Max Baer vs David Haye:Discuss

Shhhhhh....haven't you heard...David Haye has faster reactions than a prime Ali and would get Joe Frazier out of there in double quick time so what chance would poor old Baer have ?

 

I want to say Max would win, but if I put money on it I would bet on Haye... and a lot.

Haye loves to pick apart sloppy boxers and exploit the sort of giant openings that Max routinely offered. And Haye has plenty of pop. Maybe he doesn't KO Max (though with a modern ref I think it a distinct possibility) but he potshots him into a shell at some point. Max was just so far from being able to smoothly transition from offense to defense that it's the only way he would survive.

On his part, Haye gets reluctant against guys who hold distinct size advantages (which Baer does not) and specifically the aforementioned type of guys who box tightly working space and controlling with a jab.

 

I think you are making Haye out to be a lot more than he actualy was here.

He nearly ran out of steam against an ancient John Ruiz for goodness sake!

 

I want you to convince me otherwise. Seriously.

Baer is just so horrible on film and creates exactly the kind of openings that Haye likes and capitalizes on. It allows the rather meek Haye to use his vastly superior handspeed without huge fear of reprisal. It's about styles not greatness...

Must I rewatch Haye-Ruiz? I just remember it being a faster, younger man beating a durable though slower and older guy into submission. I wasn't that into the fight because I thought it to be a foregone conclusion.

I will consider further.

 

One is a bar room brawler, crude, slow, uncoordinated. The other isn't.

Haye wins by humiliation.

 

Haye Ruiz was a faster younger man beating a durable though slower and older guy into submission,but if you start watching Haye between rounds you see something rather interesting. He is not in a good place towards the end.

Against Baer, Haye would have two options. He could either go hell for leather for an early knockout, or fight a cautious fight. He probably would not be willing enough to mix it up with Baer to achieve the former, and if he tries, he will loose if he does not acomplish it fairly quickly. If he fights a more cautious fight, then his output is probably not enough to fend off a rampaging Baer.

Plus he would never fight Baer unless Baer held the title anyway.

 

Who knows how many loses Haye might have if he fought ranked contenders.

He fought nobody and retired to save himself a beating from Tyson Fury.

He got to Chisora , but the round prior to the ko came early when Haye was in trouble. He was also badly sucking for air.
Gerber rocked Chisora and if he was a level above his D level , he could of got him out of there as well.

If Wlad put shots together on the inside he would of knocked Haye out, but would of got ko'd himself first without holding hence the leaning and holding.
Difference with Baer is he had the toughness and durability to suck it up and fire back.

 

I do know it's about more than appearance, you apparently do not. It's also about more than strength and your perception of "skill" (which is questionable).

My pseudo-quote of yours is exactly the drivel we get from you. You just repeat about strength, size, and skill like a parrot. You don't seem to be aware of anything else.

The fact that you didn't address that aspect (which is the whole point) of my post. You simply choose to address what you think you can defend, which is also ridiculous, because you continually choose the fighters you're trying to slam in their poor/past prime performances...

It's obvious the Louis fight is all you've seen of Baer. He was past it and in with the greatest puncher and finisher in the division's history (despite what you think of him as an unskilled weakling bum).

To continue to use poor representations as examples for the fighters you're building your case against is dishonest.

How about I put the Haye in from the Thompson fight? You know, the guy who threw everything he had and was reduced to one punch at a time by exactly halfway through the second round??? He literally offered nothing after that, even though his opponent was 40 years old, outskilled, and outmatched (or so it seemed).

As a side note, I'll take Marciano any day over that guy. All day any day. And people give Foreman trouble for poor stamina and poor planning... At least he made it 5 or so rounds before being completely gassed.


Oh and I don't doubt Haye would clown Baer, probably alot like he did to Thompson, but at some point, Haye is going to need a breather, and that's when Baer clobbers him. That's why it's not all about your size, skill, and your muscles....

 

:happy This has my early vote for understatement of the year!

 

Its always been about more than what you keep parroting. Don't turn it around, no one is fooled by this.

I also never said Baer would outbox or out skill Haye, but I do think he has a great chance of outlasting and out-manning him.

What statistics? You want statistics?

I've boxed for 14 years. I've trained with the modern techniques and can hit the mitts and bags as good as anyone. I weigh 200 lbs. I've never been knocked down or knocked out.

Does this mean I could whip Marciano? Could I beat scrawny, no-defense Ray Robinson? Could I blow through a lightweight Duran?

No! Because I'm not an imbicile like you. I've had my ass handed to me in the gym by guys that were much smaller than me. Sometimes I was much better, but in many cases I didn't have the stamina. That's something you can't understand. You're too stuck on statistics and your idea of skill. Its all about power and strength and fighting after 1987...

Before you vomit more of your ridiculous ideas, please address my previous post- you know, the one you not-so-cleverly avoided and instead chose to open another line of debate.

Don't get off track. Stay with the subject. Address my previous post. I'm betting you won't, and that's because you can't.

 

After you stay on task, come back and give your statistics.

All the statistics I've seen from you are skewed, so post them.

 

Well as you can see, we have an absolute landslide in favour of Baer here.

That means that the onus is pretty heavily on you, to come up with something by way of argument or analysis to back up your position.

Simply asserting that it is so, means nothing.

 

Well the thing is Baer was a tough-as-teak fighter with a crude but awkward style and he could bang.
Factors such as heart, will, and stamina are the very foundations of this sport. Without those elements, skill doesn't count for as much. Skill is very much dependent on stamina anyway.

I've picked Haye, but in boxing one never knows for sure. I think a case can be made for Baer, if he manages to turn to it into more of a fight and less of a boxing match.

 

Haye might be a finely tuned athletic machine but what has he really shown us as a heavyweight boxer?