Larry Holmes vs. Max Baer

Wouldn't be difficult at all. I think that Holmes fought his career in a much, much tougher era. I find Baer to be a crude, unskilled, amateurish fighter who would not have fared well in an era deep with skilled, athletic 210-lb+ fighters.

 

Baer is bigger than holmes.forget the weight

 

Being generous, I don't see any way to rank Baer ahead of Witherspoon and Norton.

 

Larry Holmes by UD Tommy Loughran boxed Baer's ears off no doubt the bigger Holmes can to. The only two skillful boxers Baer beat was Schmeling and Farr. Don't know of any others. Not good enough to pick him over Holmes.

 

Putting aside that styles make fights and that a poor defensive, slow and ponderous fighter like Baer is made for a Larry Holmes I'd say that
Ken Norton, Mike Weaver, Trever Berbick, Tim Witherspoon and Carl Williams all at their best could beat Max Baer pretty easily .. I say the Michael Spinks that Holmes should have received the decision over in the rematch does so as well. I also think Ray Mercer would put a hurting on Baer.

 

Baer put Holmes down but loses interst when he can't keep him there or bait Holmes to abandon his jab, losing a decision.

I do agree this would be the best win on Holmes resume.

 

No, he would not have been. I know you feel the need to save face for your beloved oldsters but Baer is just sh*t on film. He is not cleverly awkward just amateurishly so. He caught a good window of opportunity and exploited it.

 

In terms of paper resume Baer has got this sewn up, for all his inconsistency.

Ali obviously had a much better resume, but I don’t think we are under any illusions about his state when Holmes beat him.

You could perhaps make a coherent case for Norton having a better resume than Baer, but it would probably be an invalid one.

Outside of those two examples, it is very clear cut in favour of Baer.

This leaves you falling back on the argument that Baer’s better resume was an artefact of his weak era, and that some of these guys would have beaten him head to head.

While this is theoretically possible, there are serious problems with it.

The most obvious is that you could never prove it one way or the other.

The problem is then compounded by the fact that Holmes’s era isn’t regarded as being that strong, and his victims were weak in all the same areas that Baer was weak i.e. inconsistency.

 

I agree that Baer is tailor made for Holmes (apart from the dangerous right hand of course), but I don’t think that you can simply assume that all these much less accomplished fighters beat him, let alone easily.

 

That's Max's only hope really, and since Holmes survived Shavers I don't see Max achieving the miracle.

 

I'd argue that several of Holmes opponents have a better resume than Baer.

Norton, Weaver, Witherspoon..perhaps even Berbick and Shavers.

 

I would love to see you try.

 

I wouldn't call myself a boxing historian, but from what I understand, impressive stoppage victories over Carnera and Schmeling are what Baers resume is limited to. He has wins over Galento and Farr outside of that. Am I missing something?

I would very much argue that Weavers victories over Coetzee, Tate, an unbeaten Tillis, a deserved nod against Dokes, and a few nice past prime scalps over Williams, Cooper and Duplooy can compare to that.

 

I think a bit of context is needed.

Baer first appears in the rankings in 1930, and his breakthrough year is 1932, where he beats top 10 rated Levinsky and Schaff, to finish the year in the #2 slot. He then beats #1 rated Max Schmeling (who is probably the best heavyweight in the world), and then helps himself to Primo Carnera’s heavyweight title. At this stage he has very decisively settled any argument over who the best fighter in the world is.

Even if there had been a champion able to keep him away from the title at this point, he would obviously have been an absolute standout among the contenders.

 

larry outpoints him after a early scare knockdown.