Max Schmelling dies


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby einnod23 » Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:22 pm

>all i'm saying is that if he fought in the modern
>era, he would have been on the wrong end of a >lot of decisions where he was the
>aggressor, but lost to a slickster who stuck & >moved for the full distance

Chris "The Slickster" Byrd. OK!
einnod23
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Bronx, NY

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby paulthefan » Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:09 pm

i saw many of bruno's fights ( early career on) &
>i've got his fights against boncrusher,witherspoon,both tyson ones & mcall on
>tape & watched them all a good few times over the years -

yes you saw those fights and you think he is a bum and a joke..

I saw those fights and I think he was a good heavyweight... I guess I agree with the promoters and managers and you agree with the beer swilling brit teenagers..




sat on his recliner for 6 months & slobbing on
>cheeseburgers,tortilla chips,ben & jerry's & coupla 6 packs/day & he may have
>had a "natural" walking around weight of 215


OK we can agree then that he was what we call today a cruiserweight. That he fought the best heavyweights of his day and beat them all. I dont know what more you can ask of him. That is all he set out to do. I give fighters of the past more credit than you do. I try to calibrate across the decades.

By your reckoning some of the choice heavys from the past that could fight today would be Primo Carnera, Jess Willard, Abe Forton, and those that you could not include:

Frazier (5'10" 210), Marciano (5' 11" 188), Dempsey (6'1.5" 192), Louis (6'1.5" 202), Johnson (6' 1.5" 208) could not.

or where actually do you draw the line?



well he defended against charles - blown up light-heavy
>(albeit ex-heavy champ), archie - actually a light-heavy, cockell - a fat
>light-heavy


Two great fighters.. Of course Jersey Joe Walcott was a great fighter too.


"chose"

that's a good way of putting it

how about another way -
>he came back after over 10y,as a middle-aged slob who's only possible way of
>seeing 220 again was if they cut one of his legs off


He could have easily gotten down to 220.. Jim Jeffries did so from 300lbs inside of 6 months and did so in 1910.... no he didnt because he saw and learned that that was not how to be the most effective.



i'll take the word of charley goldman & goody & pat petronelli - those
>brothers KNOW how to train a super-fit fighter


Well the petronelli gym in Brockton isnt the only place heavyweights train... Nat had a better global perspective.



i suggest you get some more
>books than just nat fleischer's one - he died in about '72 & is thus of
>limited use in discussing fighters after that date


I can rely on my own observations after 72. I need someone that sat at ringside since 1910 to compare and contrast fighters across decades.. Fleicher is one of a few that give me that.



can't have you living under the
>delusion that 185 or 200 pound guy from 50 - 100y ago punched harder than a
>top-conditioned 235+ one from today


Cant have you pondering the thought that a 235+lber of today, if he had been born in 1900 eating turnips and radishes and an egg every now and then would weight closer to 200lbs.



well it certainly wasn't a
>blown-up light-heavy in dempsey, who any of the modern legends probably would have killed


we are back to your axiom that greatness scales with time... you clearly have no interest in trying to transfer a fighters from the past and give them all the advantages of modern life to determine how they would do.




>Mike Tyson was under 5'11" and took
>out the biggest and most
>well trained modern big men.... and did it with a
>71"
>reach<

err...

can you read ?

reading is easy accepting circular logic resting on your axioms is tough.



i told you he weighed 221 for the
>berbick fight & berbick a 6'2 guy weighed 218 for that

in terms of muscle
>when they turned up to fight, tyson had more & used it better

the only
>competitive guy who weighed more than 10 pounds heavier than tyson in his
>pre-douglas career was boncrusher

it doesn't matter if you're 5'11 - if
>you've got 220 of solid muscle, you're a big danger to a 6'3 & 220
>guy





and if he were born in 1900 would he have weight 221?.. would he have been as quick and agile.. if you say yes your problem isnt in understanding boxing it is in understanding history.




yes, i'll happy agree that a
>short ass only 200 pound guy would get slaughtered by a 6'4/220 talented big
>punching guy


so Tyson at 200lbs is never champ .. but Tyson at 220 punches contenders out of the ring in 1 round.... .. hmm .. interesting..


7y as best heavyweight in the worls a short career ?

