maybe a robinson in the welters of historys top 10 or somebody THAT above the rest
maybe a robinson in the welters of historys top 10 or somebody THAT above the rest
Look Tyson /Louis would come down to who hit who first...Tyson was extremely fast starting and hit like a ton of bricks. He would have about 20 pounds on Louis...there is little doubt that if Tyson connected first he could really do a number on Joe...the huge if is here...in such a bout Louis would be prepared for a Tyson blitz so he would be extra careful looking for it...Joe had an exceptional jab, good defense and very good movement when he used it, you can see that in the M. Baer fight...while I feel Tyson had the better chin, there is little doubt that Louis could flatten Mike if he caught him with a few of his own bombs...I simply don't know who would win...I simply think Tyson would be the more dangerous foe, more than Foreman, due to his speed, power and fast starts...
good post- tyson more dangerous to louis than foreman imo.
A retrospectical view should have Max Baer and 'Jersey' Joe picked for Louis' best opponents, pedigree n' potential wise.
Baer was as tailor made for Louis as you could get. He had, let's be kind and say 'leaky' defensive techniques, often stood off whilst working no jab, attacked recklessly and was scared nearly stiff.
Louis explained later in life that he never felt better than when he fought 'ol madcap -- he has an extra visible spring in his step throughout the carnage.
A Louis vs. Tyson fight would have been something to behold. Perhaps the two most explosive punchers; one a deceptive, premier counter-puncher, the other a polished, slugging swarmer.
To Ted Spoons mind it has always been whether Tyson could finish what he starts. Louis is having problems in the beggining. He may go down or just get shaken, but he would be getting the worst of things early on.
Louis could not comprehend what would be coming his way, and he was fairly hitable in his upright posture, sporting fairly average lateral movement. Louis would have to look for hard counters early to discourage, and then get the jab pumping, but Tyson may overwhelm him within a few rounds.
I don't see Louis having real chin problems, he was a tough nut, but Tyson's power is something new to sample.
50/50 -- An early Tyson demolition or Late Louis destruction.
There must be a little bit more faith with Louis because he had the substance Tyson did not.
Hey Bob .... different forum ........ but same old quack quack.Originally Posted by Roberto Aqui
Using your criteria (i.e., rating them at their best, rather than how good they were when they fought Joe), I'd rank Joe's best opponents like this:Originally Posted by gregbeyer
3-Jersey Joe Walcott
hi everyone im new to the forum
some of you i recognize from other forums like boxrec and ESB
rating Joe Louis opponents when they fought joe
here is the best heavyweights louis ever beat
1.Jersey Joe Walcott
4. Billy Conn
5. James J Braddock
6. Primo Carnera
7. Bob Pastor
8. Arturo Godoy- godoy is very underated, throw his record book out the window
9. Buddy Baer
10. Lou Nova
Mr. EJack Sharkey & Max Schmeling were both over-the-hill when Louis beat them
i disagree. schmeling was by no means over the hill. schmeling reached his peak in 1936 and from 36-38 he continued to dominate contender and showed no signs of aging in the process.
sharkey on the other hand was completley washed up when he fought louis
Well, we at least agree on Walcott at #1. Although like i said, Schmelling was in his prime, when he was destroyed by Max Baer. Godoy was a pain in the ass for Louis because he was an unorthodox brawler with a concrete chin (although Louis dented that concrete chin). Brawlers sometimes give fundementle fighters fits, because they wing punches from all sorts of weird angles (Galento-Louis, Antefirmo-Hagler, Bonevena-Ali, Soliman-Winky wright)
But he is a sleeper, mainly because of his chin. I think Farr is a pssibility for that list. Of coarse like i said, style-wise Louis kills the sluggers. Obviously, boxers like Walcott, conn and Paster have the best chance of beating him. But unlike Paster and Conn, Walcott can punch (not in nova or Baer's league) but he is a boxer- puncher. I know Louis was past his peak, but Walcott did drop him 3X. he also got screwed by the judges, then was beating Joe's ass in the rematch when he got greedy. Still, Louis deserves credit for KO'ing conn and Walcott after he was hurt by them.
schmeling fought his worst fight of his career vs baer. he didnt let his hands go enough. i think schmeling would have won the rematch.
schmeling wasalso in his prime when he fought louis twice. schmelings peak was 1936
Walcott can punch (not in nova or Baer's league)[
walcott was a better puncher than nova. so i dont know what ur implying. walcott was very good puncher, he had one punch KO power in both hands.
walcott rated 66th in RINGS top 100 greatest punchers of all time
Last edited by Elmer Ray; 03-17-2006 at 03:04 AM.
