Overall, Foreman has clearly better resume but fighters like Farr, Schaff, Griffiths and Galento weren't really worse than Lyle, Conney, Chuvalo or Briggs. Foreman was more consistent, won less fights and his destruction of Frazier and Norton was overall more impressive than Baer's destruction of Schmeling and Carnera but let's not act like Baer had terrible resume. He was a fine champion and great talent that lacked consistency.
The issue here is that aside from Schmeling, nobody on Baer's resume is in the same stratosphere as Frazier or Norton in terms of skill and overall athletic ability. It gets worse if you include the 2nd career where Foreman demolished an undefeated champion young enough to be his son. Baer's career simply isn't on the same level. Even their losses aren't the same. He lost his title to Braddock, a career journeyman much smaller than him with double digit losses and who got destroyed soon afterward by Louis. Foreman lost to a guy whose considered by many to be the #1 heavyweight of all time and who made several excuses for not rematching Foreman. They are not in the same stratosphere in terms of overall boxing ability either. Foreman has him in ring IQ, finishing ability (Baer was very sloppy even when he had a guy groggy), defense, body punching, timing, one of the best jabs in the entire division's history, parrying, cutting off the ring, etc. Baer had a decent career, I'm not saying he was garbage and his power would make him a threat with almost anyone. But if we're being honest he was basically Earnie Shavers with a stronger chin.
Can’t agree with that. John Tate and Ken Norton were able to become champs, so Carnera could definitely pick up a title in the 70’s.