Joe Louis Vs Max Schemling

[VirusTI]

I was thinking about these fights.
And something occurred to me. Max Schmeling was past it in the second one.
After analyzing their records, ages and competition I've come to the conclusion that when they first met, it was a 22 year old Joe louis and a 31 year old Max Schmeling.

That sounds like Prime for prime to me, given that Louis had KOed Primo Carnera and Max Baer in previous fights.
Also given that Mike Tyson still had not lost at age 22, and beat both Spinks and Holmes.

It looks to me like Schmeling is or was the better for the two until he got old.


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

[Slimey Limey]

You said it all basicely. Schmeling picked apart and brutally KO'd a prime Joe Louis. There is a lot of hypocrisy from his fanboys, claiming he wasn't in his prime yet. This brutal loss is always skipped aside because of the second fight where Max was definitely past it.

Max and Jack Johnson saw the flaws in Louis, and unfortunately only Schmeling had the chance to execute it, as Johnson would have done so as well if they'd ever met.

Left hand low. Sounds simple, but this was natural for Louis. He never stopped doing that, and that is why he was knocked down and hurt so often in his career. In fantasy match ups this would be exploited by all time greats and it would show how overrated Joe Louis truly was and still is to this day.

[Jim Jeffries]

I was thinking about these fights.
And something occurred to me. Max Schmeling was past it in the second one.
After analyzing their records, ages and competition I've come to the conclusion that when they first met, it was a 22 year old Joe louis and a 31 year old Max Schmeling.

That sounds like Prime for prime to me, given that Louis had KOed Primo Carnera and Max Baer in previous fights.
Also given that Mike Tyson still had not lost at age 22, and beat both Spinks and Holmes.

It looks to me like Schmeling is or was the better for the two until he got old.


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

It doesn't necessarily mean that. It could mean that Max just had his number, but then he wouldn't have fared so poorly in the rematch, even when older. It could mean that Max exposed a particular flaw in the young Louis, a flaw that was later repaired. Either way, different fighters peak at different ages, you can't compare him to Tyson, the earliest peaking HW ever, just like you wouldn't to Lennox Lewis, one of the latest. Was Ali in his prime at 22, in the first Cooper fight, when he was a torn glove away from being stopped? I don't think so, and likely, neither was Louis.

[VirusTI]

I just explained to you the Louis was in his prime, he had beaten MAx Baer and Primo Parnera!

[fight_professor]

Louis is on another plane in terms of HW greatness to Max. It was a good win, which was dually avenged. Joe Louis is a giant amongst HW, not literally of course but figuratively, a superb fighter.

2nd best of AT? Maybe not, but he'd give anyone a real handful.

[JAB5239]

I was thinking about these fights.
And something occurred to me. Max Schmeling was past it in the second one.
After analyzing their records, ages and competition I've come to the conclusion that when they first met, it was a 22 year old Joe louis and a 31 year old Max Schmeling.

That sounds like Prime for prime to me, given that Louis had KOed Primo Carnera and Max Baer in previous fights.
Also given that Mike Tyson still had not lost at age 22, and beat both Spinks and Holmes.

It looks to me like Schmeling is or was the better for the two until he got old.


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

Max was an excellent fighter who in my opinion is highly underrated. He was also a great human being.

In the first fight Louis didn't train, spent his days golfing and frolicking with women. No excuse...schmeling took it to him and won fair and square. But this wasn't a prime Louis just because he had dispatched other top heavies on his way up. He was young, cocky and learned a lesson. If this wan't so Max would have at least had some success in the rematch whether he lost or not. Louis corrected his mistakes and utterly destroyed him. He than went on to set a record number of defenses that will NEVER be broken by a heavyweight.

Max was never the better fighter outside of that night. Their records before and after prove this beyond a doubt.

NOBODY thinks Douglas was a better fighter than Tyson before or after his fight with Mike, only on that night. same goes for Louis-schmeling, except Louis avenged his loss in brutal fashion.

I got great respect for Max, but it was a one shot deal where the circumstances and timing all fell into place.

[JAB5239]

You said it all basicely. Schmeling picked apart and brutally KO'd a prime Joe Louis. There is a lot of hypocrisy from his fanboys, claiming he wasn't in his prime yet. This brutal loss is always skipped aside because of the second fight where Max was definitely past it.

Max and Jack Johnson saw the flaws in Louis, and unfortunately only Schmeling had the chance to execute it, as Johnson would have done so as well if they'd ever met.

Left hand low. Sounds simple, but this was natural for Louis. He never stopped doing that, and that is why he was knocked down and hurt so often in his career. In fantasy match ups this would be exploited by all time greats and it would show how overrated Joe Louis truly was and still is to this day.