What many simply don't get or acknowledge was that Schmeling was not a great fighter, simply a very good and dangerous one. He was beaten too often by too many non-greats to be great.
He was stopped several times before he came to America. He was getting his ass kicked by Sharkey the first time out before the foul. He got destroyed by Baer, by no means ever a great fighter.
Schmeling was a cautious, straight up fight with a decent defense, great condition, a huge heart, a ton of smarts and a dynamite right hand. Very tough and a difficult challange but not great.
I agree with you on your assessment of Max.
One thing about the Sharkey fights though: While Jack WAS winning the first bout before the foul occured, In the second bout Max performed MUCH better and Multiple sources have concluded that it was a bad duke and Max should have retained his title.
Now the fact that Sharkey was never consistent in HIS performances was probably a large contributiong factor that led to this.
I think it's at least fair to say that Sharkey didn't "own" Max.
schmeling took sharkey to school in the rematch, and it wasnt because sharkey had an "off night". it was because max was great. sharkey was far more experience in world class entering the first fight and he overwhelmed schmeling a little. but max trained hard in the rematch and showed the first fight wasnt a fluke by outboxing sharkey the whole way, only to end up getting robbed.
max also beat very good top contenders like
TKO 9 johnny risko
TKO 15 young stribling- one right hand knocked stribling out. only time in striblings 300 BOUT career he was ever stopped. now that shows you what kind of puncher max was
W 15 Paulino Uzcuden
TKO 8 mickey walker- walker was virutally cleaning up the heavy division until he ran into max
and other solid fringe contenders like
KO 9 steve hamas
KO 9 walter neusal
TKO 8 harry thomas
W 12 ben foord
add the louis and sharkey wins and you have a fine resume
I think schmeling does not get enough credit for the louis victory. i mean knocking out possibly the greatest heavyweight of all time is something that should defintley be taken more into account.
was schmeling great? I defintley think so, top 20 HW of all time if u ask me
Skillwise schmeling has it. schmeling not only was a fantastic boxer and a first class counterpuncher, he also could punch too(especially in his right). schmeling at 6'1 190lb also had very big muscle proportions, his chest is near 50" i believe. He possesed solid handspeed, threw accurate and well timed counterpunches, his combinations were excellent, he was hard to hit cleanly because of his cagey defense, high guard, and ackward way of leaning over. Schmelings right counter was one of the finest counterpunches in heavyweight history. he threw it with incredibly well timing, precision, accuracy, speed, and had plenty of power behind it.
- i would have liked to see a baer-schmeling rematch, schmeling was the better fighter.
- i know nat flesicher did call schmeling the most underated heavyweight of all time.
you must also remember, schmeling should have been 2x heavyweight champ. he should have got the shot vs braddock, and he defintley would have won. perhaps he would be rated higher today had he got that title shot and ben 2x champ.
I have Schmeling at #20 as well in my heavyweight list.
However, I think that says more about the greatness depth of the Heavyweight division and it's history, more than it does about Max Schmeling. The division is extremely top heavy, but very thin when you get into the 20's range (IMO).
A very good to excellent fighter, but I'm not sure I would call him great.
I Do give Max oodles of credit for his win over Joe. And the rematch with Sharkey also was very impressive. But I do think it was a combination of Schmeling fighting up and Sharkey fighting inconsistant as he had his entire career.
