MAX BAER IN PLACE OF FOREMAN?

Baer was like Foreman lite. He was at times even slower and clumsier than Foreman, and his jab wasn't nearly so authoritative a weapon. Nor did he display the type of strength to push Frazier off him. Both Braddock and Schmeling withstood a barrage of shots, with Schmeling only going down after he absorbed a terrific beating, so an early rounds stoppage is I feel out of the question here. Without the means for Baer to keep things at range, Frazier likely batters him mercilessly and forces a stoppage one way or another.

 

Who's this us, white man? What follows is all the product of your imagination. Don't count me in.

Great, Baer was almost as big as Foreman and not as strong. That's half my gym.

Please to tell me about Max's great and dominant use of the jab. George possessed an all time power jab that changed the dimensions of the ring for his opponents. Max used a range finder at best, something to hold the action between wild swings and and his rough play inside. Max also tended to fight more in retreat, as he did with Schmeling, breaking for an opportunity to rough it up on the inside or launch bullish charges from another zip code. Not exactly Foreman's playbook. Max also wasn't near as fluid in his combos. They were fierce but predictable and stilted. His best work was the right swing from the hip followed by the right backhand.

Quality wise, George is just much better. Much better in record. Much better on film. Better wins. Took a better fighter to beat him. Please don't try to draw a broad equivalency between them. George is a consensus Top 10 all timer, usually closer to Top 5. You would be pressing it to claim Baer to be in the Top 25. There is a gulf between them.

 

Agreed. Baer would never match Foremans two fisted fury and aggression.

 

Similar to first Bonavena fight, but Baer finishes him.

The writing is on the wall, Frazier getting knocked early by Foreman and Bonavena right hands. Unlike Bonavena, Baer could be a vicious finisher.

 

OK I will drop the we.

I seem to be the only person actually analyzing the fight out of the two of us, as opposed to voting with established loyalties.

OK so your argument is that Foreman got a radically different result to what Baer would get, because he made better use of the jab in your opinion, and threw better combinations.

Where do you feel that these factors had a decisive impact in the first Frazier fight, and why?

And here we get to the crux of the matter.

Foreman was qualitatively better, but it was not because of any physical superiority, or technical superiority.

Baer might even have had a higher potential ceiling, if his head had been screwed on correctly.

Foreman was simply the better fighter from the neck up, and that had a decisive impact on their overall success.

 

I've tried but I just don't get it with Baer.
Ok great power in the right hand and a solid chin, but really in loads of the films he simply looks crap.
Bad technique, wildly thrown haymakers, poor balance, general sloppiness, undisciplined, where do you stop?
He'd shake Frazier up early on but eventually Joe settles down and walks right through him and stops him.

 

Foreman was a master at making opponents fight his fight. By fighting tall and making efficient use of the jab and two handed push off, Foreman was able to stop shorter fighters getting on the inside of him where they could be at a mechanical advantage. By keeping things at his preferred range, he was able to minimise incoming fire while getting maximum torque for his wild swinging power shots.

Frazier was constantly forced onto the backfoot, thrown off, pivoted and pushed back against the ropes, where Foreman was able to unload on him with vicious uppercuts from a mechanically advantageous position. It was the push more than the jab that enabled him to control things like this, though Frazier was constantly having to bob and weave to get under Foreman's steam pole of a left hand, which kept him from thinking too hard about fighting back.

Baer never fought like this. His jab had nothing of the snap or penetration of Foreman's, and he never displayed anywhere near the same firm command of distance, ring command or physical pressure. Fighters had no trouble getting on the inside or manoeuvring him around the ring. His balance was terrible and he frequently threw himself out of position with his wild shots. Foreman, for all his apparent wildness, tended to maintain great composure and fundamental boxing skill most of the time.

To be honest, I'm not sure why you think they're that comparable. Their similarities are only superficial when you get down to it, and even in those categories of power and chin Foreman was his superior.

Too much is made of Baer's lack of seriousness hindering his progress, as if he would turn into some unstoppable beast if he could only stop clowning around and get it all together. Baer fought the way he did because that's how he fought. It's not more complex than that. If he displayed the ability to be better than Foreman he never showed it in the ring, and he had plenty of opportunity to do so.

 

Agreed.

Agreed again.