Frazier had lost alot by 73 that is how I see it.
.. whereas and Ali could be competitive from 62 through 77.... even when he faded he could survive.. the small man runs into trouble.


tyson won
>title in '86 & whupped seldon & bruno in '96 for WBA & WBC titles

Tyson in 96 was not tyson at his prime..
Last edited by paulthefan on Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby eldrick » Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:06 pm

>I saw those fights and I think he was a
>good
heavyweight... I guess I agree with the promoters
and managers and you
>agree with the beer swilling
brit teenagers..<

well you better go see your optometrist

if even this home fans thought he was a bum, you don't have much of a leg to stand on

agree with promoter/manager ?

give me a break




sat on his recliner for
>6 months & slobbing on
>cheeseburgers,tortilla chips,ben & jerry's & coupla 6
>packs/day & he may have
>had a "natural" walking around weight of 215


>I give
>fighters
of the past more credit than you do. I try
to calibrate across the
>decades.

why ?

never heard of progress/evolution ?

By your reckoning some of the choice heavys
from the past that
>could fight today would
be Primo Carnera, Jess Willard, Abe Forton,
and
>those that could not include:

Frazier (5'10" 210), Marciano (5' 11"
>188)
Dempsey (6'1.5" 192), Louis (6'1.5" 202),
Johnson (6' 1.5" 208)
>could not<

i see you picked a lotta of "statues"

how about substituting Harry Wills & Nino Valdes
against those guyz ?
or where actually do you draw the line?

>well he defended
>against charles - blown up light-heavy
>(albeit ex-heavy champ), archie -
>actually a light-heavy, cockell - a fat
>light-heavy

<Two great fighters..<

yeah,

blown up light-heavy fighting 2 blown-up light-heavys

it's getting classier by the minute !

>"chose"

that's
>a good way of putting it

how about another way -
>he came back after over
>10y,as a middle-aged slob who's only possible way of
>seeing 220 again was if
>they cut one of his legs off


>He could have easily gotten down to 220..<

you his nutrionist ?

looked slob

was slob

250+ slob was the best weight he could thought he should come in, against morrison & holyfield ?


yeah, well nat
>fleischer weren't his trainer & didn't spend
>each & every day in the gym with
>him

i'll take the word of charley goldman
>& goody & pat petronelli - those
>brothers KNOW how to train a super-fit
>fighter


>Well the petronelli gym in Brockton isnt the only place
>heavyweights train... <

idiot

i mentioned the petronelli brothers because they were in the gym when charley goldmann trained marciano & they learnt these techniques & applied them to their own protege - a guy called hagler

the petronellis were involved in the training of arguably the greatest heavyweight & middleweight champs of all time



i suggest
>you get some more
>books than just nat fleischer's one - he died in about '72
>& is thus of
>limited use in discussing fighters after that date


>I can
>rely on my own observations after 72. I need
someone that sat at ringside
>since 1910 to compare and contrast fighters across decades.. Fleicher gives me
>that.<

i've got my own observations after '72

so, we differ


>Thanks for ignoring the Willard history<

if you want to talk "statues" - go find Michelangelo



>Cant have you
>pondering the thought that
a 235+ lber if he were born in 1900
eating
>turnips and radishes and an
egg every now and then would weight closer to
>200lbs.<

well, you better invent a time machine or find a cosmic wormhole to see what happens, cos i see what's in front of me - magnificent 6'5 / 235+ pounders just as tall as willard in late '10's & carnera in early '30-s - only my guyz show immense skill,mobility & punching power


>we are back to your axiom that greatness
scales with time... you
>clearly have no
interest in trying to transfer a fighters
from the past and
>give them all the advantages
of modern life to determine how they would
>do.<

unfortunately for you, i'm an ole guy who believes in the present & future

it's getting bigger, stronger, faster !





