Max Baer vs Cleveland Williams

No, do you think it's irrelevant?

 

It's not as relevant as you seem to think ,and the reason for that is simply each era is different and the quality of individual eras, vis a vis champions and contenders varies.To contend otherwise is comparing apples to oranges.

 

Do you agree that Baer beat better fighters than Williams?

 

Schmeling is the only candidate I see for you here.Would you please post the names of these," top contenders".
"Baer faced top 10 contenders 15 times"

 

You know their names, you are always very vocal about rankings.

Did Williams ever beat someone as good as Tommy Farr? Primo Carnera? Earnie Schaff? Seriously, it's not hard to find top Baer wins. It's very hard to do that with Williams though.

 

It's simply that I can't find any evidence of Baer facing ten top contenders.
If you make a statement the onus is surely on you to prove it ,rather than me to disprove it?
N.B. Baer also lost to both Schaaf and Farr.

ps Baer held the title one day short of a year winning it from perhaps the worst champion ever and losing it to one of the poorest ones.A fighter who, at that time had a record of
50-25-7.


BTW Carnera v Williams your pick is?

 

Earnie Schaff (×2)
Tommy Loughran
King Levinsky (×2)
Max Schmeling
Primo Carnera
Jimmy Braddock
Joe Louis
Tommy Farr
Pat Cominskey
Lou Nova (×2)

 

Honestly think Williams beats all of the above men that Baer beat with the possible exception of Schmeling.

 

Both overrayed IMO, Williams more so. Quite a few of Williams better opponents beat him or went the distance, but he was lethal against the next tier. More reliable than Baer for sure and both hit very hard. You needed to be good to survive Cleveland, at a Machen, Terrell, Daniels level, was Max at that level? Against Baer, you had to be as good as Loughran, Schaaf or Braddock or as tough as Uzcuden, Farr or Risko. Was Williams? I go with Max taking William's best and taking him out late on but I have no issue with the inverse opinion.

 

There is nothing on his resume to remotely justify this statement.

You would have to expect him to get mixed results at best against this group.

 

I'll concede Nova may be a wildcard.

 

All those men would be wildcards.

He simply wasn't capable of consistency against that caliber of opponent.

 

Maybe, but he certainly didn't face as good competition as Baer throughout his career.

It's also important to note that Baer didn't face all of them in his prime. If pre-prime Williams lost to Satterfield, then I see no reason to pick him ahead of Loughran or Schaff. I doubt post-shot Williams chances vs Lou Nova as well.

 

Fair point. While I do favor a peak Williams chances against those men except perhaps Schmeling. Baer didn't face all those men in his prime, so Williams shouldn't be afforded the same luxury, and I agree it's highly doubtful post-gunshot Williams beats Nova (or anyone on that list for that matter).

 

that’s right, Kesler did not start a count. He just turned Rocky around to face Moore without a count.

Big Boy Brown, a cousin of Joe Louis, beat some very good fighters like Lee oma and Red Burman and still Comiskey beat Brown in their serries of fights. That’s the problem with attacking these sorts of guys. They all fought each other. Less guys around like Baby booze or graveyard Walters.

Instead They fought opponents multiple times with mixed results. A fifty fifty record was no bad thing.

it would have been nice to see Williams fight the same contenders multiple times. The first contender Williams fought beat him. The second one beat him twice. Then williams got the win over miteff and two points wins over Billy Daniels, the draw with Machen and the loss to Terrell. Not bad. Not great. Is that enough to be the favourite over a champion? I think not.