Max Schmeling overrated??

Thunder and Lightning · Post by **Thunder and Lightning** » 26 Jul 2006, 08:11

This is a thing i as a european have been asking myself since we don't have that many great heavyweights.
I have watched peoples top HW lists and he is alot of times placed in the top 15 and i'm just wondering is that realy right.

I mean who besides Jack Sharkey and Joe Louis did he beat, and Sharkey he beat on a foul and than lost the rematch making his title reign pretty short and i have to say that the Louis win must have been a fluke considering he didn't even get trough the first round in the rematch.

I am not saying that he is overrated i am just curios on what you think.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 26 Jul 2006, 08:22

Thunder and Lightning wrote:This is a thing i as a european have been asking myself since we don't have that many great heavyweights.
I have watched peoples top HW lists and he is alot of times placed in the top 15 and i'm just wondering is that realy right.

I mean who besides Jack Sharkey and Joe Louis did he beat, and Sharkey he beat on a foul and than lost the rematch making his title reign pretty short and i have to say that the Louis win must have been a fluke considering he didn't even get trough the first round in the rematch.

I am not saying that he is overrated i am just curios on what you think.

T & L

there are a lot of people on these boards who know more about Max than I do but there are more to his achievements than you might think...

I believe that he was losing the first bout with Sharkey and won by acting up the foul, but most people agree that he should have got the decision in the rematch.

Beating Joe Louis was no fluke. He dismantled him in a manner no other HW would ever, not Charles, not Marciano; and many think Max was already fading by this point.

When i watch Schmeling I see a fighter with bags of stamina, a strong jab and a potent, accurate right hand.

He pretty much gets dismissed these days but I think he's definitely a top 20 fighter.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 26 Jul 2006, 09:26

Thunder and Lightning wrote:This is a thing i as a european have been asking myself since we don't have that many great heavyweights.
I have watched peoples top HW lists and he is alot of times placed in the top 15 and i'm just wondering is that realy right.

I mean who besides Jack Sharkey and Joe Louis did he beat, and Sharkey he beat on a foul and than lost the rematch making his title reign pretty short and i have to say that the Louis win must have been a fluke considering he didn't even get trough the first round in the rematch.

I am not saying that he is overrated i am just curios on what you think.

Young Stribling (HOFer), Mickey Walker (HOFer), Johnny Risko (top challenger in the late 1920s), Paolino Uzcudun (top challenger in the late 1920s), and of course the epic win over Joe Louis. Plus, he arguably won the refight against Sharkey - the decision was received as scandalous even in the US at the time.

In short, Schmeling was probably the best heavyweight of the world between 1931 and 1933, and the second best of the great 1930s. A top 15-20 ranking all-time appears well deserved.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Jul 2006, 11:22

pundit wrote:
Thunder and Lightning wrote:This is a thing i as a european have been asking myself since we don't have that many great heavyweights.
I have watched peoples top HW lists and he is alot of times placed in the top 15 and i'm just wondering is that realy right.

I mean who besides Jack Sharkey and Joe Louis did he beat, and Sharkey he beat on a foul and than lost the rematch making his title reign pretty short and i have to say that the Louis win must have been a fluke considering he didn't even get trough the first round in the rematch.

I am not saying that he is overrated i am just curios on what you think.
Young Stribling (HOFer), Mickey Walker (HOFer), Johnny Risko (top challenger in the late 1920s), Paolino Uzcudun (top challenger in the late 1920s), and of course the epic win over Joe Louis. Plus, he arguably won the refight against Sharkey - the decision was received as scandalous even in the US at the time.

In short, Schmeling was probably the best heavyweight of the world between 1931 and 1933, and the second best of the great 1930s. A top 15-20 ranking all-time appears well deserved.

