MAX BAER IN PLACE OF FOREMAN?

All swarmers are vulnerable to sluggers, it is a basic point of boxing styles.

Baer had precisely the stylistic and physical capabilities to potentially emulate what Foreman did, and all the mental gymnastics in the world wont make it otherwise.

The only question in my mind is whether he was a strong as Foreman, and he wouldn't need to be to win the fight.

Indeed if you were given a blank sheet of paper to design a fighter to beat Frazier, you might well produce a fighter that looked a lot like Baer.

 

Baer's reach advantage means that he will be able to engage with Frazier, before Frazier is able to engage with him.

Frazier will have to walk through Baer's bombs just to get into range, and Baer can keep him doing this, either by backing up or pushing him back, or just clinching so that the referee separates them.

Make no mistake, Frazier is in for a hard night.

 

Boxing isn't scissors, paper, stone. There are always multiple factors to consider for any fight to be determined on a simplistic label vs label basis. Whatever you might choose to pigeonhole Baer as his style never resembled Foreman's, so it seems silly to expect him to suddenly fight like that against Frazier based on a few superficial similarities.

If I were given a blank sheet to design a fighter who'd defeat Frazier it wouldn't resemble Baer in the slightest. Rather it'd be a tall, physically resilient HW with a great jab, a Wlad like clinch, and killer uppercuts. Sort of a combination of Wlad and Riddick Bowe without the recklessness. Or maybe just Foreman himself.

 

The increased reach wouldn't pose a problem as Baer hardly ever used it, and once Frazier closes distance it might even hinder him. Reach is primarily a benefit for outside boxers, and Baer didn't possess the speed, sharpness, schooling or mentality to fight like that.

I think Frazier demolishes him and makes it look easy, to be honest.

 

It pretty much is scissors paper stone to be honest.

All being equal a boxer will beat a slugger, a slugger will beat a swarmer, and a swarmer will beat a boxer.

That is of course not to say that a slugger will always beat a swarmer, but a swarmer will almost invariably under perform against a slugger, and a slugger will almost invariably overperform against a swarmer.

You can't fit a cigarette paper between their styles.

Both are pure sluggers who work at range, and rely primarily on aggression, inserting elements of finesse to break a deadlock.

Both have a good two fisted attack, but rely upon their right as their primary weapon.

They have exactly the same strengths (power, durability, finishing prowess), and exactly the same weaknesses (open to counters, able to be out boxed by technicians).

Indeed I would challenge you to find a heavyweight who was a closer match to Foreman stylistically.

Or maybe a version of Foreman who had better stamina, so that even if Frazier did survive the early rounds, he would just be going straight back into the cauldron.

That would basically leave you with Baer.

 

Reach is also an advantage for sluggers, especially when they are being matched against swarmers.

Scissors paper stone.

 

All being equal being the key words. Baer and Frazier are not equal, and while I'm willing to accept that Baer could have his moments early on against Joe, all the stars are aligning for there to be only one reasonable outcome.

Leif Larsen.

This content is protected

That's just the first to pop into my head. I'm sure there are others.

Well no it wouldn't since Baer isn't remotely on Foreman's level, let alone a superior version of him. I'm sorry to say, but I think you have some serious rose tinted spectacles on when discussing Baer and it's clouding your judgement.

 

Stylistic concerns (which I still see favoring Frazier) only come into play when the participants are near equals. They are not. Joe Frazier was considered among the top 3 in the division for 9 straight years, a remarkable feat for someone of his style and for an era considered by many to be the strongest ever. He holds the single greatest victory in the division's history.

Max Baer was hit or miss (and mostly miss) is a much depleted era, an era in which black fighters did not receive opportunities. He absolutely shriveled and folded when matched against a fighter near the best that Frazier beat.

There is just a major qualitative difference here that trumps styles and should make this an easy pick.

 

Hold on a second.

Favoring Frazier reluctantly is a reasonable position.

Claiming that Frazier actually has the stylistic advantage, is a manifest absurdity.

That would be like me claiming that Rocky Marciano had a stylistic advantage over George Foreman, because the truth did not suit my argument.

Here is the issue.

There is a qualitative gap between them, but it is not a qualitative gulf.

We are talking about matching a top 10 all time heavyweight, against say a top 30 all time heavyweight.

A strong lineal champion, against a middle of the pack one.

That is well within the zone where a stylistic advantage can act as a qualitative equalizer.

 

Just because Baer was a lineal champion at one time does not make him a top 30 heavyweight. From watching video of Baer and watching his opponents like Braddock, Galento, and Schmeling, it's doubtful that Baer is a top 300 heavyweight of all time. IMO, Baer rates well below contenders such as Orlin Norris, Mike Hunter, and Alexander Zolkin and there is a qualitative gap at that level, there is a qualitative gulf between Baer and Frazier, Ali, Tyson, Holyfield, Liston, etc.

 

He was badly hurt after the first knockdown and never recovered his legs. The fight in truth could have been stopped after the second knockdown without controversy. When Frazier got up but was stumbling all over the place and confused looking, and then again after the third knockdown when he had no legs. Seriously dude, he was literally being held up so they could get the stool under him after the round ended. I don't see how this can be spun into a positive.

