Yes, Braddock didn't dominate the fight like some people believe here. Motivated Baer would beat him easily.
Did you forget Schmeling or just not know of their fight? Tony was ancient at 30 years old? Its amazing that Max never had a trainer who could teach him how to box better, he was very much a novice at it skill wise. Seldom motivated but when he was as with Schmeling he had the power and strength to beat good heavies, he always had that right hand when he cared to throw it.
I know of their fight. It's far and away Baer's biggest win and proves my point that he was unfocused and unmotivated for much of his career. It's also why I never rated Schmeling as a great fighter. Yes Tony was shot at 30 with over 110 face first fights. Baer had many trainers .. he was just not a serious fighter. What is your point BTW ? How do you view his losses to Braddock, Louis and Nova ?
My reason for commenting on your post was that you stated his best wins were over Galento and Nova, you didn't mention Schmeling but corrected that by saying here that he was Max's biggest win, that was my point. His loss to Braddock is pretty much seen across the board as a Baer who wasn't motivated at all to win, that and Jimmy wasn't a bad boxer. Against a very sharp Louis, Max in a straight up stance and trying to box with Joe was miles in over his head, if he had any chance it wasn't with that style. With Nova Max still had a punch but his stamina was gone, it was the end of the line for Baer whose career wins were the result of natural strength and punching power.
BTW Baer dropped Nova in their second fight, he just couldn't finish him because he didn't have the same stamina he used to have. Lou Nova would always be tough opponent for him, but Baer would probably beat him in his prime.
I get it .. I think you caught part of the thread. AT that point I was responding to his post Louis comeback and how he was being positioned for a title shot comeback. Of course his Schmeling fight and even Carnera were much bigger wins .. sure he had others in his pre-title run as well .. I happen to be a fan of Baer and find him to be extremely likable .. I'm just not one of the guys that think if he was only motivated he'd be one of the best ever .. I think he still had shortcomings .. that said , he certainly could have been much better if he had the drive and focus but while he did have it enough to be successful obviously he lacked it to max out his talent and perform consistently on the highest level.
One thing that people sometimes forget, is that Baer was the first heavyweight champion since Tunney, without any issues to his title claim. Schmeling had won the title on a foul. Sharkey had won it on a robbery. Even after Carnera beat Sharkey, some people still saw Schmeling as champion in all but name. Baer defeated Schmeling and Carnera, within nine months of each other, and stood supreme over the division. For the first time in years, there was no question who the top heavyweight in the world was!
Why do you refuse to accept that Baer simply didn't try against Braddock? It's all there for anybody to see. You don't get to use out of the ring issues as an excuse if you don't even try. Doesn't work that way. You need to actually try, and then your lack of training and sharpness will come to light, and that could be a legit reason why (not that it's much better). However, if you don't even try to win, it didn't matter in the least how bad or how great your camp and focus was.
What has any of this got to do with what I just posted? More to the point, why are you so obsessed with the idea that Baer didn't try against Braddock, that you can't discuss anything else surrounding the fight?
Maybe because you keep ignoring the fact that he didn't try, won't admit he didn't really try, and make a thread about the "REAL" reason Max lost a title, and yet again never even bring up the fact that he didn't try. You're creating threads on the topic, not me, so I find it amusing that you say I keep bringing up something that is very relevant to your topic. In a thread title "The Real Reason Max Baer Lost His Title", I think it's exactly the right time to bring up the fact that THE reason he lost the title was that he didn't try. Especially when the opening thread doesn't even discuss that key, and most relevant fact. It's like the scorecards of Walcott vs. Louis, you went on and on about how the fight could've gone either way, and how most had a round difference between them. When I totally dismantle that theory and show exactly how wide Walcott won on most scorecards, and how most had a difference of more than one round.... you completely disappeared. Instead of acknowledging that you were wrong, and that the evidence seems to clearly point to Walcott likely winning, and clearly so, you disappeared and in the next thread about it you'll be disingenuous and go... yeah, the decision was likely fair either way. It's kinda the same song and dance with you on some topics. Anytime you might be wrong on an earlier claim, instead of amending it or acknowledging it...… you disappear. Sound about right?
I was actually hoping to discuss the events before the Braddock fight if the truth be told. Obviously you have decided upon one simple answer, to a possibly complex question, and don't care to look beyond that! You must have been reading a different thread to me. Myself and other posters drew attention to some very serious problems with your argument, and you largely responded by retreating into bluster. I have a life outside this forum, which means that I do sometimes have to disappear as you put it. Either way, the validity of the score cards in that fight, certainly doesn't have anything to do with why Max Baer lost the title!
Good points .. I think part of the rub on Baer was after establishing himself as potentially the first heavyweight superstar since Dempsey he went on to squander it, losing to journeyman Braddock in a performance reeking with underachievement immediately followed by the Louis decimation. Supporters who projected greatness felt foolish, disappointed and sold a false bill of goods by a glorified clown who quit while sitting fully conscious on the canvas rather than risk enduring another knockdown in a career and era defining battle with serious racial undertones. Louis was the one who went on to have the great career and a country still regionally saturated with racial injustice was forced to live with it. Over time perhaps history was a bit kinder to Baer after the world went on to learn just how exceptional Louis was. Baer's fall from grace was fast and decisive. In three short summer months he went from near greatness to humiliation. The comeback was completely manufactured for a last hurrah, big money title bout and he failed in the end at that as well. I think you can see all this in his face and the way he aged so fast. Look at Baer in 1935 and again in 1940. He looks like he aged fifteen years. I get the whole concept of building back a fighter into title contention step by step. There are multiple ways to achieve this and the steps taken are based on calculated decisions factoring what's left of the fighter combined with risk reward. Baer's opposition was filled with novice third raters and crafted surgically based on managements full awareness of his lack of focus, commitment, fragile mental state and declining skills. They needed to see if and how he could hold it all together. To his credit in the end he displayed a lot of guts in the Nova losses and like many fighters showed what might have been if he had the grit in his physical prime that he displayed as an older, less gifted athlete. All that said, I am a fan of Baer as presence in history. He was very funny, likable, charming, a big time puncher and certainly deserved to live a much longer life.
We don't need to get into the scorecards of that fight and the thread, but suffice to say, that isn't really what happened. Okay on what you wanted to discuss, but again, what I said was 100% inline with a thread titled "The REAL REASON why Baer LOST the title". The reason I'm stating IS the reason he lost the title. It's like not practicing your golf game before a tournament and being off your game, and you show up the tournament and don't enter or leave after 2 holes. Would the not practicing have messed up your golf game and ability to do well, that could be likely, but if you don't try, that's completely null and void.