I agree, a strong resume and HOF attributes (ring smarts, chin, stamina, excellent counter puncher)

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 26 Jul 2006, 21:05

schmeling knocked out hall of famer young stribling. only time in striblings 300 bout career he was ever stopped. schmeling knocked him out with 1 right hand!

overated? hell no

schmeling beat

joe louis
jack sharkey
johnny risko
paulino uzcuden
mickey walker
steve hamas
adolph heuser
harry thomas
walter neusal

thats a damm fine resume not to mention he beat the greatest heavyweight of all time near his prime

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 26 Jul 2006, 21:21

BB...I dont' recall him fighting Ali.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 26 Jul 2006, 21:50

BoxBuzz wrote:BB...I dont' recall him fighting Ali.

o did u not catch wut i said?? i said schmeling beat the greatest heavyweight of all time. i never said schmeling beat the 2nd greatest heavyweight of all time.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 26 Jul 2006, 22:38

ahh practicing for your debut at the comedy clubs? That's some funny material. But like Joe said...he'd be on the tour....

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 27 Jul 2006, 13:45

Is Schmeling overrated? It's interesting, because several months ago there was a thread about him being underrated. :) Most (though not all) people he was a bit underrated. You often hear that Schmeling is underrated.

As Thunder & Lightning mentioned some people do have him in their top 15; and that is a reach. There are certainly 15 guys who were better.

However, (probably a smaller amount) people underrate him and rate him lower than he they should.
He has some big plusses and big minuses to consider.
On the plus side, he did beat Joe Louis. You can't take that away from him. He also had some other nice wins that others have pointed out.

On the negative side, he got stopped by Baer, lost to Steve Hamas (though he avenged this loss) had a draw with Uzcudun (though he beat Uzcudun on two other occasions) and got destroyed by Louis.

I have him just behind guys like Langford,Wills, Jeanette, McVey, Charles, Walcott, Norton and Patterson and about even with Baer. However you could make the argument for Schmeling over these guys; They all have their plusses and minuses as well.
Some would have him behind guys like Corbett, Fitzsimmons, and Sharkey.

So if you give Schmeling the benefit of the doubt; you could realistically have him as high as #16. However, if you never give him the benefit of the doubt, you could have him as far down as #29. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Schmeling (and Charles and Walcott for that matter) actually kind of reminds me of a few basketball players from the 1980's. Like Schmeling, Maurice Cheeks, Dennis Johnson, and Joe Dumars were complimented often and were constantly referred to as "underrated".
However, after a good length of time, if a guy is consistently referred to as "underrated" is he still "underrated"? :)

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 27 Jul 2006, 14:05

i rate schmeling over tunney

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 27 Jul 2006, 14:38

Ambling Alp wrote:Is Schmeling overrated? It's interesting, because several months ago there was a thread about him being underrated. :) Most (though not all) people he was a bit underrated. You often hear that Schmeling is underrated.

As Thunder & Lightning mentioned some people do have him in their top 15; and that is a reach. There are certainly 15 guys who were better.

I have exactly 15 guys who are better (Schmeling is my #16).

However, (probably a smaller amount) people underrate him and rate him lower than he they should.
He has some big plusses and big minuses to consider.
On the plus side, he did beat Joe Louis. You can't take that away from him. He also had some other nice wins that others have pointed out.

On the negative side, he got stopped by Baer, lost to Steve Hamas (though he avenged this loss) had a draw with Uzcudun (though he beat Uzcudun on two other occasions) and got destroyed by Louis.

There are a few essential things missing from your argument. Schmeling fell into a hole in 1934, this is the year when ALL the poorer fights you cite happened - allthewhile the "draw" with Uzcudun was a clear-cut robbery in front of a spirited Spanish crowd. The loss to Hamas Schmeling avenged with ease, and thereby ended Hamas' career. Schmeling worked on a re-fight with Baer, but then other things came in between and Baer dropped out of world class himself.

I have him just behind guys like Langford,Wills, Jeanette, McVey, Charles, Walcott, Norton and Patterson and about even with Baer.

You should have him above Baer, he achieved MUCH more. I also disagree firecely with putting him behind the likes of Ken Norton. Schmeling was widely considered the best heavyweight in the world 1931-33. Norton was never near that status.

So if you give Schmeling the benefit of the doubt; you could realistically have him as high as #16. However, if you never give him the benefit of the doubt, you could have him as far down as #29. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

With the benefit of the doubt Schmeling can be as high as #10. He can NEVER be #29. There are no 28 other fighters who were considered the best heavyweight in the world for a period of three years.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 27 Jul 2006, 23:56

Pundit,
I guess we are not using the same criteria when judging and that is why we differ somewhat on Schmeling.
I'm not judging just on 3 years. You're right that there aren't 28 heavyweights that were the best for 3 years. However, I consider a fighter's bouts for much longer than that. I don't factor in a fighters first few years or any years when he is clearly on the decline. Still that leaves more than 3 years.
Most fighters don't have enough significant fights in a three period against a wide variety of good opponents to get an accurrate gauge.

I do count Schmeling's loss to Hamas in 1934 against him. It helps that he avenged the defeat, but it still is a negative against him.
To be honest, I wasn't aware of the controversy in his draw with Uzcudun, so that's fair enough to throw that out.
As for Ken Norton, he fought in a much better era than Schmeling.
You mentioned that Schemling was the best from 1931-1933; did you mean 1929-1931?
Anyway, I believe that Norton would have been the top heavyweight in the early 1930's. There is no way that Schmeling would have been #1 at any time in the 1970's.

Using the criteria, that I use, I would consider Schmeling's fights from about 1929-1938. Since Norton was a late bloomer and only had about a 6 year prime (1973-1978) you could make a good argument for Schmeling since he was a top fighter for longer than Norton. However, given Norton's win over Ali, Quarry and Young, the destruction of Bobick and the debatable loss to Holmes, you could also make a case for Norton.

I just can't put Schmeling over Ali,Louis,Foreman,Johnson,Frazier,Holmes, Marciano,Dempsey,Holyfield,Lewis,Liston,Bowe,Tyson,Jeffries, or Tunney.
On balance, all 15 seemed to have better careers than Schmeling. (I also don't think Schmeling would beat any of them 2 out 3.) So that puts him at #16 at best for me.

Hope people don't think I'm ripping Schmeling. He was a great fighter and a great person. I like him a lot better than some of the guys that I had to put ahead of him.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 28 Jul 2006, 09:44

Ambling Alp wrote:Pundit,
I guess we are not using the same criteria when judging and that is why we differ somewhat on Schmeling.
I'm not judging just on 3 years. You're right that there aren't 28 heavyweights that were the best for 3 years. However, I consider a fighter's bouts for much longer than that. I don't factor in a fighters first few years or any years when he is clearly on the decline. Still that leaves more than 3 years.

In that case you should take out Schmeling's dismal year of 1934 - most certainly one of "decline", shouldn't you?

As for Ken Norton, he fought in a much better era than Schmeling. You mentioned that Schemling was the best from 1931-1933; did you mean 1929-1931?

No, 1931-1933. Most thought Sharkey was better in 1929/30, and that Sharkey would have beaten Schmeling in 1930 hadn't it been for that foul. But Sharkey deteriorated, and Schmeling won the critics over with a stunning performance against Young Stribling in 1931.

Conversely, the Sharkey points win over Schemling in 1932 was seen as a clear robbery by the NY press. It was only in 1933 that Schmeling lost the edge, and he lost the claim of being the world's best heavyweight in 1933 by losing to Max Baer.

Anyway, I believe that Norton would have been the top heavyweight in the early 1930's. There is no way that Schmeling would have been #1 at any time in the 1970's.

But not because of Norton - because of Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, who I also rate above Schmeling. Each of these was considered the world's best heavyweight at one point or another.

I just can't put Schmeling over Ali,Louis,Foreman,Johnson,Frazier,Holmes, Marciano,Dempsey,Holyfield,Lewis,Liston,Bowe,Tyson,Jeffries, or Tunney.

