Would Schmeling have beaten Baer on literally any other night?

Couple of factors at play in this fight. 1. It's a bad style match up for Schmeling. Baer had a concrete chin and was a big guy for the era coming in at a shade under 6'3. Max probably lost a little steam off his vaunted right shooting upward. Max also had no where to go, he was a forward pressing fighter or a fighter that hovered in the pocket baiting his opponents lead to counter. Baer fought more of a barroom brawler style which I think threw Max off his game plan a little bit.
2. Baer fought ultra aggressive in this and he fought dirty. Throughout the fight Baer, holds and hits, pulls behind the neck, back hands, shoves and so forth, again Schmeling was a very clean fighter and these tactics may have thrown him off. and for the record the ref should of penalized Baer or even Dq'd him (in modern times that would of been likely)
3. Baer was highly motivated. It's the best looking performance on film from Baer to me. I know people would bring up Primo but he was hurt when he rolled his ankle and it still took 11 rounds to finish him. Max on the other hand looks a little lost
4. The fight is competitive until the 10th round. Schmeling is losing and absorbing a lot of punishment but he does land some very stinging right hands. It's not as one sided as remembered.

In the end I think Baer would always be a tough out for Schmeling. I do think Schmeling could beat him and clearly is the better fighter but its a hard matchup for him.

 

This was what Baer was capable of. He only ever put on his best against Schmeling and Galento. In many ways, he was a wasted talent.

 

Max Schmeling was a tactician. He studied opponents and executed his plan accordingly. He would always have problems with the totally unorthodox Max Baer. It is hard to form and then carry through on any plan against a crazy style such as Baer's, unless you can totally outslug him, and, to top it off, Baer hit HARD and was very focused in their fight!

 

If you take out the calendar year of July 1930 to July 1931 Max Baer isn't really isn't all that inconsistant. Farr avenged his Baer loss but I think Farr is better than Schmeling.

Schmeling if not for the Louis win has a really questionable career where hes almost 0-4 against Baer, Sharkey and Louis with only 1 good fight of the 4. The Louis win is a great win but its really carrying the resume and it was avenged as clearly as it could have been avenged.

 

Excellent insight on this from the posts above mine. Nothing more for me to add. I do believe Schmeling would have taken him on any other night. I dont have a very high opinion on Baer

 

Schmeling won by disqualification over Sharkey the first time, lost a very controversial decision the second time, knocked out Louis, was knocked out by Louis, and was stopped by Baer in a very close fight after Baer fouled constantly. Basically Schmeling was at least as good as anyone from that era until Louis hit his stride.

 

I'm saying if you take the Louis win hes 1-3 against Sharkey, Baer and Louis and only has 1 good performance of the 4(the Sharkey loss).

Yeah hes on the level of the top guys. I just don't compare him favorably to guys like Braddock, Farr, Loughran and Baer.

 

Schmeling is better than you are giving him credit for, he has wins over 4 hall of fame fighters. Louis, Sharkey, Stribling, Walker. 3 of which were by KO. He also bested Steve Hamas when he was the number 1 contender by KO. He also defeated rugged challenger (and conqueror of Baer and post prime Wills) Paulino Uzcudon 2x. He’s much better than Braddock. Better than Farr better at heavyweight than Loughran. He’s also better than Baer.

 

When Schmeling was a baby his mama used to pour Coca-Cola into his widdle bottle and force feed him with it. He became an addict, with very poor GLP1 regulation, sometimes found twitching near puddles and JC Penny dumpsters, wearing Nixon masks, trying to rob the elderly and banks, allegedly, sometimes not holding the door for blind people and those with lethargy or priapism. He carried this throughout his lifetime, this sickness. But he wants to say it was just an off night with Baer, that's fine. He knows what happened.

 

Why do you keep saying 1-3 against those guys? He beat Sharkey and Louis who he also lost to and lost to Baer. Thats 2-3 with one highly disputed result. He doesnt compare favorably to Braddock? Look how many losses Braddock has to journeymen. Braddock also famously ducked Schmeling. He didnt look good against Baer? That fight was basically even despite all of Baer's fouling and Baer having every physical advantage. I dont see fighters like Braddock or Farr being in Schmelings class much less better than him. Loughran is debateable all time but his record at heavyweight is far more inconsistent than Schmelings.

 

Schmeling was, at his best, a very crafty fighter of the 'hit and don't be hit school' who also had a big punch.

Against Baer he decided to throw 80% of his ring smarts away in favour of taking the larger, more physical but less skilled Baer, head-on in the trenches.

* slow clap *

Seriously, if Schmeling had decided to relax, take his time and just outbox Baer he would have won a wide decision. Does anybody seriously think Braddock was a better technician than Schmeling?

This is simply another case of a failed strategy by a boxer who completely could have won the bout without too much effort and instead decided to throw it all away by trying to be a hero.

 

utter nonsense lol

 

Number 1. I said 'allegedly.'
Number 2. https://sports.jrank.org/pages/4281/Schmeling-Max-Buys-Coca-Cola-Dealership.html

I don't think we need to say anymore about that.

 

I mean 1-3 if the Louis win never happened.

Braddock was fighting 30 pounds underweight as a puncher. And his SOS was great.

Schmeling didn't fight much compared to his peers. Its easier to be consistant when you don't fight much.