Sort of like Tillis, is what you're saying? An era composed of cruisers and light heavies masquerading as heavyweights, and where a guy with palpably abysmal technique like Baer is regarded as a great. I have context alright. He lost to guys with losing records. Not once, not twice, but repeatedly. He managed a few decent scalps, but most of the really decent fighters he fought beat him. His record is worse than Tillis'. And he beat Baer. Tillis never beat Tommy. Like this fishy fight: "A light slap to Weimer's ribs ended the bout, causing the crowd to roar its disgust. Someone threw an empty whiskey bottle at Baer. Leaving the ring, he turned to the crowd and shouted, "Well, you paid to get in--suckers." The bout, termed "a fake, fiasco and disgrace" by Premier Mitchell F. Hepburn (who had been in the crowd), resulted in the reorganization of the Ontario Athletic Commission and the appointment of P. J. Mulqueen as Chairman to restore confidence of fans." http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Max_Baer_vs._Dutch_Weimer Well, well, Ol' Max Baer, the beneficiary of some seafood-oriented results. Is that funny enough for you? Laughing, yet? I see that you grade losses according to who the fighter is. * I * don't regard Carnera's loss as a full fledged loss because it was a freak occurrence. Likewise, I regard DQ losses as less serious than a KO, for example. That's why I did not mention them ... until now. IBC title. Nevermind. Because you claimed Morrison was "coddled". Max Baer was coddled even more, in that case. Louis showed what a modern boxer would do to Baer. You evidently have a stash of secret Baer films unseen by me. I'll take your word for it. Morrison would have been a far more effective fighter if he hadn't been a sex crazed party dude. He would ruin his training camps with hoe breaks. Context.
No. Tillis was never regarded as a top 10 caliber opponent for multiple concurrent years. Tillis managed one decent win in 1982 over Earnie Shavers. Johnny Risko netted wins over Tommy Loughran, Max Baer, Mickey Walker, Jack Sharkey, George Godfrey, King Levinsky, Uzcudun, Jim Maloney, Tony Galento, and Tuffy Griffiths. And most of these men were top rated when he beat them. So frankly I see no comparison between Risko and Tillis. It's very clear that one had a much higher ceiling and beat a stronger caliber of opposition, despite suffering losses along the way in 100 plus fights. Ugh. You either accept the fighters of the 30s weren't on average 220 or you can't. If that's your whole argument, than I don't see a point. Baer was an abnormality, most greats are. He was a physical specimen and bypassed traditional technique to exploit his power and athleticism. So where do you want to go with this, do you want to accuse all of Baer's fights of being fixes cause one was fishy? So you don't rate McCline's win over Grant anymore? I thought you were a proponent of McCline in Klitschko threads. A guy busting his ankle cause he got dropped like a sack of rocks is what it is. Baer certainly was not as I shown. Like I said every fighter faces cans, but the great ones with legacies ultimately step up, Morrison never did. 18>3. Louis showed what the GOAT Heavy would do to an injured Baer. He is in no way a stand in for a 90s fringe contender and minor titlist. I've listed fights earlier in the thread. If you can't see Baer effortlessly moving lateral in them, you simply are choosing not see it. Exactly. He was a sex crazed party dude and as a result didn't have a very successful career in contrast to his peers.
Proof of how tough his era was. Ignore the losses to the utter scrubs he fought If guys with losing records are beating him, and he's managing to beat some of the "top" talent, then its clear that the talent wasn't all that high. I'd pick Tillis in a heartbeat over a guy like Risko. The 210lb Sam Peter of his time. More or less. I agree. Well, you were the one that claimed with zero proof that his DQ losses were the result of fishy behaviour. Now it appears that a seafood oriented approach isn't palatable when I explain his wins? What's good for the goose ... right? So you don't rate McCline's win over Grant anymore? I thought you were a proponent of McCline in Klitschko threads. A guy busting his ankle cause he got dropped like a sack of rocks is what it is.[/QUOTE] I wonder if Carnera wasn't told to throw the fight too? After all, Baer had some fishy results Louis' technique is closer to Morrison's than Baer's. Maybe the one time he managed a sidestep was drowned out by the repeated visions of a tubbaguts like Galento walking him down? Yes, but he couldn't help himself. He could have chosen not to, but he did. Just how Baer chose to fight with injured hands. See how that works?
This is frankly a cheap cop out to exempt a fighter from any responsibility for his career. Tillis' inability to net a solid win from 1982 to 1993 is only proof of his own lack of ability. That's a very simple way of looking at it, and we know boxing doesn't work that way. You are being just as bad as the guys that pretend Ross Purritty was Wlad's ceiling. Tillis could certainly beat him but Risko should be the favorite, given he proved he had a higher ceiling. Risko lost to the best, he also beat the best. Peter would probably beat Morrison too. He was essentially the 00s Ray Mercer. Don't Strawman me. I didn't personally claim anything, I passed on information from a book. And it sounds to me like Baer got a raw deal in these fights, fishy behavior or not, that's all. Which doesn't...really mean anything...so what? The outcome of this fight doesn't hinge on who is closer to Joe Louis' technique. It comes down to the better conditioned unorthodox durable slugger with the reach advantage taking on a less conditioned and chinny slugger who used more traditional technique. But Baer had nights where his hands were okay and he cleaned out a huge list of contenders and Hall of Famers, Baer became the King of the Mountain and was regarded as a top fighter most of his career. Morrison was not.
Comparing the styles of Morrison and Baer is like comparing the styles of Morrison and Foreman. So when people say "Look how Tommy smoothly weaves and counters, Baer didn't do that," I just cringe.
Max Baer critics: "Lol! Baer walks into jabs with his hands low. Show me one modern fighter who does that!" Foreman: "Watch this..." https://streamable.com/hs1kp Max Baer Critics: "Oh, but Foreman can lift a truck, plus I had a ring magazine with him on the cover when I was a kid, so he's fine, doesn't count!"
Pretty unconvincing strawman there... Nobody here questions whether you can find 3-second clips of boxers demonstrating poor form and technique. But far more importantly, I don't know that having the defensive responsibility of a fat (255lbish), weary, old (45ish) Foreman should be a source of pride. The problem is that Max Baer groupies can watch footage of him walking into hard punches with his hands by his sides and imagine that they see skill, ring savvy, and defensive acumen. And that's no hypothetical strawman...
Good joke, Baer was never stopped this early and Morrison is not the kind of fighter that would stop Baer anyway.
Morrison against a man who had stamina to fight 20 rounds and carried his power very well is bad news for him.