Max Baer vs Jersey Joe Walcott, prime for prime 15 rounds.

If Walcott was anything that he was supposed too be he should smack Baer silly ..

 

The only chance Baer has is to catch Joe with a right hand. That's it. He is nowhere near the boxer Joe was. Sure a prime Rocky Marciano caught Joe in the 13th round so anything is possible but I think there is a hell of a difference between Rocky and Baer and if I was betting on this fantasy fight I would take the more complete fighter which was Walcott.

 

Maybe Maxie was the max he was ver listed at, 6'3". But if not he was broad like his taller brother.
I cannot see him "towering" over Louis who was 6'1.5", but he was taller.
Carnera at a REAL 6'.5" is tall enough to qualify to "tower" over Baer-check the iconic photo & see who is standing on a low platform.
And without modern weight training or any PEDs & well past his strongman days was mostly all muscle at 267 here. heavier still in other fights.

I believe this source that Bear was likely 6'2.5".

This content is protected

 

Great fight to think about... Good thread.

I go back and forth between the two outcomes. Its easy to envision how each wins but tough to conclude which is more likely.

Gun to head, ill pick Walcott but boy, good one.

 

Jersey joe walcott was far more skilled and an overall better fighter than Max Baer. The power of Baer would give him a puncher’s chance but I’d favor Walcott

 

To those who think that Baer was too crude to compete with Walcott - remember that Joe lost to Abe Simon and Rex Layne, who I wouldn't call more skilled than Baer.

 

Both were inconsistent, but at his best I would go with Walcott.

 

Walcott.

 

That cuts both ways.

Jersey Joe’s prime really comes down to one or two fights tops, and at the end of his career. He had lost twice previously to Ezzard Charles in title shots and twice to an aging Joe Louis. He was given yet another shot at Ezz apparently due to mob ties even though he’d been thoroughly beaten in his previous try AND lost to Rex Layne after that in his only fight.

He lost, what, four of his last six fights with two wins in between … and those two wins at an advanced age are his ‘prime.’

 

That’s true. But Walcott didn’t get his career together until later on. Late bloomer so to speak

 

from the footage i have seen of Baer v Schmeling it looks to me like the german fought the worst fight of his career, not using his superior boxing skills and being there for Baer to tee off on.

Schmeling v Walcott is a tough one to pick - I think Max could win one if they fought 3 times. That said JJW could be inconsistant but at his best (Louis 1, Charles KO 7, Marciano 1) i think he could be slick enough to get a decision more often than not.

On a final note, I am not a Baer hater (not that you said i was) - he was a tough and dangerous competitor and a good man by all reports but i think he gets massively overrated here and from the footage available severely lacked in skills and never really seemed to show any inclination to develop a jab, left hook. That said, he was very successful for someone who, as far as i can see, had little other than a big right hand and an above average chin. JUst a pity he never took his craft more seriously. Maybe then i would give him more chance in head to head matches but based on what i see i think the likes of "B" level fringe contenders Quick Tillis, Damiani, Bert Cooper etc would have punched him silly

 

True, but Layne fight happened in the best period of his career.

 

I hope you are aware that Schmeling beat MUCH better version of Louis cleanly, while Walcott lost both fights to past prime Louis (first fight is arguable, but footage we have isn't convincing either way).

As far as Walcott vs Schmeling matchup, Walcott struggled against high paced fighters like Rocky or Layne because his conditioning was always a concern. Schmeling was always in perfect shape and he carried his power through late rounds. Despite the popular narrative, Walcott wasn't defensive wizard and he could be hit by skilled punchers. You won't find much more skilled punchers than Schmeling at HW.

I think Schmeling had clear stylistic advantage over Walcott, he was more consistent fighter at his best and his resume is better.

You really think Bert Cooper would beat Baer? Are you aware that Baer beat much better fighters than Cooper in his actual career?

 

Nothing to disagree with too strongly up to here.

It seems inescapable given his results in the ring, that they would not.

However technically unsound he looks on film, it is inescapable that his style was very effective.

 

That’s a fair point. But doesn’t that kinda work both ways though? Was Braddock better than Walcott? Did Baer ever beat anyone as good as Ezzard Charles ?