Joe Louis Vs Max Schemling

[Benny Leonard]

First, you bring Tyson into this but Tyson was Champion at 22 and Louis when he fought Max the first time wasn't. He was about one year away from winning the HW title.

There are stories that Louis wasn't at his best on that night because he was living it up and not focusing on training. Kind of like Tyson with Douglas since you brought Tyson up. But, that is on both of them for not being at their best.

What Schmeling did to him that night was to expose the flaw of Louis dropping his hand after he jabbed and in the end, knocked Louis out. What Louis took from that fight was that he learned from his mistake when facing Max, and in order to prevent Max from doing it again, he attacked Schmeling from the start. So even if the flaw was still there or Max figured out another way to beat him, Louis knew he was the better Fighter of the two when he decided to fight instead of just boxing to break down the opponent.
What Louis also learned from that fight is that you have to be prepared both Mentally and Physically for each fight or you risk losing. He went on a tear after that loss as proof. It wasn't just about boxing and making a good living anymore but the addition of those two and wanting to be the best; wanting to be CHAMPION...which is why he wanted Max again.

Schmeling in the 2nd fight was past his best. Not Shot, but past his best. Not so much that he was two years older in the rematch since he continued to win after the Louis victory, but I factor in what I've heard about the intense pressure he had going into that fight and not wanting to be a part of the Nazi system. Like I say: Mental and Physical counts. So say he was still quite good, the pressure he had to deal with may have had a negative effect on him for that fight.
Louis had pressure on him as well, but it was a good pressure he could handle that forced him to train and be at his best...while with Max, I think it took a negative effect with him.


You also have to remember that Louis was still young, continuing to learn, and also even better in rematches. Once he saw a style in the first fight, he would adjust in the second...which helped him to continue to improve.

Here is an example when this style from Godoy presented itself to him:

Fight 1:







Now the rematch after seeing the style:

Fight 2





I think Louis at his absolute best beats Max at his best...specifically if it is a best out of 3.

My opinion is also that Louis absolute best came after losing to Max because he needed that loss to correct himself and improve as a fighter. It made him train better and keep him motivated to fight and be the best.

[glidesmack]

Good debate. Schmeling does school louis in the first fight, in the second Louis destroys schmeling more than school him. That doesn't really mean anything, though. There were rumors Louis didn't train for the first fight, I haven't watched the video recently but I wonder of it was as obvious as tyson douglas, where tyson simply isn't himself. In the rematch, Jack Dempsey suggested Louis try to bomb out schmeling in the first round because schmeling was a famous slow starter. Louis certainly listened to the idea. Even though Louis destroys schmeling in the rematch, for a moment it looks as if the fight is going to be a repeat as schmeling shoots a right over a louis jab. Another point of interest is Louis's response when asked how he felt about first winning the title against braddock. "Don't call me champ until I beat that bum Schmeling," was his response. Doesn't sound like the words of a man who's remotely worried about a rematch.

One does wonder what might have happened if Schmeling had warmed up properly for the rematch, eliminating his slow starting tendency, and shown up in top form. To be honest, I'm sort of inclined to believe the result would have been the same, as Louis did not seem intent on doing anything but ending Schmeling's life in the first round. In a chess match you might favor Schmeling, but power combined with intelligent aggression has its upsides and Louis exhibited both quite well that night.

[Slimey Limey]

Half arsed response there mate. This is quite funny. I did not even use a single insult in my post, just facts and common sense but a true Louis nuthugger like Jabbie STILL becomes very angry and turns it into a flame war just because I don't agree with his opinion on Louis' invincibility, absolute perfection and flawless legacy..LOL.

Lol, this is the first time you've heard that? Shows how little you really know of Louis and boxing history in general.

It is the first time because before meeting all these Louis nuthuggers I didn't even know what an excuse for a loss was. but of cource, it COULDN'T have been Louis just getting his ass kicked in his prime. No, it's because he was partying, careless, young, not ready, etc etc etc etc.

