[CLIPS] Max Baer v. Tommy Farr

Because Max Baer, colorful, likable, charismatic, was not that good of a fighter.

 

But he was though!

Possibly the best natural fighter in the history of the division!

A world class fighter who can do everything based on power, durability, and reflexes, is one of boxing's unicorns!

 

Sure.

 

Max Baer wasn't a truly great fighter but he was pretty good. Very good really.

Tommy Farr gave Joe Louis problems too.
Was Joe Louis "not that good" ?

Tommy Farr was good.

 

LOL!

 

Max Baer could not throw a jab, could not slip a punch, was slow of hand and foot, threw round house punches and back hands with regularity and essentially showed zero skill other than using what at the time were superior physical gifts to most of his contemporaries, a big right hand punch and a hell of a chin. He was lazy, unfocused, unmotivated. In his one fight against a great fighter he was destroyed and completely exposed. He lost many times to glorified journeymen. He had one significant win over Schmeling, himself a pretty good but not great fighter.

There is a big difference between a fighter with certain physical gifts and being a good fighter. Max Baer clearly , for his time was category one, not ever category two. Starting with the 1970's when the fighters started to get bigger I don't even see him being competitive and I say this loving the guy as a great character for the sport.

 

Baer was at least good.
You don't beat Max Schmeling like that unless you're at least good.

If "having certain physical gifts" doesn't make a fighter good then I'm confused. Surely the traits wouldn't be seen as gifts if they weren't making the fighter better at being a fighter.

Baer was winning fights that went 8, 10, 15+ rounds. It would be a bit naïve to think he was chronically lazy, unfocussed and unmotivated. Especially since you point out he wasn't too hard to hit. It takes some doing to go out and win fights over the distance while getting hit. It takes motivation and determination.

Baer was quite good. It's the only fair conclusion.

 

Good to me is developed skills more than natural gifts. With some gifts and zero dedication you only go so far and underachieve. Baer by all accounts rarely trained and was not focused or dedicated. Whatever motivation he had was for the dollar which he went through like water. I don't think he wasn't good if your definition of good is able to compete with certain decent fighters based on styles and match ups. I'd say the same about Carnera. He became good too .. he used his size, jab, strength, conditioning and heart to become reasonably, legitimately effective against against a reasonable class of heavyweights that matched up well ( shout out to S Man who I know reads every post undercover ) . But if the original question was how he lost to Farr I stand by my post that Baer was not "that" good. I'd say he was maybe a smaller version of a Bonecrusher Smith skill wise ..

 

I'm not sure I would say he's very good. I guess good enough would do. He has so many glaring weakness and ineptitudes that I'm hard pressed to use flowery adjective describing him

 

That makes sense. I agree he wasn't so good as it to be a mystery he'd lose to Farr.

But Tommy Farr was good.

 

Well, he knocked the **** out of enough half decent boxers to say he's somewhere between good and very good.

Heavyweights often fight ugly but Baer was pretty effective.

 

Deontay Wilder was less skilled then just about every fighter he stepped in the ring with.

Mechanics > Skill

Skill is often overrated, and people can easily fake skill. You can do a lot of really cool and good looking movement, but if your balance isn’t set properly, it’s all for naught.

It’s far too easy to create a veneer of skill. If you can’t bob and weave while keeping the weight on your back foot, it might look good, but you’re actually leaving yourself in danger. Often times, skill moves come at he expense of footing or balance, which makes them do more harm than good.

 

If a fighter can win a lot of fights with skilled fighters without having as much skill himself, that's no knock on him.
None of that is objectively measurable.
But guys getting their lights punched out is pretty final. Seeing men getting bad beatings is hard to get past. It is what it is.

The only thing that matters is punching the other guy enough or hard enough to win the contest.

Somehow Max Baer was often knocking guys out and winning rounds by the reckoning of all observers.

Being a good fighter is about winning against good or decent fighters. He either did that or he didn't. I'm quite certain he did.

 

You will like this:

This content is protected

“They say Joshua is better than Wilder. So is every other person that he fought...”

 

Pffft ... what does that guy know about boxing.