Max Baer in the post-Ali unification tournament

There is a stylistic angle there, even though Baer is unequivocally the greater fighter.

 

So, do theses stat mean Baer held weight advantage for the remaining 75% of his total fights, - like, the clear majority of the time?

Should it also be qualified that an opponent like Galento was just 5’9” or so and even more overweight than he was for Louis when he faced Baer - tipping the scales ar a jiggly 244 lbs? Then there’s Heeney with about a 10 lb weight pull but only standing about 5’10 1/2” and KO Christner at just 5’’11 1/2” with not a lot of weight on Baer also.

There’s a few outlier heights there also - but their records? Frown. 39 yo Bearcat Wright - 6’1” but 230 lbs - he was 20 lbs less when he beat Jack Johnson 8 years prior - some excess weight there I would assume.

Baer himself later scaled up to 223 lbs - so whatever that stat re 200 + lbs is supposed to mean, Max still could’ve held a good 23 lbs adv. in all possibility.

Baer mainly fought trim for himself (easy 210 lb’r) but was often the naturally bigger man even if some of his opposition held a bit of weight adv. if not a lot of weight surplus due to being basically overweight. Look at the weight pull in the rematch between Joshua and Ruiz, it tells you nothing about who was the naturally bigger man.

 

Yes, although it's the smallest number possible because we don't have weight numbers for all of his bouts. 11 of his bouts are without listed weight, so it's actually 72%. Now, compare that to Liston or Foreman, who had weight advantage for over 90% of their fights.

 

Well I already pointed out that Baer had the height and reach advantages of a naturally larger man over several of his heavier opponents - the very advantages he relied on in lieu of rounded skills otherwise.

At just 5’9”, 72” reach, Galento could’ve weighed 1000 lbs (maybe he did post career : ) - he would’ve still been a very disadvantaged 6” shorter and 11” lesser reached before any discussion of skill v skill.

Re Liston and Foreman, that may well be true and size adv. can always be a factor in varying degrees - notwithstanding his abundant skills, Ali benefited from size advantage to some extent against several of his 60s opp. but despite his size adv. his overall superiority was defined by his skills, not his size.

It can be seen on film that Sonny and George, aside their size, utilised a lot more in terms of all round boxing skills with both hands a lot more than Max ever did - not least being consistently applied and extremely effective, multi purposed jabs.

So, imo, the few strings to Max’s bow remain the integrated package of: size, chin and right hand and relatively little skill applied otherwise.

 

He would have the same advantages over 1960s opponents though, so what's your point? Of course Baer won because of his physical profile, he wasn't skilled. I fail to see how it matters though.

Yeah, let's focus on the outlier instead of looking at the overall picutre. Perfectly reasonable...

Liston, Foreman and Ali were all the same size as Baer - so Max would have the same advantage as them in the 1960s and 1970s. That's the point. I'm not trying to say that they were as skilled as Baer, but they aren't bigger than him.

This package was enough to beat a lot of skilled opponents that weren't smaller than 1960s competition.

Max Baer average opponent weight: 204.5 lbs
Sonny Liston average opponent weight: 200.0 lbs

You can talk all you want about Baer's massive physical advantage, but it would still exist in Liston's era.

 

I see him more than likely losing along the way to Quarry too. But then again, Yes, Baer has got power and a good chin.. So maybe its his fight to lose.

 

My points have been clear re Baer.

I basically stated that Baer got by on size (height, weight and reach), chin and single right hand power.

I also stated that Baer would hold size advantage over the 60s opp. However far that would get him - since he obviously wouldn’t have equal skills.

As to IF Baer beat guys of equal size AND skill to the 60s opp., I didn’t comment on that - and it is more than arguable that the 60s opp. were better skilled than Baer’s said opposition - for one, Jerry Quarry, shorter, lesser reached, lighter but with far better skills and equitable chin would defeat Max IMO.

Size can count only up to a certain level of opposing skill which is, in fact. A relevant point.

BUT, you refuted the question of Baer’s size being the advantage that it was.

I am being reasonable, not looking at cold numbers as you’re trying to present them in favour of your argument. Rather, I’m duly qualifying those numbers.