Louis reigned as champion for nearly 12 years. When did his prime end? are you trying to say Louis had a 12 to 14 year prime?

If he kept winning then I don't see a reason why he's wasn't at his best at one point. If anything it's just you again making excuses so that you won't lose this laughable image of perfection that you have of Louis.

These are good wins, not his best.

VERY convenient ignoring the rest of what I said. He was on a dominating winning streak looking unstopable and destroyed 3 of his best wins, not THE ONLY best wins he'd have. Read better. This just shows he was in his prime.

Nobody said he didn't have flaws. But he is still the greatest or second greatest heavyweight ever.

Greatest? LMAO.

Ok Jabbie. I dare you to mention a flaw about Louis. I bet this would be like cutting yourself, but I dare you to do it sincerely.

By the way.....we're all still waiting on that list of heavyweight champions with better resumes than Louis and the reasons why.

Are you still angry about that? You were trolled in that thread mate. And by the looks of it I did a hell of a job on you since you still can't let it go. I laugh every time you bring it up, it's just lovely, mate.

Hmmm, weren't you the one blowing up Holmes and how competitive he was with Holyfield and beating Mercer? Now You're saying he was "past his prime overnight". Can you say AGENDA?

No, but you can say he had a SHORT PHYSICAL PRIME. When he fought Holyfield and Mercer he wasn't in his prime but still fought great, it has nothing to do with it.

Nah, it didn't look like a fixed fight. More like a public execution.

Atleast he got it quick when he was past it. Louis was slowly beaten to a pulp, painfully and slowly untill Max made the young lad QUIT.

I think very highly of Schmeling. But at his very best he doesn't compare to the very best Louis.

I don't think anyone implied this. He was however one of the few to beat or be able to beat Louis so he was definitely good.

Btw, if I was biased towards Louis I'd be bashing Schmeling so much to make it seem like Louis lost to a bum. So nope, you can't say "AGENDA?" mate.

I can't remember....remind me again what happened to Conn and Walcott

Conn got caught and Walcott was robbed, then beaten in a rematch. Louis aint getting no free pass. Just because you lose and then win a rematch does not mean the first fight never happened.

[Benny Leonard]

Good debate. Schmeling does school louis in the first fight, in the second Louis destroys schmeling more than school him. That doesn't really mean anything, though. There were rumors Louis didn't train for the first fight, I haven't watched the video recently but I wonder of it was as obvious as tyson douglas, where tyson simply isn't himself. In the rematch, Jack Dempsey suggested Louis try to bomb out schmeling in the first round because schmeling was a famous slow starter. Louis certainly listened to the idea. Even though Louis destroys schmeling in the rematch, for a moment it looks as if the fight is going to be a repeat as schmeling shoots a right over a louis jab. Another point of interest is Louis's response when asked how he felt about first winning the title against braddock. "Don't call me champ until I beat that bum Schmeling," was his response. Doesn't sound like the words of a man who's remotely worried about a rematch.

One does wonder what might have happened if Schmeling had warmed up properly for the rematch, eliminating his slow starting tendency, and shown up in top form. To be honest, I'm sort of inclined to believe the result would have been the same, as Louis did not seem intent on doing anything but ending Schmeling's life in the first round. In a chess match you might favor Schmeling, but power combined with intelligent aggression has its upsides and Louis exhibited both quite well that night.

