Sledge-Hammer Boxers: Why Schmeling Beat Louis

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 228, 23 June 1936, Page 14

Sledge-Hammer Boxers: Why Schmeling Beat Louis

(By

RIGHT CROSS.)

MAX SCHMELING, the sturdy Ger1U man, has once again proved that ne is one of the best heavyweight boxers the game has known. “The Hammer of Hamburg” and “The Black Uhlan of the Rhine,” as he has been called in sporting circles in Europe, has proved during the past six years that lie not only carries a devastating punch in both hands, but that he can stand any amount of punishment. Born at Lucknow he started boxing professionally in 1924, and within the short period of six years had won the heavyweight championship of the

world. This was in the contest in the United States of America, in which Jack Sharkey was disqualified in the fourth round for hitting the German low. Schmeling at once proceeded to show that he was a worthy holder of the title by outpointing Young Stribling over lo rounds in 1931, and knocking out Micky Walker in the eighth round in the following year. In 1931, be lost his title in a return contest with Jack Sharkey, who was given the decision on points after a lorounds battle, though many good judges in the States held that Schmeling should have received the verdict.

In 1933, Schmeling was knocked out by Max Baer in the tenth round, and in the following year he lost to Steve Hamas, drew with Paolino Uzcudun, and knocked out Walter Neusel, a brother German. Last year Schmeling came right back into the front rank by knocking out Steve Hamas in the ninth round, and obtaining a verdict over Uzcudun on points over 12 rounds. Altogether, the German has fought 58 professional battles, of which he has won 50, 34 of them by the short route, and has lost five and drawn three of his contests. A Pugilistic Phenomenon. Joe Louis, the youthful Negro boxer, has hud the most meteoric rise of any pugilist in the history of the ring. Born at Lexington, Alabama, on May 13, 1914, he started boxing as an amateur at an early age, and so well did he perform that he only lost four of the 54 contests in which he took part as an amateur. He knocked out 43 of his opponents. Joining the professional ranks on July 4 last year, he had 27 contests, of which he won every battle. During his brief

Experience Essential.

WORLD CRICKET ELEVEN

career as a professional, he has earned 397,388 dollars, of which 217,337 came from bis battle with Max Baer in September last. . - ■ Louis knocked out Baer in the. fourth round; put Uzcudun to sleep in the fourth round; knocked out Primo Carnera in the sixth round; and finished King Levinsky in one round. The young Negro was hailed as the most sensational heavyweight boxer since Jack Dempsey, but a few shrewd judges, such as Jack Johnson, ex-heavy weight champion of the world, who is now training Jim Braddock, the present titleholder, considered that Louis left himself too open to have -any chance with a hard hitter such as Max Schmeling. The German is such a well-equipped boxer, that he may once again climb to the top of the boxing tree.

Louis will be heard of again. All he lacks is experience. “If Joe Louis,” recently wrote Gene Tunney, ex-heavy-weight boxing champion of the world, “follows the usual course of improvement, it is my belief that at the age of 25 he will have the necessary qualifications to beat all the heavyweight champions we have ever had in the same ring on the same night. . “One would have to be entirely without appreciation of the fundamentals of boxing not to say. after seeing Joe Louis perform, that he is one of the greatest fighters that have ever stepped through the ropes. I think he is the greatest 21-year-cld fighter, pound for pound, that has ever been in the ring. Still, although I am conscious of all the unusual qualities at this period of Louis’s development, I think that Jack Dempsey, at his best, would have beaten him as he is to-day.

“I am as anxious as the next person to see how Louis will react when he faces an opponent who can stand up and punch with him. Since heavyweights develop slowly, this boy’s fitness is all the more remarkable. I think I was only a secondrate fighter until I reached 28, and I know that my best fighting years came after 28 and 30. “The important factor of co-ordination —punching ability, speed and defensive skill—is a longer process in a big man than in the lighter weight classifications. Louis is a phenomenon for that reason alone. No heavyweight who ever lived could meet him on equal terms age for age; but to call him the greatest of al’i heavyweights is going too ■ far at this stage of his development. I would say that he has everything but experience, the experience of being hit hard and coming back.”

Frank Woolley’s Selection HAROLD LARWOOD, the Nottinghamshire fast bowler, is the only English cricketer now playing who is selected for a world eleven by Frank Woolley’ in his recently-published hook, “The King of Games.” . . Not even Don Bradman is m the list — an imposing one, that includes Trumpet, Hobbs. “Ranji,” J. T. Tyldesley, Macartney, F. R. Foster, Sidney Barnes, Colin Blythe, J. R. Mason (captain), and Oldfield, the Australian wicket-keeper, who is Woolley’s only other preference among present-day players. “I have not seen Bradman get scores after rain,” says Woolley, in explaining the omission, and the great Australian batsman is relegated to a second eleven of World Cricketers. So are Hammond and Grimmett, although in the series of thumbnail sketches that follow Woolley’s personal story Hammond is described as “the most destructive, devastating,_ masterful smasher of our bowling now in the game.” The genial nature that reveals itself whenever Woolley bats for Kent—or England —is an especial characteristic of his remarks on his great contemporaries. Mead, of Hampshire, for example, “is still only a kid of 49,” Hobbs’s one mistake is “not being born in Kent," and, as for W. H. Ponsford, the Australian“ What a lot more runs this prolific run-getter would have made, to be sure, if there was no leg-stump!” , It is inevitable that one of Woolleys temperament should have his regretful moments about the cricket of to-day, which, he thinks, “sometimes seems to lack a vital something that was coursing through its veins in its heyday.” Cricket, to him, “has been- loitering for some seasons on the downward path ’ —and he blames recent controversies. “Each successive ‘incident’ adds to the enemies of cricket.” Woolley expresses the wish “that the game will return with all possible speed to the place it held so proudly in the esteem of all who matter.”