Finishing flurries don't have to be beautiful. Foreman's finishing flurries were just wide clubs as well.

That just isn't right. I can't see any case for Quarry and Ali being argued as better finishers than Baer.

You'll find trainers recommend sprinting for developing speed in the ring, of hand and foot. That's why many fighters do it. I don't think you know what you are talking about here.

In fact you won't find clips of Parker doing that sort of thing. Parker is also noticeably slower than most of the opposition I've seen him against, including Takam and Ruiz jr.

In fact, you won't. Especially given those aren't straight arm punches but fully loaded looped over hand rights that very few heavyweights today have the speed to risk leading with.

You don't seem to know what you are talking about, an increasingly apparent pattern. Charles and Walcott are not even from Baer's day, they both flourished after World War II. Really Louis isn't even, as he was on the on the up and Baer was on the down when they met.

Nothing robotic about it. He was working with the space he had and beat Braddock into a shell. And why even bother with other fights. It's not like those 2 seconds represent his entire arsenal of body work against Braddock.

[url]https://streamable.com/37sfb[/url]

[url]https://streamable.com/e59vo[/url]

[url]https://streamable.com/poajs[/url]

[url]https://streamable.com/5r17i[/url]

[url]https://streamable.com/43v2u[/url]

In terms of just body punching, you got to put Baer over them, given it was a much bigger part of his arsenal.

Braddock was not very athletic, the Cinderella Man run was all about craft. He was only knocked out once in 24 losses by Joe Louis at the end of his career. His only other stoppage was over a cut he went into the fight with. Braddock's durability is well above average.

Norton is not as crafty as Schemling, nor as good a technician.

How is Levinsky a poor opponent. He wasn't great, but he was a very good swarmer, and the #3 Heavyweight in the world at this point.

Several times...lol Subtle differences but basically same tactic. Foreman luring Frazier near the ropes and yanking him around.

[url]https://streamable.com/3qhfe[/url]

[url]https://streamable.com/058dy[/url]

 

You're trolling sucks. Janitor should quit wasting his time on you.

 

Of course it doesn't, but the rest of his record does.

Its like this.

Baer was not one of the greatest lineal heavyweight champions, but you couldn't argue that he was one of the worst either.

He crushed the best fighters around very convincingly on his way to the title.

He beat a lot of very good fighters very convincingly.

His power and durability were up there with pretty much anyone.

 

Because Frazier had phenomenal recuperative powers. So long as he could get up he could fight on. Baer would need to drop him and continue to drop him, and that's a task only one man in history achieved.

They don't have to be beautiful but they have to be accurate and sustained, to allow the opponent no opportunity to recover and get back into the fight. Baer's flurries were often inaccurate and sloppy, and were he fighting a better quality of opponent would not have done the trick most likely.

When Ali wanted to finish someone off he was precise and deadly.

[url]https://media.giphy.com/media/4ZOYBSqjHbltK/giphy.gif[/url]

Quarry was a precise puncher too.

[url]https://media.giphy.com/media/gezZOveKkkNm8/giphy.gif[/url]

You were trying to prove Baer wasn't slow by telling me he sprinted. Now we're getting into training tips? Either Baer was fast or he wasn't. Fact is, he wasn't.

Now I know you haven't a clue. Parker was slower than most of his opposition? His speed is one of his major assets, in case you haven't noticed. His handspeed alone leaves Baer in the dust.

You see knockouts and knockdowns like that all the time.

[url]https://media.giphy.com/media/xwO0zVSuy49aM/giphy.gif[/url]

[url]https://media.giphy.com/media/bXx1n2VTJJfsQ/giphy.gif[/url]

[url]https://media.giphy.com/media/7Xh90NFljkaha/giphy.gif[/url]

Nothing Baer does there is impressive.

I hesitated to put them on as without those names the era looks even more barren. But fine. Louis it is then.

Is this what you're resorting to now? Posting short ass clips of Baer throwing single body shots that have no marked effect on the opponent? You could see exactly the same sort of shot landed in literally hundreds of heavyweight fights. Watch Lyakhovic vs Brewster for some beauties. Speaking of Lyak, would he be one of the premiere HW body punchers of all time? Must be, by your reckoning.

Just because something's a big part of your arsenal doesn't mean you were one of the best at it. Elementary boxing logic.

Have a read of this thread. It might give you a more sobering look at how good Braddock really was.

[url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-actual-skill-level-of-jim-braddock.591580/[/url]

He was certainly not "all about craft."

He was a technician though, and a better fighter overall.

He was a poor challenger in an era of poor challengers. Not really much point in arguing otherwise.

Hardly the same, really. The second one he isn't even near the ropes. Try picking some better clips in future.

 

Beer could murder anybody coming to him with that incredible right....if they fought three times beer might win once...maybe...bear was not the two handed hitter foreman was... But if bear fought foreman I think he'd ko foreman...perhaps