Larry Holmes vs Max Schmeling

[janitor]

While Holmes is the greater fighter overall I think that Schmeling would have been a stylistic nightmare for him.

With that overhand right countering the jab the best Holmes could hope for would be a hard earned win.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Schmelling aint got the chin Holms has and I'm a Schmelling fan. It would be a good fight though.

[Lobotomy]

Max's right was best as a countershot, catching opponents coming in. Larry would keep it at long range with his jab. Schmeling could be extremely dangerous against super aggressive foes. Holmes wouldn't play that game, and take a comfortable decision win.

[Bummy Davis]

Holmes may be able to out box Max but there was always danger when Max was in shape he had a great right hand and a very good left to boot, he did kill 2 men in the Ring Frankie Campeel and most blame him for Killing Earnie Shaff.....and had a focused brutal win over Max Schmeling..It depends on which Max shows up but he could be outboxed

[bumdujour]

Holmes may be able to out box Max but there was always danger when Max was in shape he had a great right hand and a very good left to boot, he did kill 2 men in the Ring Frankie Campeel and most blame him for Killing Earnie Shaff.....and had a focused brutal win over Max Schmeling..It depends on which Max shows up but he could be outboxed

:lol: that is max baer you are talking about.

[bumdujour]

take away the louis fight............and what do you have???

sure, he beat a 22 year old inexperienced louis by countering his left hook with perfection.

but much less skilled fighters beat schmeling or gave him serious trouble.

jack sharkey was ordinary, and he gave schmeling all he could handle. both him and max baer didnt have much trouble taggin him with the jab.

and when it comes to jabs, holmes is in a different league than those two. next to holmes, both were unrefined brutes.

so a stylistic nightmare???? i dont think so. the punch he countered so well vs louis was a left hook, thrown in a forward motion, so he caught louis coming in.
holmes jab would be tossed off the backfoot. so this aint louis vs schmeling I all over again.

and even if schmeling would catch holmes from time to time with the right, holmes would take it and just keep going. his chin was very good.

and on the inside, schmeling crossed armed defense was a sucker for an uppercut.........and holmes knew how to throw that uppercut.

schmeling was clever and he was tough. that would allow him to last the distance.

holmes by ud.

[Bummy Davis]

:lol: that is max baer you are talking about.


ooops Too much Sun today.....Schmeling had a good style to do damage to Holmes .....I like his chances but a close hard fought battle most of the way...Max had the power edge...and he would ZEE something when Larry dropped his jab

[spion]

take away the louis fight............and what do you have???

sure, he beat a 22 year old inexperienced louis by countering his left hook with perfection.

but much less skilled fighters beat schmeling or gave him serious trouble.

jack sharkey was ordinary, and he gave schmeling all he could handle. both him and max baer didnt have much trouble taggin him with the jab.

and when it comes to jabs, holmes is in a different league than those two. next to holmes, both were unrefined brutes.


so a stylistic nightmare???? i dont think so. the punch he countered so well vs louis was a left hook, thrown in a forward motion, so he caught louis coming in.
holmes jab would be tossed off the backfoot. so this aint louis vs schmeling I all over again.

and even if schmeling would catch holmes from time to time with the right, holmes would take it and just keep going. his chin was very good.

and on the inside, schmeling crossed armed defense was a sucker for an uppercut.........and holmes knew how to throw that uppercut.

schmeling was clever and he was tough. that would allow him to last the distance.

holmes by ud.

Good assessment. I would agree.

[Hatesrats]

Larry Holmes would chop Schmeling to pieces...
I'm tempted to say NO contest, but I do not want to take anything away from Max. I can't give Max any advantage here, Holmes even has the edge in power. I can't help but picture a fallen Schmeling after taking several rounds of Larry's jab's and Straight Right's.

Does anyone belive Schmeling can K.O. Holmes?
I can't see it going down, tho starnger things can happen.
(I still don't think he can beat Louis....but obviously we know he did)

[Bo Bo Olson]

Do believe what started Louis's down fall with Schmelling was the dropped left jab.
That was what he saw, and what he studied on speical first in the world slow motion film of him. Schmelling had Joe's fight film remastered, on to slow motion.

No matter what one says, Louis had a hell of a jaw. Schmelling was teeing off on it and keeping him in a daze all night long. I was amazed at how long it took Schmelling to finally put him away.

[teeto]

There's the stylistic thing to be taken into consideration here, Schmeling can counter the jab if Holmes isnt hitting precisely with it, andthe right hand coming over the top is one of the finest, k.o. material, but i gotta pick some1, and i'll pick Larry everytime, he was too great imo

[janitor]

[quote=bumdujour]take away the louis fight............and what do you have???


Quite a lot actualy.

When Scheling fought his American debut it was against Johny Risko who the bookmakers had instaled as the favourite to suceed the retired Gene Tunney as champion. Nobody gave this unknown European heavyweight a chance. Schmeling not only dismantled Risko but was the first person to stop him.

He followed this up with a decisive drubbing of Paulino Uzcudun who was also a frontrunner for the vacant throne. In reality Schmeling won all three of his fights against Uzcdun decisivley including one where his right hand (his main weapon) was out of commision.

Schmeling did win the title from Sharkey on a foul but he deserved the decision in the rematch which should have put his claim to the title beyond question.

His first title defence was against the top 2 ranked Young Stribling and again Schmeling was the first fighter ever to stop him.

Mickey Walker was a natural middleweight but he had beaten a number of ranked heavyweights and held Jack Sharkey to a draw. Schmeling was the only person who was able to do to him what a world class heavyweight should do to a world class middleweight.

He suffered losses to Steve Hamas and Max Baer but rebounded from them by stopping the 28 year old No1 ranked Steve Hamas. Schmeling gave Hamas such a bad beating that he was forced to retire. Again Schmeling was the only guy to stop Hamas.

He then beat Joe Louis for an encore proving what some people had been saying all a long but others had questioned. That he was the best of the heavyweights in the period between Tunney and Louis.

jack sharkey was ordinary, and he gave schmeling all he could handle.

I have heard Sharkey called many things but never ordinary.

No word to my mind could be less apropriate and I dont mean that as a compliment.

Sharkey was verry inconsistant but at his best he was just brilliant.


so a stylistic nightmare???? i dont think so. the punch he countered so well vs louis was a left hook,

No.

It was his jab.

Holmses main weapon.


and on the inside, schmeling crossed armed defense was a sucker for an uppercut.........and holmes knew how to throw that uppercut.


I dont think this fight would unfold on the inside since neither man did their best stuff there.


schmeling was clever and he was tough. that would allow him to last the distance.

holmes by ud.


This is a verry likley outcome.

I just think that you perhaps underestimate the danger posed by Schmeling.

[Holmes' Jab]

Larry UD, though easy it would not be. Schmeling would be a tricky stylistic assignment for most great heavyweights who ever lived.

[janitor]

[quote=Hatesrats]Larry Holmes would chop Schmeling to pieces...
I'm tempted to say NO contest, but I do not want to take anything away from Max.


Well Holmes had trouble with some fighters who were not in Schmelings league.

I dont think it would be easy for him by any means.

I can't give Max any advantage here, Holmes even has the edge in power.

Schmeling has the edge in power here.

In his own era he was seen by many as the hardest puncher in the division outside of Baer.


Does anyone belive Schmeling can K.O. Holmes?


Schmeling was that rare entity that is a defensive fighter with top end power. He KOd a lot of people who had never been KOd before but it was always late in the fight after they had sustained a horible beating.

It is possible that he could get a late KO or TKO against Holmes but it is hard to asess the liklihood of this happening.

[TommyV]

Holmes UD for me.

Larry's jab is too sharp and crisp for Schmeling to counter it with his right hand effectively, Holmes would keep it at range. Schmeling would have a chance is Holmes came forward in an aggressive manner but he's too clever for that, Holmes had a very good chin aswell and when he did get tagged (Shavers huge right hand) he got back up.

[bumdujour]

[quote]


Quite a lot actualy.

When Scheling fought his American debut it was against Johny Risko who the bookmakers had instaled as the favourite to suceed the retired Gene Tunney as champion. Nobody gave this unknown European heavyweight a chance. Schmeling not only dismantled Risko but was the first person to stop him.

He followed this up with a decisive drubbing of Paulino Uzcudun who was also a frontrunner for the vacant throne. In reality Schmeling won all three of his fights against Uzcdun decisivley including one where his right hand (his main weapon) was out of commision.

Schmeling did win the title from Sharkey on a foul but he deserved the decision in the rematch which should have put his claim to the title beyond question.

His first title defence was against the top 2 ranked Young Stribling and again Schmeling was the first fighter ever to stop him.

Mickey Walker was a natural middleweight but he had beaten a number of ranked heavyweights and held Jack Sharkey to a draw. Schmeling was the only person who was able to do to him what a world class heavyweight should do to a world class middleweight.

He suffered losses to Steve Hamas and Max Baer but rebounded from them by stopping the 28 year old No1 ranked Steve Hamas. Schmeling gave Hamas such a bad beating that he was forced to retire. Again Schmeling was the only guy to stop Hamas.

He then beat Joe Louis for an encore proving what some people had been saying all a long but others had questioned. That he was the best of the heavyweights in the period between Tunney and Louis.



I have heard Sharkey called many things but never ordinary.

No word to my mind could be less apropriate and I dont mean that as a compliment.

Sharkey was verry inconsistant but at his best he was just brilliant.




No.

It was his jab.

Holmses main weapon.



I dont think this fight would unfold on the inside since neither man did their best stuff there.



This is a verry likley outcome.

I just think that you perhaps underestimate the danger posed by Schmeling.

i have seen a few of sharkeys fights, and by modern standarts, his talents were ordinary. calling him brilliant is rediculous and just untrue.

and even if it was the jab that schmeling countered against louis........just cause he could counter 22 year old louis jab (who made the rookie mistake of dropping the left hand when pulling it back), it is very unlikely this would work against a mature holmes..........who would throw that jab off the backfoot, something louis didnt in that fight.

schmeling often went to the inside, look at his fights with walker, sharkey etc.
he was smaller and slower than holmes...........so while this would not be a war on the inside, there would be action in close, where holmes uppercut would come into play.

and of course he has an impressive record...........but whe are not talking about some clubfigters here. we are talking about the best of the best.

and for an ATG, that record is not impressive. wins over hamas, walker (a blown up welter), stribling ( a natural light heavy) and over a 22 year old louis are not THAT impressive.

when he met ATG´S in their prime, things did not look so rosy. baer destroyed him...............and louis banged him out in a single round.

so what do we get??? schmeling was good enough to beat

a) great fighters who were either: past their prime, out of their weightclass or still inexperienced

or

b) second raters like hamas, risko etc.

but there is film on both fighters. so just watch a few tapes and it quickly becomes apparent that holmes was a level above talentwise.

[mcvey]

ooops Too much Sun today.....Schmeling had a good style to do damage to Holmes .....I like his chances but a close hard fought battle most of the way...Max had the power edge...and he would ZEE something when Larry dropped his jab
He would zee someting ok , plenty of left jabs zeroing in on his beetle brows.Larry by Dec.

[Bummy Davis]

[quote]


Quite a lot actualy.

When Scheling fought his American debut it was against Johny Risko who the bookmakers had instaled as the favourite to suceed the retired Gene Tunney as champion. Nobody gave this unknown European heavyweight a chance. Schmeling not only dismantled Risko but was the first person to stop him.

He followed this up with a decisive drubbing of Paulino Uzcudun who was also a frontrunner for the vacant throne. In reality Schmeling won all three of his fights against Uzcdun decisivley including one where his right hand (his main weapon) was out of commision.

Schmeling did win the title from Sharkey on a foul but he deserved the decision in the rematch which should have put his claim to the title beyond question.

His first title defence was against the top 2 ranked Young Stribling and again Schmeling was the first fighter ever to stop him.

Mickey Walker was a natural middleweight but he had beaten a number of ranked heavyweights and held Jack Sharkey to a draw. Schmeling was the only person who was able to do to him what a world class heavyweight should do to a world class middleweight.

He suffered losses to Steve Hamas and Max Baer but rebounded from them by stopping the 28 year old No1 ranked Steve Hamas. Schmeling gave Hamas such a bad beating that he was forced to retire. Again Schmeling was the only guy to stop Hamas.

He then beat Joe Louis for an encore proving what some people had been saying all a long but others had questioned. That he was the best of the heavyweights in the period between Tunney and Louis.



I have heard Sharkey called many things but never ordinary.

No word to my mind could be less apropriate and I dont mean that as a compliment.

Sharkey was verry inconsistant but at his best he was just brilliant.




No.

It was his jab.

Holmses main weapon.



I dont think this fight would unfold on the inside since neither man did their best stuff there.



This is a verry likley outcome.

I just think that you perhaps underestimate the danger posed by Schmeling.

:thumbsup

[ChrisPontius]

No matter what one says, Louis had a hell of a jaw. Schmelling was teeing off on it and keeping him in a daze all night long. I was amazed at how long it took Schmelling to finally put him away.

Bo Bo, when did you first see this fight in watchable quality/film speed?

Was it before the 70's?

[Quick Cash]

A decision win for Larry, if not a very late stoppage, is the most likely result here. In fact, I don't think it would even be that competitive in the end. Holmes' movement alone would stymie the German. Schmeling used on-rushing momentum to stun the young bomber, using Louis' own style against him in effect. Holmes would not be moving forward; and everytime Schmeling thinks he has a counter opportunity, Larry's own right will strike down the pipe too. He has the speed and reach advantage; the outside game is his. Larry can throw a right uppercut from anywhere even from the outside just like Lennox Lewis after him. Overall, it's just not a very good match for Max.

[janitor]

[quote=bumdujour][quote=janitor]
i have seen a few of sharkeys fights, and by modern standarts, his talents were ordinary. calling him brilliant is rediculous and just untrue.


Ihonestly cant see for the life of me what has led you to those4 conclusions.

Sharkey on film is verry impresive to me. He is by far the most complete of the heavyweight champions of that period. He is basicaly good at everything.

You then curiously go on to say that he is not skilled by modern standards.

Exactly which heavyweight active in the top 10 today do you see as being more complete or skillfull than Sharkey?


and even if it was the jab that schmeling countered against louis........just cause he could counter 22 year old louis jab (who made the rookie mistake of dropping the left hand when pulling it back), it is very unlikely this would work against a mature holmes..........who would throw that jab off the backfoot, something louis didnt in that fight.


The fact that Holmes had a problem throughout his career with being taged by right hands (often by mediocre boxers) suggests that it could well work.


schmeling often went to the inside, look at his fights with walker, sharkey etc.


Schmeling could go on the inside if he was forced to but he prefered to work at long range. Since Holmes also prefered to work at long range they would efectivly colude to ensure that this happened.

I think.


and for an ATG, that record is not impressive. wins over hamas, walker (a blown up welter), stribling ( a natural light heavy) and over a 22 year old louis are not THAT impressive.


I could argue that they are better than Holmses best wins even if Schmelings body of work is more impresive.

If you are trying to paint Holmes in a favourable light relative to another all time great it is a verry bad idea to criticise the other all time greats quality of oposition and invite similar criticism of Holmses.


when he met ATG´S in their prime, things did not look so rosy. baer destroyed him...............and louis banged him out in a single round.


The only great fighter in his prime that Holmes fought was Tyson so that argument can be a double edged weapon.


so what do we get??? schmeling was good enough to beat

a) great fighters who were either: past their prime, out of their weightclass or still inexperienced

or

b) second raters like hamas, risko etc.


Hamas and Risko were not second raters. They were No1 ranked contenders at the time.


but there is film on both fighters. so just watch a few tapes and it quickly becomes apparent that holmes was a level above talentwise.


I would say it i9s a dificult comparison to make.

Holmes clearly dose some things better and some things worse.

[mr. magoo]

I think Holmes reach, durability, activeness, and even power ( for a boxer ), would take Schmeling apart leading to a stoppage in the mid rounds. Schmeling was a tad too small for Holmes and never fought a boxer of his calibur. He had the right style to beat Joe Louis the first time, but Joe was only two years into his career, and like so many young fighters who become successful very quickley, he was taking his success too lightly and didn't prepare accordingly. We all saw what happened in the rematch after the wake up call.

[Sardu]

Schmelling's legendary right would be a clear and present danger to Holmes. I see Holmes circling away from Schmelling's right and fighting very cautiously to outpoint Max for a close decision.

[Muchmoore]

Schmeling right would always present a danger, but Holmes would be able to survive even if he was dropped. He is the bigger, better fighter that has the edge in speed as well. You have to be a master finisher to stop Holmes, and Max wasn't. Holmes is probably able to dominate using the jab and his superior reach and win by late KO or clear decision.

[redrooster]

Holme has faced big puncher before. Max didn't have very good head movement and moved about too stiffly the way I see it. This would probably be target practice until he wears out Max with those right hands.

Max does not go the distance :!:

[JIm Broughton]

Quick Cash and Magoo are right on the money. Too much size speed and skill for Schmeling to cope with. Max wouldn't have the opportunity to counter Larry and as a result would take a methodical pounding from the outside. Louis stood right in front of Max. Larry wouldn't. Holmes by TKO somewhere around the 9th or 10th.

[Johnboywalton]

I strongly maintain comparisons like this are like apples and pears: it's boxing, but a guy like Schmeling is a cruiserweight by today's standards. Furthermore, the techniques that we consider core to modern boxing were under development in the 1930s. There simply weren't any fighters around then with a toolbox like Larry Holmes's.

So, given that Holmes was bigger, fought at least one guy who hit harder than Joe Louis or Max Baer (Shavers), had access to skills that Schmeling would never see, and had the kind of jab and reach that would completely shut down Schmeling's linear offense, this would be a non-starter for "The Black Uhlan."

See my article on the Schmeling here:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]