Larry Holmes vs. Max Baer

Weaver vs Tate and Coetzee are ugly fights.


Tate has a shorter reach than Baer and is only an inch taller. That's dwarfing a guy physically? And you talk about hyperbole.

 

Spoon:
Beat Snipes (10) in 82

Lost to Holmes in a performance most posters here don't think Baer would be capable of matching

Beat Page (2) in 84.

Beat Broad (8) in 84

Beat Smith (9?) in 85

Beat Tubbs (4-6) in 86

Beat Bruno (9?) in 86

Beat Carl Williams (6) in 91

Al Cole, perennial top cruiser of the early-mid 90s in 96

I don't think Gonzales was top ten after losing to Bowe, but he was highly regarded when they fought.

 

OK so basically he beat Page who was ranked #2, which was the highlight of his career, and the rest of his ranked opponents were in the lower half of the top ten.

This is a very impressive paper record, but it does not put him in the same class as Max Baer.

 

Be so kind as to delve into the rest of the rated contenders who Baer beat then. What I just posted is better than Schmeling, Primo, and Comiskey. Some of the guys who Spoon beat like Smith and Bruno had their best work ahead of them. Spoon cracked the top ten for a decade straight and was last ranked 13-14 years after entering the top ten.

 

Only way that record doesn't put him in the same class is if we pretend that the heavweights in the 30s were comparable in talent and skill to those in the 70s/80s. Based on the fight footage (and the size differences), I don't see any reason to entertain such a baseless assumption.

 

Since we are comparing resumes here, as opposed to head to head, that is precisely what we do have to assume.

 

In that case, we have to assume that Witherspoon ranks ahead because he beat Al Cole. Cole was 6'4 and likely entered the ring a little over 200 pounds while ruling his respective division, in which the men were pretty much ****ogous in size to 1930s heavyweights minus the odd exception; when I say exception I'm reminded of the fat guy (Galento) and clumsy giant (Carnera). Of course, Witherspoon beat the odd clumsy giant (Gonzales) and fat guy (Abdin). Sadly, these men weren't at the top of the rankings because for some reason obese men and unprofessional giants no longer ruled heavyweight boxing.

 

Like Spoon?

[url]http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/90759588-american-boxer-terrible-tim-witherspoon-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=X7WJLa88Cweo9HktRLaNXmfSZCihJ7BLMWlWeWKkQB%2BuRuTFQeOhGOe%2Bc2jyeCP8%2BYHfsMky0qBAT5%2BwKzdtDaWDdtb%2B7RaGiSsYqQdNvnQ%3D[/url]

 

We both know damn well that Witherspoon and Galento weren't in the same ballpark in terms of fatness. Stubby fatness, to be more precise.

 

They were both fat and both better athletes than they looked at times.

Galento wasn't always fat, he could be in solid shape at 230.

[url]http://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/be/77/17/be77174797f90ebb5bf7717f886c5109.jpg[/url]

 

Tate was an inch and a half taller, and typically 22 to 30lbs heavier than Baer.
Weaver is two inches taller than Levinsky was and in his prime ,I don't think Levinsky ever scaled over 200lbs

 

He was how tall? 5'9? Tua and Toney are basically the only guys that short to be serious contenders since 1980, the former with an ATG hook and chin and the latter dripping skill (and chin). If you throw in Tyson, you're talking about a once in a lifetime athlete. Galento was just an ATG showman.

Also, Witherspoon fluctuated and generally performed better when he was in better shape.

 

Yeah, I'd mistakenly thought that Tate was even taller. Still a significantly bigger man though.