BoxRec

i for one believe he is overrated. he had very
few fights at top level, had actually one decisive
win in the first bout with louis, but had several
fights an ATG should not have lost.

i think he saw a flaw in louis technique and that
is where all his reputation comes from. yet he
was taken out in the rematch like he was not
playing in the same league. i think the whole
reference to defeating the nazis makes him
somewhat look bigger than he was.

from all i've seen on footage he seems like having
been technically limited, had decent power and
a reasonable chin, but the combination does not
make him a real great.

for me he is not ATG30 and i love to hear why
i am wrong.

Anybody that defeats the great Joe Louis in Louis' prime, is a great achievement. It tell us that the German was very good to begin with. Louis was undefeated and in his prime. That counts for something.

It's a toss up for me between Max Schmeling and Ken Norton in which to place to put them in the ATG heavyweight rankings. To me, both are in the 21-30 range.

elmersalsa wrote:Anybody that defeats the great Joe Louis in Louis' prime, is a great achievement.

oh absolutely! this is why max schmeling
is still remembered, but by the same token
hasim rahman should be considered too.

my point: one night doesn't make you an
all time great.

man wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Anybody that defeats the great Joe Louis in Louis' prime, is a great achievement.

oh absolutely! this is why max schmeling
is still remembered, but by the same token
hasim rahman should be considered too.

my point: one night doesn't make you an
all time great.

Not everyone mentioned in an old boxing book should be viewed as an all time great, he was an exceptional European level fighter but shouldn't be considered an ATG though his personality, generosity and intelligence should be noted. He had a very good business career after his boxing ended and later medical and other costs for Joe Louis when Joe hit hard times.

Would Max have lost to Primo? That's essentially what would have happened had he not lost the controversial decision to Sharkey in the rematch.

Granted, Baer beat Max fair and square after he [Max] lost the title, then went on to give Primo a beating and then lost it to Braddock etc but...

palooka wrote:

man wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Anybody that defeats the great Joe Louis in Louis' prime, is a great achievement.

oh absolutely! this is why max schmeling
is still remembered, but by the same token
hasim rahman should be considered too.

my point: one night doesn't make you an
all time great.

Not everyone mentioned in an old boxing book should be viewed as an all time great, he was an exceptional European level fighter but shouldn't be considered an ATG though his personality, generosity and intelligence should be noted. He had a very good business career after his boxing ended and later medical and other costs for Joe Louis when Joe hit hard times.

exactly as i see it.

orbtastic wrote:Would Max have lost to Primo? That's essentially what would have happened had he not lost the controversial decision to Sharkey in the rematch.

Granted, Baer beat Max fair and square after he [Max] lost the title, then went on to give Primo a beating and then lost it to Braddock etc but...

i think the era between tunney and louis was
a little unclear and max had very good match
making and was at the right time at the right
place. i respect him totally for what he was
able to achieve and from all i ever heard about
him his character seemed to have been quite
okay too, not at last shown by his support for
joe louis. which is actually a real shame that
joe needed such help from the other side of
the pond.

He did show in several fights that he was a technically sound fighter. He did not show that against Baer, but it did in other fights. He was smart, had decent speed, and very good right hand.

He did have fights that should count against him and keep him form being higher. However, there are many positives which show that he was clearly one of the 30. He along with about another dozen fighters are all roughly even and belong somewhere outside the top 15 but in inside the top 30.

-First of all he did beat Joe Louis. One fight doesn't count for everything, but it counts for a lot.

- The loss to Louis is not as embarrassing as it may be seen at first glance. He was hit with several shots to the kidney. With another referee, that would not have been allowed and he probably would have lasted a lot longer.

-In the two controversial fights with Sharkey, he came out about even. Sharkey was certainly a top 30 heavyweight.

-Johnny Risko had great chin and was a tough as nails. he fought great competition and had well over 100 fights. Schmeling was the only one whoever stopped him.

-Schmeling beat Uzcudun twice. He also beat others who are long forgotton but were good fighters.

The real question should not be if Schmeling deserves to be the top 30 in this poll. It is if he should be in the top 20.

Max is a tough one to rank. A bit like Ken Norton actually who we've chatted about recently.

He was certainly not european level as some have said. He was one of the best heavys in the world pre war for like a decade and beat joe Louis when he was young which was something nobody else in the world did.

However, big punchers could take him down as at times could be made to look a little ordinary. Id say just like norton he sits in the 21-30 group and on his best night could well have beaten guys in the top 20, if they arent huuge punchers.

cfang wrote:Max is a tough one to rank. A bit like Ken Norton actually who we've chatted about recently.

He was certainly not european level as some have said. He was one of the best heavys in the world pre war for like a decade and beat joe Louis when he was young which was something nobody else in the world did.

However, big punchers could take him down as at times could be made to look a little ordinary. Id say just like norton he sits in the 21-30 group and on his best night could well have beaten guys in the top 20, if they arent huuge punchers.

Mate I was going to say he did not beat a absolute prime Louis because that was a few year's away but I think the way you put it is the better way and that was that he [Schmeling] was the only one to ever beat a young Joe Louis and that's some feat regardless of the rematch abit like
Buster Douglas defeating a young Tyson[was no rematch] or even Lamont Brewster and Wlad Klitshko he would have been very competive with
guy's like Buster and Brewster but the cream of the crop would have his measure I think he is a top 50.

I tend to go back and forth over Schmeling... If I weigh the Louis victory heavily, then he tends to make my top 20.
Other days, I have him somewhere in the mid 20s.

Personally, I thin k he's a difficult one to rate.

elmersalsa wrote:Anybody that defeats the great Joe Louis in Louis' prime, is a great achievement. It tell us that the German was very good to begin with. Louis was undefeated and in his prime. That counts for something.

I concur with this.

elmersalsa wrote:It's a toss up for me between Max Schmeling and Ken Norton in which to place to put them in the ATG heavyweight rankings. To me, both are in the 21-30 range.

That's pretty strange that you mentioned that, because I too often rate him around the same level as I rate Norton, but both go up and down in my estimation at times.

For me there's a few question marks over Schmeling in his career.

1. What would have happened had he met Primo Carnera? (I'd actually think that Max would be the favourite going in to this fight)

2. What would have happened had he and Jack Sharkey finished their rivalry with a trilogy? (I'd be taking Max in this one as well - Sharkey's win was flooded with controversy from what I've read)

A fight with Carnera and a third with Sharkey would have helped and given us more evidence either way. However, you can pretty much say that with almost anyone. There is almost always at least one interesting opponent that a fighter misses during his career.

As for Schmeling-Sharkey: The 2nd fight was controversial as many thought Schmeling should have got the decision. On the other hand, the first fight that Schmeling won was controversial too. Sharkey seemed to be winning when Schmeling went down from a dubious low blow. The referee disqualified Sharkey even though he never actually saw it himself. If that would happen today, the referee would have given Schmeling some time to continue and at most Sharkey would have been penalized one point.

To me those fights are a wash. It is too bad a third fight never happened.

Schmeling is definitely in my top 20. The win over Louis is one of the best in the history of the division. Also has wins over HOFers Jack Sharkey, Mickey Walker and Young Stribling. Uzucudun, Neusel, Foord were also very solid fighters. Yes he has the fluke KO loss to Daniels and the upset loss to Hamas, but he was still developing both skillwise and physically (had just risen from the light heavyweight ranks) in 1928, and Hamas was a skilled tricky fighter he was facing right after a brutal KO loss vs Baer. The rematch is one of the most one-sided sustained brutal beatdowns you'll ever see . . .Schmeling made it clear who was the superior fighter.

And Schmeling lose to Carnera? Don't make me laugh . . .

Max Schmeling was one of those guys who I am lukewarm on. In some fights, he looked like as masterful a boxer as anyone in history. In others, he looked average. Sure, all fighters have off nights. But I think his legacy will always be Joe Louis. Nothing wrong in that, but the rest of his career was inconsistent to a degree. In his peak years, he was stopped in one round by a light heavyweights named Gypsy Daniels. Sure, he avenged that loss, but such things do not happen to top ten-top fifteen caliber guys. When he was on the ball, and was focused and put in the effort, he could be supernatural. When he didn't do all three of those things, he would get annihilated. He was too methodical at times. Almost to the point of being so overly cautious that he would get caught, hurt and ultimately thrashed.

Up until a few years ago, I used to say he was the best heavyweight to come out of mainland Europe. But, of course, the Klitschko brothers (imho) surpassed him in that. So where does he rank? It's hard to say. He's one of those anomalies like Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles. He had the talent and the stuff to make an all-time great, and he even won some great fights. But he also lost to some average opposition. On paper alone, he should never of lost to the likes of Max Baer, let alone a Gypsy Daniels. But he did. Someone on this thread earlier said Schmeling would of never lost to Carnera... that's hard to say... on paper, yes, I'd favor Schmeling. But it all depended on what version of Schmeling showed up. It also depended on what version of Carnera showed up. Carnera, despite his skillset, was a faster starter than Schmeling and was so damn big and tough... I could see that dragging out for the entire fifteen rounds.

Think about it. At his peak Schmeling fought the former WELTERWEIGHT champion of the world Mickey Walker. That fight went eight rounds. Sure Walker was an all-time great. Sure Schmeling kayoed him. But how many all-time great heavyweights do you know, who would of let a midget like Walker hang eight rounds with them? I can't see that many doing it. Only the bottom tier of the top fifty or hundred, I can see allowing that to happen. I voted for Schmeling being somewhere between #31-40.

lorenzo1791 wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

Think about it. At his peak Schmeling fought the former WELTERWEIGHT champion of the world Mickey Walker. That fight went eight rounds. Sure Walker was an all-time great. Sure Schmeling kayoed him. But how many all-time great heavyweights do you know, who would of let a midget like Walker hang eight rounds with them? I can't see that many doing it. Only the bottom tier of the top fifty or hundred, I can see allowing that to happen. I voted for Schmeling being somewhere between #31-40.

Think about it. At his peak Hagler fought the former LIGHWEIGHT champion of the world Roberto Duran. That fight went FIFTEEN rounds. Sure Duran was an all-time great. Sure Hagler barely decisioned him. But how many all-time great middleweights do you know, who would of let a midget like Duran hang FIFTEEN rounds with them? I can't see that many doing it.

I think we both know that Duran could kayo Walker. The universe of difference between a Mickey Walker and Roberto Duran is immense. You made a good effort in your analogy, but considering Duran was an atg lightweight, and also an atg great welterweight, and accomplished much at higher weights--- there is no comparison to Walker to Duran. And the difference, too, is Marvin was without contention or doubt a top five middleweight of all time. Schmeling.... well.... somewhere in the top fifty.

Ambling Alp II wrote:He did show in several fights that he was a technically sound fighter. He did not show that against Baer, but it did in other fights. He was smart, had decent speed, and very good right hand.

He did have fights that should count against him and keep him form being higher. However, there are many positives which show that he was clearly one of the 30. He along with about another dozen fighters are all roughly even and belong somewhere outside the top 15 but in inside the top 30.

-First of all he did beat Joe Louis. One fight doesn't count for everything, but it counts for a lot.

- The loss to Louis is not as embarrassing as it may be seen at first glance. He was hit with several shots to the kidney. With another referee, that would not have been allowed and he probably would have lasted a lot longer.

-In the two controversial fights with Sharkey, he came out about even. Sharkey was certainly a top 30 heavyweight.

-Johnny Risko had great chin and was a tough as nails. he fought great competition and had well over 100 fights. Schmeling was the only one whoever stopped him.

-Schmeling beat Uzcudun twice. He also beat others who are long forgotton but were good fighters.

The real question should not be if Schmeling deserves to be the top 30 in this poll. It is if he should be in the top 20.

I'm glad that someone pointed out the kidney punches that Schmeling got hit with in the Louis rematch.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Schmeling denied the use of a key second in that fight?

(NO, I'm not suggesting that would have substantially changed things! Louis was going to win that night)

That is a classic, though there probably at least one other person on the Forum who would probably agree with it. Walker and Duran could have fought 20 times and it would not have happened.

Having said that; Schmeling beating Walker really is not that impressive. You certainly would expect a top 30 heavyweight to do that. However, he has enough other notable wins.

We need to weigh the losses/bad performances vs the wins/good performances.
How many guys can surpass or at least come close to Schmeling's big wins? There are some, but not 30.
Anyone that doesn't, can't have any bad losses themselves.
There simply is not 30 guys who when you weigh the evidence is better than him.

Are you telling me what I know? LOL

The Mickey Walker you say Duran couldn't knock out.... of all the examples you given.... were all men who couldn't break an egg, let alone hurt anyone... Loughran? Berlenbach? McTigue? Sharkey?.... powder puffs, feather fists. You bring up Uzcudun and Wright, but lets get real here Bearcat had a 37% kayo rate overall... by the time Walker fought the man he was also near the end of the line, that fight was in 1931, and he would retire in 1936 (he began his career in 1919). Walker beat essentially a worn down heavyweight. As for Uzcudun (the only legitimate name on that list who could punch, was in his peak years, etc) the fact is that Uzcudun was in complete control of that fight, until the eighth round. In the eighth Walker managed to cut the Spainard and had him blinded... from that moment on Walker was in complete control, and snatched the decision. I'll give Walker props for staying in there, until he finally got his lucky break with the cut... but had the cut not happened... I don't believe the toy bulldog would have won the fight.




I would argue that the only match that mattered in his entire heavyweight career was against Uzcudun, because everyone else was old, couldn't punch for beans anyways, or was inflated journeymen to begin with. Just my two cents.

I would argue that your last two posts on this thread are two the dumbest posts that I have ever seen on this Forum.
You can't compare the KO% of a guy fighting heavyweights and compare them to a guy fighting lightweights and welterweights. Duran did not punch anywhere remotely as hard as Schemling. He did not punch nearly as hard as a heavyweight like Bearcat Wright or Uzcudun.

Duran never stopped a decent middleweight. No reason at all to think he Kos the 174 pound Walker that Schmeling did.

palooka wrote:Not everyone mentioned in an old boxing book should be viewed as an all time great

I would take issue with this statement. I partially agree that not everyone mentioned in the various history books should be ranked as an ATG, but the opinions and observations of old boxing writers should not be as readily disregarded... Mostly because the ringside observers would have seen more of the older fighters that any of us have ever seen.

I would also expand above my above comment with a quick anecdote.

When I was youngster and only discovering our gloried sport, I hard heard the name "Sugar Ray Robinson" spoken in such admiration - as such, this mythical figure piqued my interest. I rushed to the internet to seek out his boxing record, and I was sorely disappointed when I seen that this so-called legend of the ring had a staggering 20 losses to his name!

My interest died there with the fallacy of my thinking being: "well he can't have been that good, if he was beaten twenty times". As such, I never engaged in to discussions regarding this fighter if I could help it.

A few years past, then I stumbled upon a documentary about him - upon watching it... I came to realize two things.

1. The true greatness of the fighter that I once dismissed and
2. That I was plain stupid.

The reason I bring this up is because it's highly that unlikely that any of us have seen a lot of the olden day figure from the early-to-mid 20th century, as such we should take on board the opinions of boxing enthusiasts of the their day. Not as gospel of course, there are many lies being perpetrated around certain fighters, but it's what keeps our sport so colorful and intriguing.

Schmeling was one of the greats. He had a few years in the wilderness when he was not on his game but he eventually recovered from that. Fabulous talent. Shame people don't want to see it.

Alp said something intriguing to me.... and that was the notion that there are not thirty heavyweights in history who were better, or who could have been the favorite over Schmeling... and I think such a thing should be put to the test...

Schmeling certainly wouldn't defeat the likes of the following (at their absoloute best years/peak):

#1- Ali
#2- Holmes
#3- Dempsey
#4- Marciano
#5- Foreman
#6- Norton
#7- Louis
#8- Holyfield
#9- Tyson
#10- Holyfield
#11- Lewis
#12- Langford
#13- Wills
#14- Johnson
#15- Jefferies
#16- Corbett
#17- Bowe
#18- Vitali Klitschko
#19- Vladimir Klitschko
#20- Liston
#21- Charles
#22- Walcott
#23- Frazier
#24- Patterson
#25- Tunney

Then we may as well throw up the fact that he had in fact lost to Max Baer and some others in his time. He does in fact, in my view, rate under the top 30 of all time... when you look at all the champions and all the contenders who were shut out from being champion in history... Schmeling isn't really all that great. I can't see him being able to outbox and chase down and win on points over the masters like Corbett, Walcott, Tunney, etc. and I sure can't see him lasting with the great punchers of the game... So what is really left? We can certainly find others out there in history who you could favor or believe could beat a prime Schmeling, so for all we know he's lower than the top 40.

I could see the likes of Quarry, Chuvalo, and others from different eras being able to defeat him. I mean who honestly can say they would favor him over such men? He struggled fifteen rounds with the likes of Sharkey, one of the most inconsistent heavyweights of all time. And considering Schmeling did not have the greatest of chins either... lets face it... I can see some of the behemoths of today and other eras pounding him down to the canvas as well.

I think the win over Louis is one that is over blown. Louis was still a work in process, and there are alot of things not really well known about his developmental years (he fought a one armed Baer, Braddock hadn't fought in years, Carnera was an alcoholic, etc) and the fact that Louis could demolish him inside of one round in the return... as Louis always did with opponents... shows who truly was the more masterful tactician/boxer and fighter.