>Mike Tyson was under 5'11" and took
>out the biggest and
>most
>well trained modern big men.... and did it with
>a
>71"
>reach<

err...

can you read ?


i told you he weighed 221
>for the
>berbick fight & berbick a 6'2 guy weighed 218 for that

in terms of
>muscle
>when they turned up to fight, tyson had more & used it better

the
>only
>competitive guy who weighed more than 10 pounds heavier than tyson in
>his
>pre-douglas career was boncrusher

it doesn't matter if you're 5'11 -
>if
>you've got 220 of solid muscle, you're a big danger to a 6'3 &
>220
>guy

>and if he were born in 1900 would he have
weight 221?..<

yes

he didn't do weights to acieve his phenomenal physique - d'amato didn't believe in them

tyson is a genetic freak

>would he have been as quick
and agile.. if you say yes your problem
isnt in
>understanding boxing it is in understanding history<

i suggest you get a shelf of Gibbons if you're interested in history...

yes, i'll happy
>agree that a
>short ass only 200 pound guy would get slaughtered by a 6'4/220
>talented big
>punching guy


so Tyson at 200lbs is never champ ..
but
>Tyson at 220 punches contenders
out of the ring in 1 round.... .. hmm
..
>interesting..<

can't you add ?

that's 20 pounds of pure punching ability added on


7y as best heavyweight in the worls a short career
>?

Frazier had lost alot by 73 that is how I see it.
.. whereas and Ali
>could be competitive from 62
through 77.... even when he faded he could
>survive.. the small man runs into trouble

7y as top heavy a short career ?


tyson won
>title in '86 &
>whupped seldon & bruno in '96 for WBA & WBC titles

Tyson in 96 was not tyson
>at his prime..<

this is laughable !

won the WBA & WBC titles within a few months !!!
Last edited by eldrick on Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby paulthefan » Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:25 pm

>give me a break

you dont need one you are quite content.

>why ?
>never heard of progress/evolution ?

yes.. progress as in nutrition and training
advantages, they get bit better with time...
.. now you are coming around...

evolution.. I dont think 50 years marks
an epoch in evolutionary adaptation.. but
let me guess you are also a evolutionary
biologist and paleontologist.



how about
>substituting Harry Wills & Nino Valdes
against those guyz ?
or where actually
>do you draw the line?


Harry Wills was knocked out by Jack Sharkey and the spaniard (I forget his name) .. but why bring that up.. you already know that Jack sharkey was a neanderthal that could never succeed in the middleweight ranks today..




>250+ slob was the best weight he could thought
>he should come in, against morrison & holyfield ?

he fought well at 250... kinda shows that
extra weight doesnt make too much of a difference.
Or are you now saying that lighter is better?..
lets see Foreman could fight at 250 or 218..either
way he was a great... but you dont see that as
relevant to judging the value of size.. no
bigger is always better..
Frazier could fight at 208 but that is because
he was something different to you .. an anomoly..
.. perhaps it is just that Frazier was from the 70s.. if he were from the 40s you would say that
he was a bum and unworthy to step in the ring with
Klitchko or Lewis...



>idiot
coming from you Ill take that as a compliment.


i mentioned the petronelli brothers
>because they were in the gym when charley goldmann trained marciano & they
>learnt these techniques & applied them to their own protege - a guy called
>hagler


well we can agree that hagler was a top notch
middle weight.



well, you better invent a time machine or find a cosmic
>wormhole to see what happens, cos i see what's in front of me - magnificent 6'5
>/ 235+ pounders just as tall as willard in late '10's & carnera in early '30-s
>- only my guyz show immense skill,mobility & punching power


More punching power than Willard, very very hard to believe..... gosh you are an amazing judge of talent. or rather discounter of talent. Magnificent.. more so than Carnera. ..

Truth be told Willard didnt much like boxing.. and trained infrequently. Nevertheless he could punch a hole through a wall.

If you are asking me to take the Dempsey of 1919 out of history exactly as he was and place him in the ring with Lewis then there is no arguement Dempsey is in trouble.. .. but is that a fair comparison, how about Dempsey born today and raised in boxing in 1990 then I would say that would be one scary 6'2" 220 lb fighter who has a chance with anyone.




>we are back
>to your axiom that greatness
scales with time... you
>clearly have
>no

interest in trying to transfer a fighters
from the past and
>give them
>all the advantages
of modern life to determine how they
>would
>do.<

>unfortunately for you, i'm an ole guy who >believes in the present & future

nothing unfortunate about that...

>it's getting bigger, stronger, faster !