Fighters have to deal with so much that it is probably is rare to have two fighters meet at their absolute best. I'm not talking about "Prime" as I am having two fighters well trained, well motivated, smooth training camp, no injuries, etc. And if you can get two fighters in their prime to fight, that is incredible.
Some fighters can be in their prime, but go into a fight injured, or sick, or unmotivated because of outside influences. There is so much to look at that can influence an outcome.
It's one of the reasons I brought up the rumors that Joe Louis was not well trained for the first fight and in the second fight was. However, while Max was well trained and motivated for the second fight, in the rematch, he was two years older and dealing with the pressure of the Nazi machine that he was said didn't want to take part of. So even if Max was in his prime, mentally, that outside influence can be hard to overcome and influence how he fights. And even though Joe Louis had a ton of pressure put on him to win the rematch, I think that heavy pressure to win was something Louis liked and needed...while Max may have felt different by the time the rematch happened.
But that is all a part of being a Fighter; to overcome the obstacles at hand. But, I think some fighters have it a little easier than others based on certain things that happen. For me, I look at it all because it does matter. You can have one fighter better than the other if both are at their best, but many factors can come into play and influence what happens. Again, it's true the fighters should overcome all obstacles, but are each fighter in the same position and given the same obstacle(s) to overcome?


Anyway, I think both fighters were very good but Louis was the better fighter. Maybe it is hard to say who would win at each other's best, but I would say at least if it was a best out of three; Louis would win two out of three...with the one loss maybe coming in the first meeting if he can't adjust in that match. But again, like I said, a great thing happened to Louis in that first meeting against Schmeling and that was to forever know that a fighter must be well trained both Mentally and Physically to fight or he risks greater odds to lose...which led to Louis being the fighter he became after fighting Max.
For Max, I think he went on to win the European Title afterwards.

[Benny Leonard]

I know movies can distort the truth, but I saw this movie a while back on TV....it's now on youtube.

Check out this one scene:

[Benny Leonard]

Joe Louis and Max Schmeling - a history

(part 1 of 9)



2



3



4



5

[Benny Leonard]

6



7



8



9

[StarshipTrooper]

Half arsed response there mate. This is quite funny. I did not even use a single insult in my post, just facts and common sense but a true Louis nuthugger like Jabbie STILL becomes very angry and turns it into a flame war just because I don't agree with his opinion on Louis' invincibility, absolute perfection and flawless legacy..LOL.



It is the first time because before meeting all these Louis nuthuggers I didn't even know what an excuse for a loss was. but of cource, it COULDN'T have been Louis just getting his ass kicked in his prime. No, it's because he was partying, careless, young, not ready, etc etc etc etc.



If he kept winning then I don't see a reason why he's wasn't at his best at one point. If anything it's just you again making excuses so that you won't lose this laughable image of perfection that you have of Louis.



VERY convenient ignoring the rest of what I said. He was on a dominating winning streak looking unstopable and destroyed 3 of his best wins, not THE ONLY best wins he'd have. Read better. This just shows he was in his prime.




Greatest? LMAO.

Ok Jabbie. I dare you to mention a flaw about Louis. I bet this would be like cutting yourself, but I dare you to do it sincerely.



Are you still angry about that? You were trolled in that thread mate. And by the looks of it I did a hell of a job on you since you still can't let it go. I laugh every time you bring it up, it's just lovely, mate.



No, but you can say he had a SHORT PHYSICAL PRIME. When he fought Holyfield and Mercer he wasn't in his prime but still fought great, it has nothing to do with it.



Atleast he got it quick when he was past it. Louis was slowly beaten to a pulp, painfully and slowly untill Max made the young lad QUIT.



I don't think anyone implied this. He was however one of the few to beat or be able to beat Louis so he was definitely good.

Btw, if I was biased towards Louis I'd be bashing Schmeling so much to make it seem like Louis lost to a bum. So nope, you can't say "AGENDA?" mate.



Conn got caught and Walcott was robbed, then beaten in a rematch. Louis aint getting no free pass. Just because you lose and then win a rematch does not mean the first fight never happened.

All that can be said is Really, you belong over on NSB with the other low-intellect fan-bois. It's clear rational discourse is lost on you so you can expect to get bashed now that you've managed to alienate most of Boxing Scene's intelligent posters.