This ranking business is difficult. I put him above Bowe for sure, also Jeffries and I would have to check whether I have him above Holyfield. Then there are others I would but above him that you haven't mentioned, notably Sam Langford and perhaps Harry Wills.

I'd argue though that Schmeling had a better career than several of these folks - again, who of these achieved more than being considered the world's best HW for 3 years, PLUS making the most stunning comeback three years later, taking out the clear #1?Had things gone according to the rules, Schmeling would have fought Braddock next and most likely gotten back the championship.

Hope people don't think I'm ripping Schmeling. He was a great fighter and a great person. I like him a lot better than some of the guys that I had to put ahead of him.

I think you slighlty underate him as a fighter though.

Cheers, P

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 29 Jul 2006, 14:10

Maybe I should explain by what I meant by "decline". I feel it's legitimate to make an allowance for a fighter who declines because he is getting old and/or has been in too many "wars".
However in Schmeling's case in when he lost to Hamas in 1934, (or the loss to Baer in 1933 for that matter)he was still in his twenties. He really has no legitimate excuse for losing. Maybe he just had an "off night", but "off nights" count. It should be factored in when weighing all of the positives and negatives for his career.
As for the 3 guys that I rate as defintely better than Schmeling that you don't;

Holyfield- You have Tyson over Schmeling, and Holyfield deserves to be higher than Tyson. He beat roughly the same quality of fighters that Tyson beat and of course twice beat Tyson head to head.
People seem to forget about Holyfield's victories before he won the title. He did beat Thomas, Dokes, Tillis etc. and was impressive in doing it.
(I hope that someone doesn't twist this into yet another lengthy Tyson thread). Both Holyfield and Tyson lost to someone they shouldn't have (Moorer and Douglas). I Hope someone doesn't twist this into another lenghty Tyson thread)
There is no legitimate reason for rating Tyson over Holyfield.

Bowe - he only lost one fight, and that was a close decison to holyfield. He also beat holyfield when holyfield was at his best, and also beat the same type of guys that Lewis and Tyson beat.Bowe beat Seldon, thomas, Biggs,Tubbs, Donald etc.
Bowe shouldn't be rated too far behind Holyfield,Lewis and Tyson. Of course he should have fought Lewis and he could have accomplished more in career, but he still had a great career. Bowe was a hard puncher,extremely fast and athletic for a big man,had a good chin, good boxing skills and was a very good inside fighter.
I know a lot of people don't like bowe, but if you take a hard look at his career it's actually pretty impressive.

Jeffries- Never lost in his prime, and this included some very good competition. He was 2-0 against Sharkey, Corbett, asnd Fitsimmons.

You also mentioned that you have Langford and Wills over Schmeling; as I do, but I think that is more debatable.

I don't think there is a huge gulf between us in ranking Schmeling;I believe you have him around # 16 and I have him just outside of the top 20. I just wanted to explain some of the reasoning that I don't have Schmeling quite as high as you do.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 29 Jul 2006, 14:25

People seem to forget about Holyfield's victories before he won the title. He did beat Thomas, Dokes, Tillis etc. and was impressive in doing it.

thomas tillis were completley washed up. dokes was a good win though.

There is no legitimate reason for rating Tyson over Holyfield.

tysons 1980s title reign and him cleaning out the division in the late 1980s is better than anything holyfields ever done. holys title reign compared to tysons is crap. holyfield was a lot more inconsistent in his prime than tyson was, and tyson dominated his opponents in his prime more than holyfield did.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 29 Jul 2006, 14:31

Bowe - he only lost one fight, and that was a close decison to holyfield. He also beat holyfield when holyfield was at his best, and also beat the same type of guys that Lewis and Tyson beat.Bowe beat Seldon, thomas, Biggs,Tubbs, Donald etc.
Bowe shouldn't be rated too far behind Holyfield,Lewis and Tyson. Of course he should have fought Lewis and he could have accomplished more in career, but he still had a great career. Bowe was a hard puncher,extremely fast and athletic for a big man,had a good chin, good boxing skills and was a very good inside fighter.
I know a lot of people don't like bowe, but if you take a hard look at his career it's actually pretty impressive.

bowes competition outside of holyfield sucked! honestly it sucked. he did not beat one very good fighter besides holyfield

- bowes title reign was awful. old washed up fergusson and dokes is pitiful.

- bowe ducked lennox

- the other best fight he fought golota, beat the shit out of him twice though bowe was past it.

on film hes impressive, thats it. but his competition sucked. hes top 25 IMO, but not top 20.

schmelings win over joe louis rates over bowes win over holyfield

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 29 Jul 2006, 14:35

max baers would have defended his title against schmeling had he beaten braddock like he should have. schmeling would have spanked baer in the rematch like he should have the first time. schmeling fought an awful fight the first time and baer fought his best, and the fight was still even going into the 10th round on judges scorecards.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 29 Jul 2006, 14:44

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
People seem to forget about Holyfield's victories before he won the title. He did beat Thomas, Dokes, Tillis etc. and was impressive in doing it.

thomas tillis were completley washed up. dokes was a good win though.

There is no legitimate reason for rating Tyson over Holyfield.
tysons 1980s title reign and him cleaning out the division in the late 1980s is better than anything holyfields ever done. holys title reign compared to tysons is crap. holyfield was a lot more inconsistent in his prime than tyson was, and tyson dominated his opponents in his prime more than holyfield did.

Interesting that Thomas was "completely washed up" when Holyfield beat him in 1988, and that you argued in antother thread that Thomas wasn't washed up at all when Tyson beat Thomas in 1987.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 29 Jul 2006, 14:53

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Bowe - he only lost one fight, and that was a close decison to holyfield. He also beat holyfield when holyfield was at his best, and also beat the same type of guys that Lewis and Tyson beat.Bowe beat Seldon, thomas, Biggs,Tubbs, Donald etc.
Bowe shouldn't be rated too far behind Holyfield,Lewis and Tyson. Of course he should have fought Lewis and he could have accomplished more in career, but he still had a great career. Bowe was a hard puncher,extremely fast and athletic for a big man,had a good chin, good boxing skills and was a very good inside fighter.
I know a lot of people don't like bowe, but if you take a hard look at his career it's actually pretty impressive.

bowes competition outside of holyfield sucked! honestly it sucked. he did not beat one very good fighter besides holyfield

- bowes title reign was awful. old washed up fergusson and dokes is pitiful.

- bowe ducked lennox

- the other best fight he fought golota, beat the shit out of him twice though bowe was past it.

on film hes impressive, thats it. but his competition sucked. hes top 25 IMO, but not top 20.

schmelings win over joe louis rates over bowes win over holyfield

Bowe best other fight certainly wasn't Golota. As mentioed before, he beat Seldon, Thomas, Donald etc. Tyson never beat anyone that Bowe wouldn't have beat as well. Bowe never lost to someone like Buster Douglas. Bowe beat Holyfield and of course Holyfield beat tyson.

Why should Schmeling's win over Louis (as impressive as it was) be rated Bowe's victory over Holyfield ? Sure career wise Lous was better than Holyfield, but Louis was obviously way off of his game when he fought Schmeling. Holyfield was at his best when Bowe beat him to win the title.

Bowe should ranked close to Holyfield, Tyson, and Lewis.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 30 Jul 2006, 12:19

Alp:

Seldon, Thomas, Donald are NOWHERE NEAR Sharkey, Risko, Stribling, Walker, Uzucudun, Heuser, Neusel. You don't even need Schmeling's victory over Louis to rank him above Bowe; although the Louis knockout was of course Schmeling's by far most impressive and most important win. Besides, there is of course absolutely no comparison bewteen beating a Holyfield in whatever shape and beating Louis in his prime years.

As for Tyson and Holyfield I rank them similar to Schmeling, and I think this is born out by the relative strneght of their compeition and the status they enjoyed at times in the heavyweight division. I think I have Tyson even a touch above Schmeling, as he was considered a miracle when he came through the ranks in the mid/late 80s, even though he faded quickly and thoroughly (and Holyfield's wins over Tyson have to be seen in this contect, of course). Schmeling was considerd the world's best heavyweight for three long years, but not as untouchable as Tyson was at his time.