..much more than that you seem to also believe that we are evolving at a rapid rate and genetically we are far removed from our primitive ancestors of 50 years ago..
Last edited by paulthefan on Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby paulthefan » Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:36 pm

One of the amazing things interesting things about Schmeling was that he rose to the top of German boxing during the 20s when athletics in general and boxing in particular was enjoying a great renewal due to the desperate economic conditions in Germany after WWI.
Last edited by paulthefan on Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby Track fan » Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:28 pm

If you took Owens' times in 36' and applied it to 2004, even with a faster track he would have had a problem getting into the semi-finals of the 100. 10.15 didn't make this Olympic semi, thats mind boggling.
Track fan
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby paulthefan » Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:46 am

Isnt that amazing.. that a man born in 1910s
training with all the wisdom of the 20s,
reaping all the nutritional and supplement (please accept the euphemism) advantages of
the 1930 could run what we call a 10.15.

If that doesnt suggest immense talent then
I dont know what does.

Id take Owens over the whole crop of sprinters
today... bar none.


>If you took Owens' times in 36' and applied it to 2004, even with a faster
>track he would have had a problem getting into the semi-finals of the 100.
>10.15 didn't make this Olympic semi, thats mind boggling.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby Track fan » Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:55 am

The point was that you can't compare eras. Not that if you applied modern training techniques Owens would be this or that. We can only speculate. Who knows if he would be blowing out his hamstrings or quads because he couldn't handle the modern training routine? My point is Dempsey, Louis, Marciano can't be compared to Lewis and Klitschko, for the same reason..
Track fan
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:08 am

bannister sucks, hell the best high school kids could toy with em!
doesnt this sound stupid

being the best of your time is all we can ask of greatness.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby eldrick » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:25 pm

>Id take Owens
>over the whole crop of sprinters
today... bar none.<

in the words of johhny mac, "you can not be serious !":

gatlin wins OG in 9.85, safa has 9.80 potential, zebra cruises to a 19.79 win ( off a sh!t start )

these guyz are superb athletes & to use tinted glasses to believe a guy from 70y ago would take them all ( no matter if he was transposed to modern era ) is laughable

test for owens - MJ is a modern guy ( only retired 4y ago )

do you believe owens in the modern era with modern everything could run 19.32 ???
Last edited by eldrick on Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby Pego » Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:28 am

<do you believe owens in the modern era with modern everything could run 19.32 ???>

I don't know about 19.32, but I do believe that Owens had the tools for under 10 and 20 (transplanted to today's conditons.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby paulthefan » Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:40 am

in the summer of 1996 would you ever believe
that MJ could go 19.32?

Owens was a phenome. ... and by the way so
was Joe Louis Barrow!
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby einnod23 » Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:30 am

>The point was that you can't compare eras. Not that if you applied modern
>training techniques Owens would be this or that. We can only speculate. Who
>knows if he would be blowing out his hamstrings or quads because he couldn't
>handle the modern training routine? My point is Dempsey, Louis, Marciano can't
>be compared to Lewis and Klitschko, for the same reason..

The Klitschko Brothers v. Joe Louis.............
einnod23
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Bronx, NY

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby eldrick » Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:13 am

>in the summer of 1996 would you ever believe
that MJ could go 19.32?

Owens
>was a phenome. ... and by the way so
was Joe Louis Barrow!<

that still doesn't answer the question - MJs 19.32 is there for all to see

"Id take Owens over the whole crop of sprinters
today... bar none"

well, does owen go 19.31 ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby gh » Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:16 am

<<well, does owen go 19.31 ?>>


Yes, finishing 0.2 behind Tommie Smith.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Max Schmelling dies

Postby MJD » Sun Oct 02, 2005 3:50 am

Supposed to be the definitive book on the Louis-Schmeling rivalry. Oates' review of Beyond Glory in the NYT below:


"BOXING is the most pitiless of sports, as it can be the most dazzling, theatrical and emblematic. Where race and nationalism are involved, as in the famous Joe Louis-Max Schmeling heavyweight fights of 1936 and 1938, two of the most widely publicized boxing matches in history, the emblematic aspect of the sport can assume epic proportions. When the second fight, of June 1938, pitting the 24-year-old American Negro titleholder, Louis, against the 32-year-old Schmeling, the Nazis' star athlete, was fought at Yankee Stadium, the contest was as much between the United States and Nazi Germany as between two superbly skilled athletes. There were almost 70,000 spectators and an estimated 100 million radio listeners throughout the world: "the largest audience in history for anything.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/books ... 8bu&emc=bu
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests