)

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... torder=asc

Friedie wrote:A pre-prime Louis of 1935/36 was much stronger than a past-prime Foreman I guess.

That statement I agree with. However, to imply that Louis was at his best at 22 when he fought Schmeling should be mentioned when being critical of the Foreman who fought Young.

I will try address the points that Friedie and Pundit made:
First of all, in regard to the 1910-1919 decade.
It's true that Jack Dempsey only had one title fight in this decade. however, he began his career in 1914. 74 of his 83 recordered fights were in this decade. this includes many big wins on his way up.
I can understand that it's not like he fought the decade, but what he did in this decade has to count for something.

for the life of me, I still can't understand why Pundit keeps dismissing Jeannete, McVey and Wills. They were great fighters who all fought each other several times, as well as fighting (and sometimes beating) Langford several times.
Just because boxing ploitics didn't allow for these guys to fight for the title doesn't mean that they weren't great fighters and that this was a great decade for heavyweight boxing.


I do hold the 2nd Louis fight against Schmeling. Not that he lost, but that he performed horribly.
Pundit, Schmleing is in the Top 20 pound for pound? Yet you only have him #19 in his all time heavyweight list? Do you only have 1 non-heavyweight in your All-Time Top 20 pound for Pound list?

Friedie - I do think it's fair that the Baer fight counts against Schmeling and that some of Youngs losses don't if we are just comparing primes.

Schmleing was in his prime when he lost to Baer.
Young only lost 2 fights in his prime (1974-1977) - A close decision loss to Ali that easily could have gone the way; and a close decison loss to Norton in a great fight that easily could have gone Young's way. Young fought well in both fights.
The draw with Shavers could easily have been a decision victory for Young as well.
Young also beat Foreman who was only 28. Foreman didn't look great but that was partially because of Young. Young could make you look bad.
Young also beat Ron Lyle twice.

Thanks for the link to the Stribling-Schmeling fight. I wouldn't use this as proof of Schmeling's greatness. There have been less clinches in some of John Ruiz's fights. Stribling was a contender in the 1930's; no way would he be in the top 10 in the 1970's. It's doesn't seem form that tape or in other tape's that Schmeling is nearly as fast or elusive as Young.

Once again I want to say that I am only talking about Young's prime which wasn't long. Other losses that were mentioned were either before or after that. If you have seen the Ocasio fight, you will see that Young was starting to go downhill. Although once again, he could have gotten the decision.

Pundit had Young ranked #34 All-Time, I don't even have him that high. He just wasn't good for a long enough period of time. Normally longevity should be a factor in rating fighters. However, if we are strictly talking about fighters at their best, then Young should be in the Top 20.

The Great John L wrote:

Friedie wrote:A pre-prime Louis of 1935/36 was much stronger than a past-prime Foreman I guess.

That statement I agree with. However, to imply that Louis was at his best at 22 when he fought Schmeling should be mentioned when being critical of the Foreman who fought Young.

agreed.

Ambling Alp wrote: for the life of me, I still can't understand why Pundit keeps dismissing Jeannete, McVey and Wills. They were great fighters who all fought each other several times, as well as fighting (and sometimes beating) Langford several times.
Just because boxing ploitics didn't allow for these guys to fight for the title doesn't mean that they weren't great fighters.

I've no trouble with any of this. BUT the really great heayvweight fights of the 1910s would have been Johnson-Langford II (around 1910-13) and Dempsey vs. Wills (1918/19). Plus Wills should have gotten a shot at Willard in 1916/17.

None of these fights was made because of the color line.

If the big fights don't get made this counts against a decade, wouldn't you say? After all, the question is not how great the 1910s could have been, the question is how great they were.

I do hold the 2nd Louis fight against Schmeling. Not that he lost, but that he performed horribly.

Sure, but then please hold Young's post-1977 losses against him.

Pundit, Schmleing is in the Top 20 pound for pound? Yet you only have him #19 in his all time heavyweight list? Do you only have 1 non-heavyweight in your All-Time Top 20 pound for Pound list?

That's a misunderstanding. I have Schmeling #19 ATG heavyweight, not pfp. Schmeling is not top 50 pfp, perhaps not even top 100.

Friedie - I do think it's fair that the Baer fight counts against Schmeling and that some of Youngs losses don't if we are just comparing primes. Schmeling was in his prime when he lost to Baer.

No, he was not. Emphatically not. Schmeling's prime was 1929-32. In 1933/34 he totally lost it, before getting his act together again in 1935.

EITHER you count all fights for both fighters. OR you count only their best performances.

Both methods yield: Schmeling>Young.

Once again I want to say that I am only talking about Young's prime which wasn't long.

You define Young's prime such that it includes only his best fights, while you define Schmeling's prime such that it includes his worst losses (Baer, Hamas I, Louis II).

You cannot expect that we sould find this plausible.

P