Your own collated stats indicated he was heavier than 75 % of his opposition (as if weight - even as little 7lbs heavier, was the be all and end all equivalence to overall size) - then you tacked on the “unknown” quantity - which can’t be in your calculated average weight anyway -

I haven’t ONLY mentioned Galento as being a heavier yet that much shorter and likely lesser reached in due proportion - and the “outliers”, fat Tony for one, are included in your “average” and pull up the weight average nicely, don’t they?

Why ask now what’s my point when you were and have been trying to defend Max not being mainly advantaged by his greater size? - but now you’re saying OF COURSE Baer won because of his physical profile and that he wasn’t skilled - ‘‘twas exactly what I said and have been saying.

As to Liston, Ali and Foreman, I already compared and differentiated them from Baer as to how much size comprised their overall advantages.

So I think it’s pretty clear that you didn’t know what your point was supposed to be - or at least you’re reversing out of it now.

Too many twists in your tale to bother with on this one further - a dead duck. Anyway……

 

How young are we going though - he incrementally improved - in terms of fundamental applications the Chuvalo fight was a credit to him - he used both hands equally and didn’t just employ a jab - he had a great jab - in terms of execution and with of course plenty of steam which was already being compared to that of Joe Louis. Even by the time of the Galento fight , I have to say Max still looked as rough as guts and was getting hit with punches no man with his height and reach advantages has to right to.

 

Don't see any reason to call Quarry a better fighter than Schaff or Farr, let alone Schmeling.

I did, because Baer wasn't a giant in his era. He faced a lot of guys his size or bigger and he did better against them than against smaller, quicker fighters. Size isn't what made Baer good, it was his power and chin, along with unorthodox style.

Of course I included Galento in the average, why wouldn't I? I also included the lightest Baer opponent who weighed less than 170 lbs, so these to canceled themselves out.

You can talk all you want about the outliers, but the fact is that Baer faced bigger opponents on average than Liston and most of them weren't fat like Galento.

Because I meant his power and durability, not his size. Plenty of Baer sized boxers existed back in the 1930s and none of them accomplished the same thing.

It's not my fault that you don't understand my posts, but don't put it on me.

 

Anything can happen really. I guess it all boils down to who he faces first in the tournament. Depending on how he’s matched, he could make it all the way through to the finals. And a big punch could win it all for him. I think Jimmy Ellis would be a very hard fight for Baer. Jimmy beat a good list of top heavyweight contenders during that time. He didn’t have the greatest chin though which would make Baer a threat.

 

Think that's it, goo.
Anything can happen here. Max may look great one fight then fight like an idiot the next.
He's always dangerous tho for sure.

 

LOL, Oh I most certainly do understand your posts - which is THE problem for you - unfortunately you don’t understand them yourself or pretend not to when they’re refuted.

If you include Galento, don’t moan about him being an “outlier” when he is referenced - you’re the one accenting on “weight” as a single pointer to overall greater size, and he wasn’t the only that I have referenced - which you still ignore because it’s inconvenient to your argument.

Your own stats indicated Baer was heavier than 3/4 of his opp., but in previous posts you state he “often” fought bigger, heavier opponents. In fact, another poster also said Baer held physical advantages over a lot of his opponents (correct) , and you replied with the same comment - basically being no, Baer “often”’fought bigger, heavier opp.,

Now Baer’s “physical profile” - and you did say he was the same SIZE as Ali etc. is twisted to mean just his power and chin and “unorthodox” style ( = no skill, as you already said yourself - or do you want to back track on that too??).

And don’t pretend that there aren’t several outliers height wise on Max’s record anyway - some with very poor records going in.

Now the angle on Baer was he was generally bigger yet you calculated a stat for 200 lb’rs + - what is that supposed to mean unless Baer’s own weight, height and reach is compared per fight? Very little.

Baer was out weighed by 230 lb 39 yo 6’ 1”Bearcat Wright also - by 14 lbs. At age 30, Wright weighed just 211 lb v Johnson, safe to assume Wright was carrying excess baggage or simpler to slot him in as another bigger man over whom Baer won a mere 6 rd newspaper decision?

Are there any overweight opponents that Liston engaged or were they generally fitter - you might want to scour the records for same.

A random check on one of Baer’s opponents 6’1” Natie Brown - though weight not listed for either, his and Baer’ own records in and around the time indicate that Baer was more than likely heavier.

So, if you’re going to twist or back track or ignore every point that doesn’t suit you - it is actually on you, not a lack of understanding on the part of the other party.