Ohterwise I refer to Brockton, whose views on this topic I largley share.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 30 Jul 2006, 12:45

BoxBuzz wrote:BB...I dont' recall him fighting Ali.

Do you think Schmeling could have beaten Doug Jones, Jimmy Young, Ken Norton?

Ali couldn't.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 30 Jul 2006, 18:52

pundit wrote:Alp:

Seldon, Thomas, Donald are NOWHERE NEAR Sharkey, Risko, Stribling, Walker, Uzucudun, Heuser, Neusel. You don't even need Schmeling's victory over Louis to rank him above Bowe; although the Louis knockout was of course Schmeling's by far most impressive and most important win. Besides, there is of course absolutely no comparison bewteen beating a Holyfield in whatever shape and beating Louis in his prime years.

As for Tyson and Holyfield I rank them similar to Schmeling, and I think this is born out by the relative strneght of their compeition and the status they enjoyed at times in the heavyweight division. I think I have Tyson even a touch above Schmeling, as he was considered a miracle when he came through the ranks in the mid/late 80s, even though he faded quickly and thoroughly (and Holyfield's wins over Tyson have to be seen in this contect, of course). Schmeling was considerd the world's best heavyweight for three long years, but not as untouchable as Tyson was at his time.

Ohterwise I refer to Brockton, whose views on this topic I largley share.

Well, I agree that Sharkey (when he was on) was better than some than Seldon,Thomas and Donald. Also Stribling, Risko when he was on (which was only about 50% of the time) was close, but I strongly disagree with Walker, Hueser, and Nuesel. They were fringe contenders at best.

If you watch Bowe against Holyfield and then the 1st Schmeling-Louis fight, I don't see how you can come to conclusion that Schmeling beat a better fighter. This wasn't a typical Joe Louis performance. He was off almost the whole fight. There are other fighters who could have beat Louis in that particular night. On the other hand Holyfield was at his absolute peak and fought a great fight against Bowe though he lost.

Bowe was tremendously talented fighter. He had no major weakness except for training. He could do almost everything well.

Take a hard look at Bowe's record. They certainly weren't all world beaters. However Bowe had several fights against some pretty decent opponents. He had to be pretty consistent to only lose one fight. (A close decison) If Schmeling had fought Bowe's exact competiton, he certainly would have lost more than 1 fight. It's doubtful that more than a dozen fighters in history fighters would have gone undefeated or only lost one fight against Bowe's competition.

If you turn the tables, Bowe would have lost fewer fights against Schmeling's competiton than Schmeling did.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 31 Jul 2006, 09:46

Ambling Alp wrote:Well, I agree that Sharkey (when he was on) was better than some than Seldon,Thomas and Donald. Also Stribling, Risko when he was on (which was only about 50% of the time) was close, but I strongly disagree with Walker, Hueser, and Nuesel. They were fringe contenders at best.

Still much better than Larry Donald or Bruce Seldon. These were not even fringe contenders.

If you watch Bowe against Holyfield and then the 1st Schmeling-Louis fight, I don't see how you can come to conclusion that Schmeling beat a better fighter. This wasn't a typical Joe Louis performance. He was off almost the whole fight.

He was off from round 4 when he was caught by Schmeling's sharp right. He was very much the prime Joe Louis in the first 3 rounds.

There are other fighters who could have beat Louis in that particular night.

I strongly doubt it. No other fighter but Schmeling would have dared to stand constantly within reach of Louis' jab to get a chance to let lose this short, hard overhand right. And even if they would have dared so, they couldn't have executed it - Schmeling's short right is quite unique in boxing history.

Bowe was tremendously talented fighter. He had no major weakness except for training. He could do almost everything well.

But he didn't do anything with his career. Bowe is one big fight and otherwise a lot of unfulfilled potential.