And Ali was prone to being tagged with the left. Big deal. If it was as simple as you make it sound...1, Schmeling would have had at least some success in the rematch. He was older, not shot. 2, Louis wouldn't have been able to defend his title a record 25 times, as somebody would have been able to execute the same game plan.

[Slimey Limey]

Here comes the Joe Louis bias.

In the first fight Louis didn't train, spent his days golfing and frolicking with women..

That's funny, that's the first time I've heard that. It certainly didn't look like it, and yes it is an excuse and you're still taking something away from Schmeling's win. He destroyed a prime Joe Louis, period. Just like Douglass destroyed a prime Mike Tyson. Just like Muhammad Ali destroyed a prime Foreman etc.

No excuse...schmeling took it to him and won fair and square. But this wasn't a prime Louis just because he had dispatched other top heavies on his way up. He was young, cocky and learned a lesson.If this wan't so Max would have at least had some success in the rematch whether he lost or not. Louis corrected his mistakes and utterly destroyed him. He than went on to set a record number of defenses that will NEVER be broken by a heavyweight.

You are contradicting yourself and your reasoning for this is all wrong as well mate.
This was a prime Joe Louis, no ifs and buts about it. Tyson was also young against Douglass and had dispatched other top heavies on his way up, and he probably would have destroyed Douglass in a rematch as well. It still doesn't mean they weren't in their prime.

This was Louis' 24th fight, he had brutally ko'd 6 of his last opponents, and some of those were the best wins he'd have in his career.

Max Baer
Primo Carnera
Paulino Uzcudun


Joe Louis is not invincible. Get it through your head. He could lose in his prime and did. He had flaws just like every other fighter.

And Ali was prone to being tagged with the left. Big deal. If it was as simple as you make it sound...1, Schmeling would have had at least some success in the rematch. He was older, not shot. 2, Louis wouldn't have been able to defend his title a record 25 times, as somebody would have been able to execute the same game plan.

Schmeling was older, not shot? He was noticably slipping and not the same those 2 years later. Holmes was past his prime overnight. It can happen. He looked nothing like the old Schmeling in there, almost looked like a fixed fight. There was nothing in the ring there. And it sounds like you're calling Max a one trick phony. Doesn't sound like you have such great respect for him.

And you know why this wasn't done more often to Louis? Because his title reign is so overrated, and Conn was on his way to do the exact same thing if he wasn't a Light Heavyweight and made a mistake. Walcott schooled Louis as well. And why did Louis still get hurt and knocked down so often in his career? Because of the very same flaw Schmeling and Johnson discovered in him. I do believe if he had met Charles or Marciano early in his career he would not have such a "perfect record".

[JAB5239]

That's funny, that's the first time I've heard that. It certainly didn't look like it, and yes it is an excuse and you're still taking something away from Schmeling's win. He destroyed a prime Joe Louis, period. Just like Douglass destroyed a prime Mike Tyson. Just like Muhammad Ali destroyed a prime Foreman etc.

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

You are contradicting yourself and your reasoning for this is all wrong as well mate.
This was a prime Joe Louis, no ifs and buts about it. Tyson was also young against Douglass and had dispatched other top heavies on his way up, and he probably would have destroyed Douglass in a rematch as well. It still doesn't mean they weren't in their prime.

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?

This was Louis' 24th fight, he had brutally ko'd 6 of his last opponents, and some of those were the best wins he'd have in his career.

Max Baer
Primo Carnera
Paulino Uzcudun

These are good wins, not his best.

Joe Louis is not invincible. Get it through your head. He could lose in his prime and did. He had flaws just like every other fighter.

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

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

Schmeling was older, not shot? He was noticably slipping and not the same those 2 years later. Holmes was past his prime overnight. It can happen. He looked nothing like the old Schmeling in there, almost looked like a fixed fight. There was nothing in the ring there. And it sounds like you're calling Max a one trick phony. Doesn't sound like you have such great respect for him.

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?

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

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

And you know why this wasn't done more often to Louis? Because his title reign is so overrated, and Conn was on his way to do the exact same thing if he wasn't a Light Heavyweight and made a mistake. Walcott schooled Louis as well. And why did Louis still get hurt and knocked down so often in his career? Because of the very same flaw Schmeling and Johnson discovered in him. I do believe if he had met Charles or Marciano early in his career he would not have such a "perfect record".

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

[GJC]

He looked nothing like the old Schmeling in there, almost looked like a fixed fight.

Must say it certainly looked as bent as the Dempsey Willard fight. Was a convincing dive though only a German witrh their attention to detail would have a vertebrae broken to make it look better.
Louis had flaws as does every fighter ever born. Schmeling spotted a flaw and capitilised, only problem was it involved taking about 3 or 4 rights waiting for Louis to drop the left.
Simple to take 3 Louis rights suprised everyone didn't try it lol.