Poet

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

It is the first time because before meeting all these Louis nuthuggers I didn't even know what an excuse for a loss was. but of cource, it COULDN'T have been Louis just getting his ass kicked in his prime. No, it's because he was partying, careless, young, not ready, etc etc etc etc.

You didn't know because you aren't aware of Louis' history. You just make assumptions and jump to conclussions.

If he kept winning then I don't see a reason why he's wasn't at his best at one point. If anything it's just you again making excuses so that you won't lose this laughable image of perfection that you have of Louis.

His prime started with the first Schmeling fight, after he had learned from his mistakes. Most experts and historians agree on this.

VERY convenient ignoring the rest of what I said. He was on a dominating winning streak looking unstopable and destroyed 3 of his best wins, not THE ONLY best wins he'd have. Read better. This just shows he was in his prime.

Lots of fighters have dominating win streaks to start their careers. Doesn't mean they were in the physical or mental prime though, does it?

Greatest? LMAO.

Him or Ali. No one else is close.

Ok Jabbie. I dare you to mention a flaw about Louis. I bet this would be like cutting yourself, but I dare you to do it sincerely.

Lol, what are you 6? You dare me?

Louis' two biggest flaws were his habit of getting caught with the right, and even though he had better footwork than given credit for would always stick to slowly cutting the distance between opponents which could be detrinmental many times against movers.

Are you still angry about that? You were trolled in that thread mate. And by the looks of it I did a hell of a job on you since you still can't let it go. I laugh every time you bring it up, it's just lovely, mate.

Man, quit lying. You got taken to school and humiliated in that thread. You opened your mouth, got called on it and couldn't back it up. stop trying to save face now. I can bump that thread if you'd like?

No, but you can say he had a SHORT PHYSICAL PRIME. When he fought Holyfield and Mercer he wasn't in his prime but still fought great, it has nothing to do with it.

Lmao!!! Look at you trying to backpeddle and make excuses now. How come this can be said of Holmes (now), but the exact opposite can't be said of Louis in the 1st Schmeling fight?

Atleast he got it quick when he was past it. Louis was slowly beaten to a pulp, painfully and slowly untill Max made the young lad QUIT.

As opposed to when he was more experienced and mature, right?

I don't think anyone implied this. He was however one of the few to beat or be able to beat Louis so he was definitely good.

Nobody has said different.

Btw, if I was biased towards Louis I'd be bashing Schmeling so much to make it seem like Louis lost to a bum. So nope, you can't say "AGENDA?" mate.

You're biases against Louis, thats why you attempt to blow up the loss to schmeling and put down his level of competition. Its either that or you are just ignorant. Take your pick.
















.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............

[BattlingNelson]

So what is it, why do people forgo their first fight? On a political their second fight is everything, but it does not mean much on a boxing level.
But, given the pedestal Louis is held on today, their first fight is a Buster Douglas type. Except that would be injustice to Schemling who is a great Heavy.

So what is the reason the first fight is forgotten? Max Schmeling underrated, Joe Louis overrated, their second fight highly overrated, Max was German so that made him evil???

Discuss

Schmelings win over Louis was a great effort. So it is when you're handing a great fighter his first defeat. Schmeling was very much a student of the game and noticed that Louis was a sucker for the right hand. Max executed his gameplan to perfection landing hard rights on a consistent basis.

That fight alone to me makes Schmeling the best in the mediocre era of heavies in the era between Tunney and Louis.

I don't think the fight is forgotten at all. It's a great fight and a great performance by Schmeling. It is correct however that the fight is somewhat overshadowed by their second meeting due to the political aspects as well as the sheer brutality of that fight where Max screamed out in pain as Joe drilled his body.

I don't find Schmeling overrated. I find him rated just about right and he is certainly not considered evil today and much of the 'evil' he was portrayed as being was based solely on him being a citizen under Hitler. It was only to hype up the fight as it was well-known that Schmeling had a jewish manager (I think the name was Jacobs or something).