There is a story that Baer and Mario Lanza got pissed at Lanza's home.Lanza was a huge Rocky fan, as the evening wore on Baer began to make disparaging remarks about Rocky, the upshot was they ended up drunkenly sparring with Lanza assuming his best Rocky stance. Whether Maxie was more boozed than Mario ,I don't know, but the Tenor landed his own version of the Suzie Q on Maxie which sent him sprawling onto the nearest couch. Lanza was said to have been elated at the result !
Was it WW2 depleting the HW ranks or was it that Walcott actually started to get proper management and training? Being that he likely did deserve the title on his first try only furthers that point.
Ezzard Charles was a MUCH better fighter than Max Baer. In fact, he is probably even a better heavyweight than Baer. Max Baer is an overrated, disrespectful blowhard. If you look at his record, the number of quality wins is a bit thin. Not saying he wasn't a very good fighter. But, he is nowhere near as good as HE seems to think he is. The Louis fight tells us everything we need to know about how good he was at his peak. A dangerous fighter to be sure. But, one who got picked apart and destroyed by Louis in short order. Dozens of other fighters would have done the same to him.
It was probably both. If the ranks hadn't been depleted no one would have considered him viable for proper management. Hooking up with a mob-connected manager didn't hurt him either.
He was also a part time fighter when he fought Simon, I wouldn't say that was his prime even if he was younger and less worn.
We have read this article a hundred times through the eras, with the names changed. To be fair, Baer is better placed to make these observations than most. He is a former lineal champion, and arguably one who burned a bit brighter than Charles or Walcott, at his brief best!
I think Walcott and Charles really were fabulous heavyweights. So far as technical boxing goes the division peaked with those two. So on that level Max Baer seems crazy. However, I can see it from Max Baer’s side of things. Here he is saying he dosnt watch boxing anymore so it’s not like he’s seen anybody new. Last he heard of Walcott he didn’t think he was much good, now he hears he’s supposed to be good. He’s not lying either, he’s just saying it how it is from his world. So to him, it is as if Walcott is the same sparring partner and things have sunk low enough for him to become championship material with no improvement. If he was still interested enough to watch boxing, maybe he would have another opinion, or a more balanced one, maybe he could then say “boy, Walcott has really improved! When I knew him he wasn’t that good.” Which would sound more reasonable. Then again, he knew Ray Arcel who worked with Charles, you would think he could at least say, “I don’t watch it anymore but Ray says Charles is great, and I trust what he says”.
I think that you can argue it either way for sure. Max Baer was thrown to the wolves, not long after his professional debut, and he battered his way to the crown. After he beats Schmeling and Carnera back to back, he is a very clear standout in the heavyweight division. You can see why he might be skeptical of somebody like Walcott or Charles.
I see the description more as "disdainful". Like Dempsey disparaging Joe Louis, Tunney with Holmes and Norton, Holmes with.......etc etc. We've seen the cycle - many previous era fighters prescribe to it.