Baer was willing to back up more, but that was not a weakness. The best way to punish a come forward fighter, is to keep them walking into a carefully prepared killing zone. What would happen if Foreman came up against a come forward fighter who he could not keep in one place based on his physical strength? Baer was obviously a lot better at conserving his energy over the course of a fight. These factors might just amount to a slower, but equally certain death for Frazier. Then again Baer might just let him off the hook once too often. You never know which Baer will show up.

No, I am afraid that their similarities are not superficial.

Their styles are strikingly similar, although you have done a good job of articulating the few differences.

They were both pure sluggers, which is a very rare type of fighter at this level of the heavyweight division.

You have to be a physical monster to pull it off.

In a final ironic twist, they even both switched to a cross armed defense when they were past their best.

In terms of power and chin, I give a slight edge to Baer, and I will give my reasons if you want.

The Campbell fight basically ruined Baer.

He started to have nightmares, and he took up smoking to calm his nerves.

Look at his record before Campbell, and look at his record after Campbell, and look at his age in those fights.

Various trainers tried to teach him better techniques, but he wouldn't listen.

After he lost the title, and knew he was on the slide, he started to use the cross arm defense.

Of course by then it was too late.

 

Even the best Baer that's ever been captured on film doesn't display the type of skills or physical attributes that Foreman displayed against Frazier. For that reason I'm not prepared to accept that he would be able to emulate his performance. I actually think it'd be a physical mismatch, with Frazier bullying Baer on the inside and battering him over the course of the contest till he either drops from the punishment or his corner pulls him out.

Baer wasn't indestructible as Louis showed, and Frazier has more than enough grit and brute force to replicate what Louis achieved, albeit perhaps over a larger number of rounds.

Sure, go ahead.

For me their only similarities are their rather amateurish way of throwing wild power shots that tended to have a concussive effect on their respective opponents. The difference was that Foreman did so against a markedly tougher and more quality group of individuals than Baer ever did, and displayed overall better effects over the course of his career.

For me Baer shares more in common with someone like Huck, while Foreman shares more in common with Vitali. Just a different quality of fighter.

Well, that's something for which we just can't give him a pass for, since we never saw the meaner, more focussed Baer, and for all we know he might not have been any markedly better than the clown joker.

If we start to imagine a mythical killing machine in place of the actual fighter that we've got on tape then we might as well throw the whole exercise out the window and award Baer the win by first round KO.

 

Why does Baer have to replicate Foreman? He just has to finish like him once Frazier gets hurt, and that Max can do.

Bonavena pushed Frazier around, measured him for right hands, and nearly put him out, he just couldnt finish. Foolish to dismiss, Baer.

 

Yeah, let's take the 22 year old green version of Frazier as our benchmark. Seems fair.

 

Whats your excuse for the Butcher buckling him in the first round several years later with an identical right hand set up?

 

Baer looked sloppy because he had the durability, reach, and athletism to sell out. He didnt care if he missed or looked crude, he knew he had to land bombs so thats what he tried to do.

It wasnt pretty but his methods were effective. He didnt commit to the jab, but his long extended arm, pawing, and grabbing were very problematic obstaciles. While they jabbed more, Lewis, Wlad, and Vitali often had success with similiar pawing tactics.

Baer was deceptively good at disgusing his right hand, its a difficult punch to anticipate from inside the ring. We the audience can see them, but the opponent cannot. Baer used his left hand and arm, sometimes his entire upper body to hide his wind ups from the one man that needed to see them.

He also rarely threw a punch the same way twice, his right could be looped, over, under, straight..and he mixed to the body, all the while turning your head or covering your eyes with his left.

Baer also is an under rated body puncher, in truth he might be one of the best at heavyweight period.

Like Foreman, Baer was also good at pushing and matadoring his opponents out of poisition.

Compare Foremans tactics here...

This content is protected

To Baer against Schmeling...3:58...

This content is protected

 

If I am not mistaken the question is THE FRAZIER that fought Foreman vs the best Baer. The best Baer was a fighter to be reckoned with....young, prime, in shape and huge KO power. The Frazier of 73 was not in the best of condition and off his peak as a fighter. Baer wins here. Prime Frazier a different story.

 

Well I'm sorry that footage which i've seen before simply reinforces my opinion, and that was probably Baer at his best. Schmeling doesn't cover himself in glory either, it wasn't one of his better efforts.
Baer and Foreman are chalk and cheese, Foreman was a much better schooled fighter and it shows in your clips.