Ruslan Chagaev v. Joe Louis

Yeah, I agree with all that.

(.... except the bit about Louis not beating a who's who comparable to what Ali did. I think his opposition gets as underrated as Ali's gets overrated ... anyway.)

 

I'm quite certain his hands were bad, not just a bit sore but really damaged. Almost the whole of 1935 his hands were messed up.
And he'd been living the high life for 2 years.

He may have been scared but I agree in that was Louis's doing, and maybe he'd always be "scared".
But he actually came out fighting, hit Louis with a big shot at the end of the 1st or 2nd (i can't recall which). He came right at Louis a couple of times, and Louis knocked him in to a defensive mode.

i thought Baer fought okay for a guy who had bad hands and a had dissipated through partying. He didn't look petrified or anything to me, even if he was he made a decent effort, he just got beaten up. He just didn't have the weapons to defend himself as he might have done.

 

Depends whose list we're looking at.

 

It's all a matter of opinion.
Baer beat Schmeling, and Schmeling beat Louis.

Sonny Liston beat Floyd Patterson, and for that he's a top caliber all-time great .... but Schmeling or Baer can't be ?

 

Well, the thing is, I'd be tempted to rate Liston above Frazier and Foreman, as many do - for whatever reason. And Liston's "resume" is not necessarily any better than Max or Max, in my opinion.
So there's no definitive answer to where these guys rank.

I'd think Baer beating up Carnera is on a par with Liston swatting Floyd Patterson, who was not only small but had a chin that was stuck in middleweight. Carnera wasn't exactly granite jawed either, and he had no snap in his punches, but he was a BIG heavyweight and he was actually quite a smart boxer. Not the "bum" he's made out to be.

On top of that, Baer beat the hell out of Schmeling and Ko'd him brutally, when Schmeling was still regarded by most at the best HW in the world.

Foreman's resume is kind of weak. It's almost as if he was protected, his record is full of serious padding. Foreman himself mentions the art of this "ballyhooing" matchmaking in his own book.
He had two really significant wins in the 1970s, but showed little ability to adapt to styles that didn't suit him to the letter. Frazier and Norton, that's it. He went from being regarded as a protected novice fighting outmatched opponents in the lower leagues to an all-time great in two fights. But subsequent showings against Ali, Lyle and Young were far from convincing.
The man was brutally strong, a force of nature. But where's his resume against ranked opposition ? The impressive performances ? Chuvalo ? Again, another shrewdly picked stylistic foil.

His remarkable comeback can certainly be taken as ample justification to rank him as an elite all-time great, but again his actual resume is thin and full of hand-picked opponents. It's the ten-year layoff that adds weight to his standing, not merely the actual results he achieved.

I'm not saying Baer or Schmeling are necessarily above Foreman, or better than him, but I don't think it's a crazy thing is someone rates them that way. And personally, I think they are all pretty close.