Schmeling, in contrast, is one SUPER-big fight, PLUS 3 years of dominance of the world heavyweight division, PLUS victories over 4 hall-of-famers, PLUS a career at the highest level spanning 10 years (with one year interruption).

Take a hard look at Bowe's record. They certainly weren't all world beaters. However Bowe had several fights against some pretty decent opponents. He had to be pretty consistent to only lose one fight. (A close decison) If Schmeling had fought Bowe's exact competiton, he certainly would have lost more than 1 fight. It's doubtful that more than a dozen fighters in history fighters would have gone undefeated or only lost one fight against Bowe's competition.

The only Bowe opponent I can see Schmeling losing to is Holyfield, and even this would be a very interesting fight and by no means a foregone conclusion.

If you turn the tables, Bowe would have lost fewer fights against Schmeling's competiton than Schmeling did.

This assessment is based on.... what? The fat retard who was beaten up twice by Golota wouldn't have lost to the likes of Sharkey, Baer, Uzcudun, Stribling?

Alp, as much as I appreciate you, I see no way how we could come to an agreement here. In my view you are simply off the mark as regards both, Schmeling and Bowe.

Cheers, P

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 31 Jul 2006, 13:43

I'm not saying that guys like Seldon or Donald were all time greats or anything like that, but they were decent wins. Seldon even won a paper title, Donald was indeed a ranked contender for awhile and was a sound fundamental boxer. Mickey Walker (as a heavyweight) wasn't a great fighter and neither were Neusel and Heuser.
Can't imagine Bowe having any problem with any of them.
I agree with you that I would favor Schmeling over any fighter that Bowe beat except Holyfield. however Schmeling wasn't the most consistent guy. You yourslef mentioned a couple of Schmeling's off nights. If he had to fight Donald,Seldon, Biggs, Tubbs, Thomas etc., it's very unlikely that he would have gone undefeated.

Bowe had to be pretty consistent to do this. Holyfield lost to Moorer, Lewis lost to McCall and Rahman, Tyson lost to Douglas. Bowe never lost to anyone but a close decison to holyfield, and beat Holyfield.
Bowe's list of victimes is comparable toLewis and Tyson; and they are consistently rated in the top 10 or just outside of it. It really isn't accurrate for Bowe to be outside the top 20.

I think it's a little deceiving saying that Schemling beat 4 Hall of Famers. Walker certainly wouldn't have been a Hall of Famer for what he did as a heavyweight, and it's doubtful that Stribling would have either. (Though I will grant you that each had a few decent wins agains heavyweights)

As for Schmeling;s best wins (not including Louis) -Sharkey,Uzcudun, Walkerand Stibling, Well I would favor Bowe against all of them. Can't see Walker lasting 8 rounds against Bowe, Stribling 15, and he should have been able to beat Sharkey and Uzcudun.
Bowe wouldn't have lost to Hamas.
I would give Baer a puncher's chance against Bowe, but that would be it.

This is all assuming that Bowe perfomed liked he almost always did; not the out of shape Bowe that fought Golota. If he fought like that most of the time, I would agree that Bowe wasn't that good. Even then Bowe, did techincally beat Golota.
I guess what I'm saying is that Riddick Bowe on his average night was better than Schmeling on his average night. He would also probably defeat Schmeling in head to head matchup.

Of course you probably diagree. I believe that most of this disagreement is that I don't consider the 1930's heavyweights to be as good of an era as you do. To me to be considered by some to be the best for 3 years in the early 1930's isn't all that impressive.
So instead of going around in circles, I guess it's time to move on. I'll let you have the last word if you like.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 31 Jul 2006, 13:47

Ambling Alp wrote: So instead of going around in circles, I guess it's time to move on. I'll let you have the last word if you like.

No, you had the last word.
Cheers, P.

Max Schmeling overrated??

Max Schmeling overrated??

Re: Max Schmeling overrated??

Re: Max Schmeling overrated??

Re: Max Schmeling overrated??