I don't give a whole lot of credit for the Walker win. Cleaning up the heavyweight divison before facing Max? Uzcudun and Levinsky weren't exactly on hot streaks going into their respective bouts with Walker and Mickey did drop a duke to Johnny Risko two fights before his bout with Schmelling. The Sharkey Draw? I'm sorry I just chalk that up to Sharkey being Sharkey. No reason for that bout to have been remotely competitive.
So while I agree Walker was having success in the Heavyweight division, I wouldn't go so far as to say he was cleaning up.
Just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Last edited by hawk5ins; 03-17-2006 at 11:58 AM.
u make fair points.
- walker did lose to risko, but he also beat risko twice.
basically what i meant was walker since coming to heavy division was on a roll a and the one to finally put it to a blugeoning halt was schmeling.
sharkey wasnt inconsistent the 2nd schmeling fight. this was a title fight, sharkey came very prepared.
REMEMBER: schmeling was the champion, not sharkey. so all the hunger and will to win was on sharkeys side. so OBVIOUSELY sharkey brought his A game because this fight was for the title. sharkey didnt fool around when it came to the big fights. in his two prior biggest fights vs dempsey and first schmeling fight, sharkey preformed amazingly only to come up with 2 losses due to bad luck.
i think the first fight was due to max schmeling still being young and inexperienced against world class fighters. schmeling was a better fighter the 2nd go around.
schmeling was better and more mature and prepared in the rematch, which is why schmeling handled sharkey so much better than the first time.
Max had a bad night when he fought Baer, and Baer looked outstanding in that fight and never showed that aggression and discipline in the ring ever again, even against Carnera (which aside from the huge rights which connected Baer looked poor in). The Baer that fought Schmeling would've given a lot of great HWs trouble.
I believe Schmeling was a great fighter, who improved into his 30s as he filled out more and became a smarter fighter.He wasn't always very active in the ring, but he was all about precision and timing, and boy could he time his right hand and left hook beautfully.
I believe all but 2 of Schmelings' 3 pre-Baer KO losses were due to cuts.Originally Posted by HE Grant
I think Sharkey beat him 2-of-2, but I do think he would've beaten Baer in a rematch. My understanding is that Schmeling was leading on all cards prior to getting caught in the 10th.
Lee Ramage doesn't make the list of Joe Louis's best
opponents, but he was a skillful boxer who had some
wins while facing many of the best heavyweights of his
era. My point is that an inexperienced Louis stopped
Ramage twice. You will not find any current top fighter
who was fighting such good competition so early in his
career as Joe Louis.
- Chuck Johnston
You know, the notion that Schmeling was robbed in the Sharkey rematch comes, it seems to me, from people repeating the opinions expressed by Schmeling's manager (to wit, 'we wuz robbed!') and Schmeling himself.Originally Posted by hawk5ins
Referee Gunboat Smith was always adamant that Sharkey deserved the nod, as was NYSAC William Muldoon, who was present. About a year ago, IBRO published a next-day newspaper account of the bout in which the sportswriter who authored the account also opined that Sharkey won. Sounds to me like Sharkey won fair and square.
I have a copy of the New York Times Encyclopedia of Sports, the Boxing edition and in it it reprints the TImes's post fight account dated June 22nd 1932.
The subtitles to the headline "70,000 see Sharkey outpoint Schmeling to Win World Title" were:
*Boston Heavyweight Triumphs over German in 15 rounds in New Bowl.
*Officials Vote 2-1
*$500,000 Gate Estimated
*Many in the Crown voice Disapproval of Decision--MAJORITY of Experts Favor Loser.
And of Course-
*Milk Fund to recieve 25 Per Cent of Net Profits.
But that really has nothing to do with the point here.
James P Dawson who penned the article also felt Max won 9-5-1. ANd noted that in an Expert ringside poll, 14 of 22 polled immediately after the bout, favored Max. 1 had it a draw and 7 for Sharkey.
GunBoat Smith's contention that the decision was fair, must be considered as he was in the ring. But let's remember that he also had a vote along with the two judges and he voted for Jack. So he wouldn;t likely criticize his own card. ANd the Muldoon as NYSAC isn't likely to raise too much of a stink about a decision in his backyard under his watch.
Last edited by hawk5ins; 03-17-2006 at 06:11 PM.
Two replys: Louis blows Tyson out. Tyson had great speed, so did Louis with the timing to go with it. Tyson could rip off a six punch combo, but he has never shown the counter-puncher timing. Joe leaves him flat after 5.
P4p wise. I have to say Ezzard Charles. He is the only man I have above Louis on my p4p list of Louis' opponents.
Elmer Ray, interesting that you would write off Schmelling's loss to Baer as an "off night". it wasn't as though he wasn't motivated for this fight. It was a match up of #1 and #2 contenders, and the winner was to receive a shot at the Champion (Carnera) that either fighter knew they would kill. So it was in effect, a title fight. Plus the fight had a ton of hype, since Schmelling was viewed by some as a Nazi (incorrect). Also, Baer, being something like 1/16 Jewish, played it up (I think that was the first fight that Baer wore the star of David on his trunks). Fact was, Baer destroyed him. He was too big and strong for Schmelling. The reason Max didn't let his hands go was because he got hurt early by Baer's power and quit taking risks. I could see if it was a close fight or if there was an adjustment that Max could make, I could see your argument, but a one-sided beating in a big fight ? (It would be like Terrelle asking for a re-match against Ali). Hey, if you want to argue that Schmelling is a better overall fighter than Baer, but because of style match ups he lost to him, no problem, probably a valid point. Secondly, Schmelling has some flaws that a lot of heavies would nail him on. he was an old-style lean-back fighter (him and Burley were about the last two holdovers with that style). Yes, if you are dumb enough to reach for Schmelling's head, he will counter you to death. But, like Louis did in the second fight, if you lead to the body (which lean-back fighter's give you) it will take you to the head. I have no doubt that swarmers like Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, Tyson, and even fat-ass David Tua (if he's motivated) would kill Schmelling inside of 3 rounds. by getting inside they take the power away from his right. As would guys such as Baer, who had size and strength advatages over Max. As far as using Nat Fleischer as a source. Fleischer viewed everything in the past with stars in his eyes. He wouldn't rate Moore, Charles, or Conn in his altime Light Heavy ratings. He wouldn't rate Robinson in his welterweight ratings (he rated him #5 at Middle, which in Fleicher's case is like rating him #1). He also had James J Corbett rated higher than Ali or Louis (all 178 llbs of him). Yes, Max fought a hell of a tactical fight in the first Louis fight (he said that Louis never corrected his flaw of lazily bringing his left hand back too low after he jabbed , but that joe was good enough to get away with it anyway) but it's pretty much commen knowledge that Louis underestimated Schmelling (partially based on the Baer destruction) in the first fight and Blackburn made the adjustment of having Louis take the fight to Schmelling via the body in the second fight. Last point: yes, Schmelling probably beats Braddock (but Braddock had a ton of heart, and wouldn't have been a walkover for Max), but the problem is that if Shcmelling had beaten Braddock, Hitler would have kept the title in Germany, so it's hard to know where Schmelling would have ranked in the all time rankings. Especially since he definatly wouldn't have defended against Louis or any other non-German (especially a black american)
that's why Braddock had all the leverage on Louis in contract talks, basically gouging Jacobs in order to break a legal contract with Schmelling.
Btw: Welcome to the board, Elmer Ray!
The fight was not a one sided beating. Baer dominated early, Schmeling rallied in the mid rounds as Baer's ADD kicked in. Later Baer got motivated and took him out. The talk that that Baer could have beaten any of the all time great heavyweights is nonsense. He would have still been murdered by Louis or any of the top guys. He simply beat up the very good but not great, limited and inconsistant Schmeling.
Is anyone here telling me that roundhouse swinging, poorly paced, off balance, methodical and slow footed Baer beats Johnson (other than Roberto) , Dempsey, Tunney, Marciano, Liston, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Lewis or Tyson ? No way !!! Any of those guys would have beaten the daylights out of the best Baer that ever fought.
1930 - 1935 was an extremely weak era in the heavyweight division. It's more than likely that none of those guys would have even been champs if the color line was not drawn. It might have been the worst stretch of heavyweight champs till today.
Schmeling - inconsistant, limited, smart, well conditioned, dangerous
Sharkey - super inconsistant, a head case, the best of that lot but lost the big ones. If any of them had a shot at greatness, he was the one. He blew it.
Carnera - 95% of pre title bouts were set ups or hand picked. Had huge size and heart, pretty good stamina, decent hand speed for a big guy and a decent jab and good recoopperative powers. Still, simply a second rater when matched up against the best.
Baer - Big, strong, iron chin, huge right hand. Often poor condition, questionable motivation and desire, slow and easy to hit.
Braddock - huge heart, decent right hand, slow and limited. He did not lose twenty times by accident.
Last edited by HE Grant; 03-17-2006 at 11:13 PM.
Where did I say that Baer could beat ANY great Heavyweights. Louis' destruction of him pretty much ended his mystique, as did Nova's two victories over Baer (I saw 20 minute highlights of both of them). Although his right hand may be up there with Shavers, hard to tell. all I said was that Baer's victory (at least the one I saw on video) over Schmelling was in my view one-sided (obviously Baer went into his usual funk). I certainly wouldn't call it a fluke. My point was that he was too big, strong and powerful than Schmelling, who like Baer, was a second (or even third) tier heavyweight champion. My point was that how is Schmelling going to beat a motivated Baer in a re-match (and the Jewish vrs Nazi build up would motivate him) ? What is Schmelling going to get bigger, stronger or more powerful in order to keep Baer off him ? Plus you'd also have to factor in confidence, since Baer did hurt and stop Schmelling in their first match. i can't see a re-match being any different.
I agree with Hegrant, the Baer Schmling fight was not one sided.
It was pretty close until Baer took over in the late rounds. Schmling was doing pretty good. Dont judge the highlights ESPN shows. You need all ten rounds to get a pic of the fight.
Originally Posted by Mr E
how did sharkey beat him 2-2??
schmeling won the first fight on a legite foul, and schmeling was robbed in the sharkey rematch. the consensous at ringside was schmeling won.
if anything schmeling went 2-0 vs sharkey
out of baer, schmeling, sharkey i think schmeling was the best. schmeling beat joe louis.
- schmeling was outboxing baer the whole way in mid rounds. it appeared schmeling was taking over and baer would be ripe for the taking in the championship rounds. the fight was basically even going into the 10th, and then baer landed a huge right on schmeling and then proceeded to beat the shit out of him and hit him with girly backhands before finishing him off.
schmelings problem was he was not letting his hands go. he needed to. schmeling had very good power, and if he let his hands go more baer would have backed off and respected schmeling a bit more. schmeling did not look like himself out there.
i think max schmeling wins the rematch
Last edited by Elmer Ray; 03-18-2006 at 02:26 AM.
Originally Posted by The Shoemaker
excellent post shoemaker u make some great points that are hard to disagree on.
one thing i think u are mistaken on is the scoring of the schmeling baer fight. it seems u believe baer dominated schmeling the whole fight, however entering the 10th is was basically a dead even fight.
Baer was doing his usual screwing around, throwing Bolo punches, hamming it up like an idiot. maybe i viewed that as domination, or that baer could have done that whenever he wanted. i could be wrong, but man did he beat him badly in the 10th. I am not like one of these guys who look at lazy, clowning fighters with awe and say "well he could have been great had wanted to". A lot of times not giving 100% is a defense mechanism for failure (easier to justify when you lose). A friend of mine interviewed Max Baer Jr. (AKA Jethro Bodine) and he said that Schmelling was one of the few fighters that Baer hated and didn't want to just beat him he wanted to humiliate him - I am sure the media playing up the Nazi vrs The Jew build up had something to do with it. But I agree with you that Schmelling was the better fighter, I just think its a bad match up for him. Some people will overrate Baer, because they are fascinated by power. Same with Earnie Shavers. Plus, with Baer they will always have the "what if he took boxing seriously ?" He was serious for Joe Louis and got blown away- that should answer that.